View Single Post
11-14-2012, 11:38 AM
Join Date: Jan 2012
Originally Posted by
I'm not going to debate the merits of either of the OP's, however I do see the first deal as being the closest in terms of value and organizational needs. But to say Edler and Buff are a wash is asinine. Edler is a far superior defenseman. Offensively they might be a wash but in terms of overall defensive ability Edler and Byfuglien shouldn't be mentioned in the same conversation.
I think the biggest issue on value comes to contract/etc.
Buffs locked up for 3-4 more years, Edlers on his way to UFA.
So either were trading 4 years of buff for one year of edler (which, even though edler is better, he's not THAT much better), or we trade 4 years of buff and resign edler. The issue being, if he's interested in signing in WPG, why bother with the trading an asset when we could just wait till he hits FA? Winnipegs not pushing for a cup next year, so we can get by one season without him if it means we can rope him at UFA and not lose buff.
that's why Winnipeg says no. I can see why Van would say no when looking at ability between the two, but remember, there's no risk of losing buff for 3 seasons, that's worth something, where as there's a risk of losing Edler next year.
I get it, an A+ D man for a B+ D man doesn't make sense, but that's not the whole story.
Your essential trading one guaranteed year of an A+ d man for 3 guaranteed years of an B+ D man, not quite the same as just trading an A+ for a B +.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Grind