View Single Post
01-20-2013, 11:44 AM
Kriss E
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 34,740
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
Why would anyone be opposed to moving PK, if the return was good for Montreal?
I think that it's because the belief we'd get something more valuable than PK in the return is very, very slim. Or even just as good. Why would a team move away a young player that is as promising as PK.
A PMD that is as effective as him in all three situations is very rare, and to do so at only 23 is phenomenal. That's without even talking about his potential.
So ya, we all know the classic line ''if Gretzky was traded, anybody can be traded''. It's true, anybody can be traded, but I doubt a team would be willing to pay the very expensive price in order to get PK.
Furthermore, it would be the first time I see the best player of a team at 23, being moved because he wants to sign a longer deal. And what if we get a young player still in his ELC? Are we going to be right back to where we are today?
Also, it's counterproductive to trade a player that holds such a key position. Say we trade him for a forward, we'd be right back after that looking for a Dman that brings what PK does, and as well as him.

When you are rebuilding, you don't usually don't trade away your best player that happens to be 23. You build around him.

It simply makes no sense to move him really. But if the Pens want to offer Malkin, sure. Won't happen though.

This isn't an individual thing. This is a managerial problem. This is very similar to Gainey's ''no re-signing during season''. If Bergevin can't recognize that PK already earned more than just a 2year deal, and he's an exceptional talent, not a norm, then we have a big problem with our GM.

Last edited by Kriss E: 01-20-2013 at 11:51 AM.
Kriss E is offline