View Single Post
02-14-2013, 05:40 PM
Window: Closed
Juxtaposer's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 33,614
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by Blue Goose View Post
I totally understand that it's not conventional. But I was looking at the teams who might be the most interested and willing to offer the best players in return (and the fact that I got both a Sharks fan AND a Pens fan to agree to the deal tells me I might be on to something).

But I'll defer to your better judgment and offer this: If you get PIT to part with Harrington, for example, then I would turn around and trade a D prospect in a package for the coveted forward that you seek. Trying to get that forward in exchange for Clowe could prove difficult. As I mentioned, the teams that would be interested in acquiring a UFA forward at the deadline aren't going to trade away a forward that would likely replace the UFA if he were to sign elsewhere.

Makes perfect sense. On the one hand, as I'm a fan of a team who's NOT really loaded with good D prospects, I could argue that you can never have enough depth on defense in the pipeline. But I totally see where you're coming from - in fact, I would take my logic one step further and offer this:

Send Clowe to Pittsburgh for Harrington and a 2nd.
Send Harrington and the 2nd to St. Louis for Matt D'Agostini and a 4th.

To me, that would help all THREE teams address their needs, with trade value distributed evenly.
D'Agostini is often a healthy scratch in St. Louis. I know that's just because they're really deep, but I would try to get Dags without giving up Clowe, if I could. He seems to me, like the kind of player that struggles unless he's put with a player with whom he has really good chemistry. What if he doesn't have chemistry with Couture or Thornton? What then? I don't want Galiardi 2.0, and I just don't think it's a good idea to count on D'Agostini as a top-6 forward.

Juxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote