View Single Post
Old
10-21-2013, 10:37 AM
  #107
Savant
Registered User
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
The problem with Luongo was his contract. Hank is about to go UFA so whoever gets him has the chance to structure the contract in a way that won't handicap them. That adds a little value while the UFA status actually subtracts some. I think the minimum you take in a Hank deal is a top six LW, a 1st, and a promising prospect.

I'm not convinced Hank wouldn't resign here either, yes the team is playing poorly but he shoulders a fair bit of the blame and knowing him he won't accept his performance and suggest that he played his best and the team around him sucks so he needs to go somewhere with a better team. Which is what a lot of people are assuming.

I suggested trading Lundqvist to a friend of mine four or five years ago. My reasoning then was that we didn't have enough offensive talent to compete and Lundqvist was going to keep us from being bad enough to build through the draft quickly enough to turn it around. Naturally you want to keep a player like Hank, I love him. But in the long run moving him would have made this team more complete.

Personally I see us moving a few players like a Girardi, MDZ, or Kreider in a package for an upgrade up front and a D-man who can take bottom pairing minutes. It's a typical Sather move really. Which at this juncture might actually be the right one, if we solidify our top six by adding a competent winger and shift Hagelin to the 3rd line we look a lot better. That is when Nash/Hagelin/Callahan all come back.
Hank being a UFA hurts his trade value as much of Luongo's contract hurt his. It drastically limits the teams that would want to acquire him. And the amount teams would pay, as in that case it's a rental.

So whoever acquired him would be willing to give a premium package AND a monster contract not to mention Lundqvist would want to sign there.

Savant is offline