View Single Post
Old
02-04-2014, 11:39 AM
  #153
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 33,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
I would rather a Toffoli than a Pearson, but I think that's a bit of a fantasy. I was lukewarm at best on Pearson when he was drafted, but he seems to be scoring at a good clip in the AHL. Could be a decent 2nd-3rd liner down the road. Not sure Markov is going to get you a real bluechipper but Pearson has some interesting upside.

Clifford may not be a sexy player either but those guys are hard to come by and have value beyond the scoresheet. The first will be a late pick but that's the nature of trading to a contender.

I wasn't crazy about it at first because I think we desperately need to upgrade our scoring and this deal doesn't really help that, but all things considered, it's not a bad package at all.
I'm not sure I would pull that trade. I like Clifford, but enough with the grinders.
Prust, Moen, White, Weise, and now Clifford too? No thanks. I don't want my two bottom lines filled with grinders.

So I look at a prospect and 1st. Pearson is decent from what I've read. Don't know much about him, has improved production in the AHL over his last season, so that's good. Decent size. As you said 2nd-3rd line potential. So not that bad, but to me it's not enough.

As for the 1st, well, a late one in not the best draft.

If that is really the best offer LA can make, then I don't think I accept because I know Markov will attract a lot of attention from other contenders and I'm certain we could do better. There's also the possibility of us adding a prospect or pick or our own so we could reach for more too.

Personally, I don't want Markov dealt. I think it will create a big hole on Defense. Beaulieu is not ready to fill in Markov's shoes. Neither are Tinordi and Pat.
The only reason I want to see him moved, and I do so before the deadline, is if they're too far away from a deal.

Kriss E is offline