Taking Landeskog will set us back a few years. We have an already established veteran player with elite skill. We don't need to suffer another 3-5 yrs and wait, then trade him.
So if you took Landeskog, he gets an injury like Hemsky, then you'll trade him for another new Landeskog. Yup, back to square one again. And that's assuming Landeskog is better than Hemsky. That's a big gamble.
Let me ask you:
Would you take one more year of injury prone elite Hemsky, or 7 years of maybe elite Landeskog, at this stage of the rebuild? Keep in mind that these are two players with quite different skill sets, so don't come blathering that Landeskog will never put up 70 points or something like that.
If Hemsky gets dealt, it is because no reasonable deal can be made and/or management does not like the odds of Hemsky bouncing back from his injury problems (and quite frankly, they would have much more insight on both of those things than we do). In this situation, a Landeskog, Couturier, Murphy or Hamilton is a much better asset than Hemsky.
Unless you think Hemsky will propel us to a Cup victory in 2012?
Hemsky is home grown proven NHL talent. However, if he doesn't want to re-sign or his asking price is too high, or he will continue to average 30-40 games a year, he is as good as useless to us and will probably be traded. If he can be signed to a good contract, he will be.