Absolutely none of this stuff in bold applies to myself, or any of the other people who have been debating this Kadri/Pesce scenario with you - Rather than generalizing so much about what other posters have said before, why don't you focus on the arguments that have been presented to you and respond to those in kind?
that's kinda why I said in general, hon. like I never said you said it in regards to this . but i just figure regardless of the situation, there's going to be a reason why we can't trade a quality piece to make our team better. there's
always going to be a reason why it doesn't make sense. Today it's you guys v. this trade and this scenario. If someone wanted Tanner Pearson from the kings it would be another group of people with another set of reasons why it doesn't make sense. Rinse. Repeat but. for you. i'll focus on this .
Again, ultimately - at the end of the day, I believe that if you want quality in, you have to give quality out. I happen to believe Pesce (or Slavin, like it's not just "omg Pesce' here) would be a quality piece here. Matthews is obviously a non starter, and in regards to those players, so is Will and Mitch. I don't think we should give up a multitude of pieces. and I think Staal could help the team. Make a package to get the quality piece back, and Staal (who has cup experience so the core can draw on that for the march forward and life is fine.
y'all don't see it that way.
ITM said (several times) he'd rather see us draft someone.
so I hope that pans out, and whomever we draft is capable of making the team very quickly. I'm not being sarcastic here. same with I hope with whomever we pick up via waiver wires (we always troll them, but we're like 25th so i dunno if we'd get anyone of note but who nows), we luck out there too. i
No one disagrees that we need to get better defensively, and neither myself, nor ITM or Superstar, nor anyone else that I've seen in this conversation, has said that we shouldn't look to make any trades at all - My argument is, and has always been, that making a trade around Kadri/Pesce is, if not a striaght-up bad way to go about it, not the wisest option, or at least shouldn't be our first option. 'Cause if you can get better defensively without giving up pieces from your current roster, why wouldn't you explore that before trading away your 30-goal-scoring #2C? Look at UFAs, look at the Marlies, look at literally any other trade that doesn't require one of our top players going the other way - We're only 2 years into this thing, be patient and develop and make moves when they make sense to add to this group, don't just jump at the first available RHD because you "need" defensive help.
and I've argued. several times I personally don't feel that
all the answers to make a good team is on the Marlies. and I don't want Pesce because he's RHD (i give zero craps about the RHD/LHD stuff. i just want quality players on the team). again, to stress this out - this doesn't mean I don't think Kadri isn't a quality. but I feel he's a
known quality. People have argued (and while I don't always agree, I respect the ideology)that you don't want to trade Mitch nor Will because of the potential. (or you're trading them for like. some obvious gimme). This means you look at the quality known pieces of the team.
again for me. it's not that we're "two years into it." or we could be ten years in the future for it.
i've always thought if you could add something to your team that could be of benefit, you add it. even if you have to take a step back to adjust to something (like a year or something), before you surge forward again. you guys. in regards to Pesce (or Slavin, or Lindholm, excuse me if i'm speaking out of term i'm just lumping them all together). would not.
The time will come when that need for defensive help may actually be urgent (unlike right now, when it isn't urgent, because we're still developing players and systems) and we'll have the expendable assets required to make a big, splashy trade from a position of strength to fill that need. But it just doesn't make any sense at all to me to get so set on this one hypothetical scenario that the resulting tunnel-vision causes blindness as far as other aspects of team-building are concerned, especially when that scenario just looks like a lateral move at best.
and again. I personally don't see the problem with lateral trades.
i feel a lot of people here do. I don't get it but that's fine.
I believe very strongly that it's important for us to make the moves to help shore up our defensive game (as a whole not just as the back end) while we're still in 'development'. if we're developing players and systems, it makes more sense to me to get a like aged player and put them in a better environment and they're already apart of the systems etc.
and again. you guys don't.
so whatever, i don't either now. we'll just wait and see what happens per usual, and I hope it all works out for the best. again not being sarcastic here. but i feel very girl against the world here, and it gets tiring lol