You've suggested:
"
Wings send Hronek and St Louis 2nd to Vancouver for their first, top 10 protected.
We then package our two firsts (with ours being top 15 protected as well) one of Zadina/Berggren and either Wallinder or another second for Barzal. Sign Klingberg and trade Erne for nothing to a team that needs a body.
Overall we give
Hronek
our First
our st louis 2nd,
one of Zadina/Berggren (superfluous imo)
And another above average sweetener
For
Barzal and Klingberg. "
---------------------------
The only 2 in the 21-24 group that you're "exchanging" for the ELC age group are Hronek & Zadina/Berg. & then traded them for an Older Barzal ?!
WW is a keeper imo, would rather add the StL. 2nd instead.
I'd love to add Barzal and he's up there with Lundell (obviously costs more probably) of pieces I'd hope we could acquire/ideal world scenario. But it somewhat contradicts at least part of your reasoning, by literally swapping younger for older.
For the record I'd do that to get Barzal, even if it meant our team avg. got older & we lost 1 of Zadina/Berg., + Hronek.
No, it really doesn’t, but perhaps I stated it a bit improperly… I think it’s better to have one core around the Larkin/Barzal age group that has seemingly been developed and added to this offseason. After that age range we have the Hronek/Zadina/Rasmussen/Veleno
/Lindstrom aged tier group, essentially Holland’s leftovers, all of whom are either on or soon to be entering their bridge deals. The reason I did not include Berggren is due to his contract status and having 3 years of ELC left. I am looking to move away/trim some capital from that age group for two reasons
1) While I think a lot of the guys listed there could be NHLers, I don’t think any of them will develop into anything high end.
2) as stated most of these guys are entering their bridge deals, ones that will coincide with our return to relevancy in 2-3 years. Personally, when Raymond and Seider are making a combined 18 mil, I’d rather have Soderblom making ELC than Rasmussen making 1.5, and rather have room for Wallinder on an ELC than Lindstrom making 2 million.
My suggestion would be to remove a lot of the players from the “no man’s land” age range to upgrade what we have now while also clearing room for the Kasper/Soderblom/AJ/Wallinder generation. The reason for this is I believe Yzerman’s picks are not only going to be noticeably better than Holland’s but also more in line timeline wise to give us flexibility once Seider/Raymond are due for their huge raises. It’s the same reason I actually would not mind limiting Edvinsson’s games to 9 to delay his next contract; gives us another year of flexibility.
Essentially, I want to space out what I find to be superfluous and soon to be obsolete young talent for a more proven commodity/ higher quality player now and more flexibility later when we’ll need it. Given Barzal’s age range, he’d fit in well with the first phase that would both allow us to take a step as soon as this season while also allowing for a more insulated enviorment for the youth that will actually matter. Not saying we should get rid of all of them, just that we can deal from a position of current abundance on players who likely will be phased out anyways when better players with ELCs become available. Again, we have a finite amount of room. Might as well consolidate a lot of pieces for something good when we know we have ample replacements on the way. Imo trading for Barzal not only improves us now, but also will allow more natural paths for our new, better, wave of youth to take over.
Basically, it would give us a better balance of quality ELCs with better vet talent to guide them. I beliebe this not only allows us to compete sooner, but also more sustainably in the next 4-5 years.
Again, even if Soderblom (just a random example) disappoints and only develops to how good Rasmussen is now, when cap space is actually needed and we’re a real contender would you rather have Elmer making 850k or Rasmussen likely making 1.5-2? It may not seem like much but doing that 2-3 more times could allow us one more quality player for a run. I’m not saying gut them all, but we could stand to trim the fat per se.
We only have a finite amount of spots and cup winning teams generally need a solid group of high level vets supported by a few star level players on ELCs. If the players we hope to pan out, pan out, we’re going to have to move some assets anyways. I’d rather get something good now to kickstart us than deal with this when teams know we are overcrowded.