Since you've now introduced hypothetical scenarios, imagine the Perron injury doesn't happen and Maroon isn't traded. Going into the playoffs we'd have 16 forwards to choose from: Perron, Getzlaf, Stewart, Cogliano, Kesler, Silfverberg, McGinn, Rakell, Perry, Thompson, Horcoff, Garbutt, Santorelli, Maroon, Ritchie. .
So you're saying we have depth in case of injuries, like we're experiencing now. I fail to see the downside.
And before you say: "maybe we couldn't get same value for Maroon at the draft"; first, I don't agree with that, considering how awful the value we got for him was. Second, if he just had to go, waive him first. No, that's not much different than trading him to the worst team in the league. Sending him to the minors would be, but we obviously wouldn't do that.
The value he received was so bad, that holding onto Maroon for depth purposes would be worth it IMO. The off-season is easier to make trades. More teams have cap room, roster flexibility, etc... If you're going to get **** return, you may as well keep him as insurance in case of injuries.
Maroon all but proved he isn't suited for a bottom-6 role; he's the worst skater on the team and he's defensively irresponsible. When he's producing offensively, he's a capable, complementary top-6 forward. Except Maroon wasn't producing offensively. In all likelihood, he's a healthy scratch in every playoff game. How does this benefit the Ducks or Maroon?.
Maroon proved that he doesn't worth with guys that can't cycle. You can't stick players like Santorelli and Maroon on the same line and expect great results. He's been more than capable as a 4th liner. This poor season doesn't subtract that entirely.
How does it benefit the Ducks? Are you kidding? We have a capable 2nd line complimentary player in reserve in case of injuries (like right now).
T
he impetus for making this trade was future cap savings. Do I like the return we received? No, but I'm no judge of player value. Frankly, nobody here is. Bob Murray, one of the best GMs in the NHL, had an opportunity to offload an underperforming player signed to a multi-year deal. Maroon was never going to return much more than what we received--crap (although I consider a top-100 pick to be valuable). Would I have rather GMBM traded Maroon in the offseason? Sure, but the fact he did so at the trade deadline suggests he wasn't confident in the prospects of making a similar deal in the offseason.
IMO, it's pretty obvious the primary reason for this trade was because Murray felt like Maroon was expendable now, and that a 4th round pick was worth retention. I fully disagree with his thinking.
I definitely see the argument that Maroon was expendable, and for the right deal, I would have been more okay with trading him now. However, he didn't just take a bad return, he took a god awful return. I fail to see how ANYONE on this board can justify the retention for a 4th round pick. Especially considering how stacked our prospect pool already is, and how budget restrictions have hurt us in the past. There's nothing anyone here can say that can justify not waiving him first IMO. You can't retain salary unless it's a worst case scenario. I'd feel differently if we tried waiving him first. I honestly believe Murray got worried about the lack of draft picks in the upcoming draft, and felt it was worth retaining to get a mid round pick. That's a really ********ed decision IMO.
A 4th round pick is a decent asset, but not when you retain salary. Not for a budget team. At least try and give the guy away for free first.
And spare me the "Murray is awesome" crap. I have not once said I think he's a bad or even mediocre GM. Just because I call out one of his moves and say it's beyond stupid, that is not me saying he's not a good GM.