TSN Radio Bob McKenzie: Everyone on Carolina except Sebastian Aho is available

[saltming]

If the cost of acquiring Pesce is anything close to what's been discussed around here, I'd much rather hold off for the time being.

If we can get a legit top-4 D this off-season through UFA, or trading our 1st or Gardiner (deal him for assets, flip those assets into a better-suited D), then I'm all for something like that. Otherwise, I'd rather bring in depth and see what we really have in guys like Zaitsev, Holl, Carrick and Liljegren. I'd rather continue the development of the core we already have, and suffer the fate of an unfinished blueline, than trade a Nylander or Kadri and remove our biggest strength in the process.

Agreed. I would not trade any of the 3 so realistically it depends on what Carolina wants.
They need offence would that take gardiner 1 for 1?
I know you can't answer that, but does that sound reasonable?
I suck at trades and value

 

[AllDay28]

Trading a former top 5 pick in Nylander for a 2nd round defensive dman. That sounds like the kinda GMing that Kyle Dubas is gnna bring....Jesus christ people. I get that once youre in the league it dont matter where youre drafted but.. yikes

 

[IBeL34f]

Agreed. I would not trade any of the 3 so realistically it depends on what Carolina wants.
They need offence would that take gardiner 1 for 1?
I know you can't answer that, but does that sound reasonable?
I suck at trades and value

Doubt we'd see something like that - Pesce's younger and controlled long-term at a cheaper cost than Gardiner's current Cap hit (6 more years at $4.025M per).

If Carolina's looking for offense, despite that being our greatest strength, I don't think we make the greatest trading partners at this point in time. I'd be more interested, right now, in trying to use a return on Gardiner to bring in a guy like Myers (some Jets fans think they'll be moving on from him) or Hjalmarsson. From there, you can promote Dermott into Gards' role and continue to push his development, or you can look at a guy like De Haan in Free Agency.

Rielly - Myers/Hjalmarsson
De Haan - Zaitsev
Dermott - Hainsey

Nothing moved from our long-term core, but a huge improvement to our blueline.

 

[saltming]

Doubt we'd see something like that - Pesce's younger and controlled long-term at a cheaper cost than Gardiner's current Cap hit (6 more years at $4.025M per).

If Carolina's looking for offense, despite that being our greatest strength, I don't think we make the greatest trading partners at this point in time. I'd be more interested, right now, in trying to use a return on Gardiner to bring in a guy like Myers (some Jets fans think they'll be moving on from him) or Hjalmarsson. From there, you can promote Dermott into Gards' role and continue to push his development, or you can look at a guy like De Haan in Free Agency.

Rielly - Myers/Hjalmarsson
De Haan - Zaitsev
Dermott - Hainsey

Nothing moved from our long-term core, but a huge improvement to our blueline.

I like that idea. I'm a fan of Myers and wouldn't mind Hjalmarsson but end of the day I agree in not giving up parts of the core.

 

[ITM]

yah. that's not going to work.

honestly. we're not 1972 Montreal. Like hell I heard people say that Bracco is untouchable in a thread.
Kadri 100 percent could be moved out. so could Brown, or Hyman (but that wouldn't get it done alone, neither would Kapanen).

honestly, we can't just have this idea of "all we have to do is trade the fluff/players we don't like."

Mmm...That's why the sign and trade suggestion was qualified in hypothetical aspiration: "Ideally, and I repeat, ideally, if there was a perfect scenario, I'd love to...". It wasn't a suggestion posed as something our management could be expected to reasonably achieve, it was, to further the armchair GM role-play, just an idea borne in a conversation of hypotheticals.

It's "not" going to work, or it couldn't work? I'm open to a discussion as to how it could work, where a 35 goal scoring winger still in his prime and who was a 1/2 could be a basis to for a trade to a team his brother's on for a second pairing RHD.

And my considersation set isn't about simply moving fluff we dislike out, it's about anticipating the foundation being undermined before we've had enough time to determine what's fluff and what's foundational. You make my point when noting Brown and Hyman wouldn't get the job done. Perhaps you should have clarified what "job done" means. For me, it was Brett Pesce as a hypothetical. But in the truest sense, if I'm Dubas and the ask for Pesce is Nazem Kadri, my counter is, "Well, Pesce is a nice piece, but what was the principal you had in mind for Nazem?".

And no, we're nothing close to the Canadiens of the 70s and that's precisely the point of not being able to move depth where it doesn't exist. Our club is an on-ice NHL contention equivalent of Jenga. Pull the wrong piece out and we're Carolina. Our timeline of development simply doesn't afford experimenting with what chemistry we've only recently discovered. So when I target Pesce for example, but mostly players developing for Carolina's AHL club, I'm fully aware (fully persuaded that is) that players like Kadri, Brown and Hyman could be moved out but in consideration of our need (i.e. Kadri as an affordable ideal, physical 2C) and Carolina's (which doesn't appear to need cogs like Brown and Hyman if the target is e.g. Pesce) but that neither asset is a reasonable possibility from either team's needs.

It says, hey, if Carolina takes Brown for Pesce, we're in business. But does that sound like something their new GM is going to sign off on when Pesce, a large, young, RHD on the better side of plus/minus on the Hurricanes is the target? That's a 100 pound bag of Nope. If the Hurricanes new GM says they'll move Pesce only for Kadri, given what we're seeing in the Conference playoffs, given his salary and his production, and Dubas agrees, then it's a case of outsmarting ourselves because unless there's a replacement from within - and we don't have that yet - then we've simply robbed Peter to pay Paul and our problem at depth remains.

My caution isn't the absolute decline of viable trades. It's dealing from strength, a position we simply don't have at the moment. IF we sign Tavares, then Kadri (or someone else not named Matthews, Marner and Nylander) becomes a trade chip perhaps. IF we sign Carlson, perhaps Gardiner or even Reilly becomes that chip. But until our as yet growing set of sharks' teeth comes in, we are fooling ourselves into thinking that our asset depth is so abundant that we can simply supplement, as an example, Kadri's contribution with Pesce's and our present depth at C.

Whoever said Bracco was untouchable...well it wasn't me and that's not the equivocation I made. That's simply subjective preference over our objective need. Plodding, instrumental asset-management and nothing else is what's required. David Poile is a perfect example of this. Moving, again as an example, Nazem Kadri for Brett Pesce isn't in the championship GM's playbook.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Did someone say Bracco's untouchable? Strange stuff.

Bottom line is that not even one player is untouchable, not McDavid, Matthews or anyone else. There are obviously players who are highly unlikely to be traded for a number of reasons but untouchable, nope. I would trade Matthews in a heartbeat if the right offer came along. It doesn't have to be McDavid either, give me my choice of 3 players off the roster and there's probably a number of teams I'd make a deal with (just as an example). But then those teams would balk and that why this kind of deal just doesn't happen any more. They were hard enough to put together (and therefore rare) even before the cap era, now it's next to impossible.

 

[Trapper]

Did someone say Bracco's untouchable? Strange stuff.

Bottom line is that not even one player is untouchable, not McDavid, Matthews or anyone else. There are obviously players who are highly unlikely to be traded for a number of reasons but untouchable, nope. I would trade Matthews in a heartbeat if the right offer came along. It doesn't have to be McDavid either, give me my choice of 3 players off the roster and there's probably a number of teams I'd make a deal with (just as an example). But then those teams would balk and that why this kind of deal just doesn't happen any more. They were hard enough to put together (and therefore rare) even before the cap era, now it's next to impossible.

Yes if a modern day Lindros to Philly deal came along with Forsberg/Ricci/Duchesne/1st/etc. anyone should be available.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Mmm...That's why the sign and trade suggestion was qualified in hypothetical aspiration: "Ideally, and I repeat, ideally, if there was a perfect scenario, I'd love to...". It wasn't a suggestion posed as something our management could be expected to reasonably achieve, it was, to further the armchair GM role-play, just an idea borne in a conversation of hypotheticals.

It's "not" going to work, or it couldn't work? I'm open to a discussion as to how it could work, where a 35 goal scoring winger still in his prime and who was a 1/2 could be a basis to for a trade to a team his brother's on for a second pairing RHD.

And my considersation set isn't about simply moving fluff we dislike out, it's about anticipating the foundation being undermined before we've had enough time to determine what's fluff and what's foundational. You make my point when noting Brown and Hyman wouldn't get the job done. Perhaps you should have clarified what "job done" means. For me, it was Brett Pesce as a hypothetical. But in the truest sense, if I'm Dubas and the ask for Pesce is Nazem Kadri, my counter is, "Well, Pesce is a nice piece, but what was the principal you had in mind for Nazem?".

And no, we're nothing close to the Canadiens of the 70s and that's precisely the point of not being able to move depth where it doesn't exist. Our club is an on-ice NHL contention equivalent of Jenga. Pull the wrong piece out and we're Carolina. Our timeline of development simply doesn't afford experimenting with what chemistry we've only recently discovered. So when I target Pesce for example, but mostly players developing for Carolina's AHL club, I'm fully aware (fully persuaded that is) that players like Kadri, Brown and Hyman could be moved out but in consideration of our need (i.e. Kadri as an affordable ideal, physical 2C) and Carolina's (which doesn't appear to need cogs like Brown and Hyman if the target is e.g. Pesce) but that neither asset is a reasonable possibility from either team's needs.

It says, hey, if Carolina takes Brown for Pesce, we're in business. But does that sound like something their new GM is going to sign off on when Pesce, a large, young, RHD on the better side of plus/minus on the Hurricanes is the target? That's a 100 pound bag of Nope. If the Hurricanes new GM says they'll move Pesce only for Kadri, given what we're seeing in the Conference playoffs, given his salary and his production, and Dubas agrees, then it's a case of outsmarting ourselves because unless there's a replacement from within - and we don't have that yet - then we've simply robbed Peter to pay Paul and our problem at depth remains.

My caution isn't the absolute decline of viable trades. It's dealing from strength, a position we simply don't have at the moment. IF we sign Tavares, then Kadri (or someone else not named Matthews, Marner and Nylander) becomes a trade chip perhaps. IF we sign Carlson, perhaps Gardiner or even Reilly becomes that chip. But until our as yet growing set of sharks' teeth comes in, we are fooling ourselves into thinking that our asset depth is so abundant that we can simply supplement, as an example, Kadri's contribution with Pesce's and our present depth at C.

Whoever said Bracco was untouchable...well it wasn't me and that's not the equivocation I made. That's simply subjective preference over our objective need. Plodding, instrumental asset-management and nothing else is what's required. David Poile is a perfect example of this. Moving, again as an example, Nazem Kadri for Brett Pesce isn't in the championship GM's playbook.

I would offer Kadri + ______ I can't remember what my original thing was, it's in the trade thread
for Staal, + Pesce.

the centre issue (not a problem) I think Staal is overpaid but he's still really good and can shut down just as well (and I thin for both Pesce and Staal being on a team that's more offensively minded (though they bring a good bucket of defensive presence that this team woefully needs) would do those two players a world of good.

there's one guy bemoaning the fact that we want to trade for defensive defensemen (because god forbid we get players we can actually instil in the team right now who actually wants to prevent the other team from scoring against us). there's a whole whackadoodle of people who have "You can't trade these players" list as big as Kim Kardashian's butt.

I get the "patience" etc. but i've said it once and I'll say it constantly - not every single answer is going to be drafted or on the marlies. and while you always want to have a constant pipeline. (and I am all for that too), you also have to be willing to make the trades. and again. i think a lot of people get wrapped up in wanting to "win" the trade, where i think the mentality should be how does this trade help us, and how does this trade help them. i've also said if you want quality pieces you have to be prepared to give up quality.

 

[Budsfan]

There are no untouchables on this team and again any player can be traded and should be if there is equal or exceeded value for a needed and wanted player.

We are not privileged to what another team may want, as to an even trade value for a particular player and it will be up to Dubas to determine if a trade is warranted.

 

[Trapper]

I would offer Kadri + ______ I can't remember what my original thing was, it's in the trade thread
for Staal, + Pesce.

the centre issue (not a problem) I think Staal is overpaid but he's still really good and can shut down just as well (and I thin for both Pesce and Staal being on a team that's more offensively minded (though they bring a good bucket of defensive presence that this team woefully needs) would do those two players a world of good.

there's one guy bemoaning the fact that we want to trade for defensive defensemen (because god forbid we get players we can actually instil in the team right now who actually wants to prevent the other team from scoring against us). there's a whole whackadoodle of people who have "You can't trade these players" list as big as Kim Kardashian's butt.

I get the "patience" etc. but i've said it once and I'll say it constantly - not every single answer is going to be drafted or on the marlies. and while you always want to have a constant pipeline. (and I am all for that too), you also have to be willing to make the trades. and again. i think a lot of people get wrapped up in wanting to "win" the trade, where i think the mentality should be how does this trade help us, and how does this trade help them. i've also said if you want quality pieces you have to be prepared to give up quality.

I have to wonder what people are viewing as a defensive defenseman. Are they thinking of slow, lumbering ox?
You know who is a defensive defenseman? Chris Tanev. Not going to put up a ton of points.
The ability to skate, move the puck efficiently and take care of business in your own end (shut down the cycle, gap control, puck battles) and move the puck back for transition consistently and effectively can be a defensive defenseman. This team is wildly inconsistent at times and untrustworthy (IMO) at critical times. Having a couple of players who can take that out of us is critical.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I have to wonder what people are viewing as a defensive defenseman. Are they thinking of slow, lumbering ox?
You know who is a defensive defenseman? Chris Tanev. Not going to put up a ton of points.
The ability to skate, move the puck efficiently and take care of business in your own end (shut down the cycle, gap control, puck battles) and move the puck back for transition consistently and effectively can be a defensive defenseman. This team is wildly inconsistent at times and untrustworthy (IMO) at critical times. Having a couple of players who can take that out of us is critical.

DeMo and I were talking about this last night.
I think people hear "defensive defenseman" and they think, Schenn, or Polak or whatever.

I think the key strength of any defenseman is
1: mobility
2: being smart.

now i would happily sacrifice some offense (some) to have some players who is smart and mobile but skews more to the defensive side of the ledger. We have so many players on this team who cheats. (like they'll pinch, or they'll go for the long pass, etc, which is great and it's effective for us, but on the flip side it would also be nice when we don't have the puck to have people who can actually stop the other team from scoring.

I think a pesce + staal combo would help.
i know people inthe other thread are talking Bodin etc. etc.

 

[ITM]

I would offer Kadri + ______ I can't remember what my original thing was, it's in the trade thread
for Staal, + Pesce.

the centre issue (not a problem) I think Staal is overpaid but he's still really good and can shut down just as well (and I thin for both Pesce and Staal being on a team that's more offensively minded (though they bring a good bucket of defensive presence that this team woefully needs) would do those two players a world of good.

there's one guy bemoaning the fact that we want to trade for defensive defensemen (because god forbid we get players we can actually instil in the team right now who actually wants to prevent the other team from scoring against us). there's a whole whackadoodle of people who have "You can't trade these players" list as big as Kim Kardashian's butt.

I get the "patience" etc. but i've said it once and I'll say it constantly - not every single answer is going to be drafted or on the marlies. and while you always want to have a constant pipeline. (and I am all for that too), you also have to be willing to make the trades. and again. i think a lot of people get wrapped up in wanting to "win" the trade, where i think the mentality should be how does this trade help us, and how does this trade help them. i've also said if you want quality pieces you have to be prepared to give up quality.

See Winnipeg and Nashville for the models you're occasioning as being questionable for answering necessary questions.

Naturally not "every single answer" is going to be drafted. But good teams draft well and draft abundantly and recognize diminishing assets from foundational assets and maximize from that full cache when the RIGHT piece is made available. In each instance, patience is fundamental to success. So a person either "gets the patience etc" thing or Impatience extracts a horrific price on those who don't.

If you list players in depth charts and begin to match ours with theirs (whatever the club of concern is) and factor in team need, the hypothetical scenario becomes more than simply trying to front load an offer offset by something disparately less valuable and a sense that it could work out for both clubs.

My qualification in volunteering the likes of Brown, Hyman, Kapanen, Johnson for a player like Pesce is because Carolina has their own (and better) versions in the form of Lindholm, McGinn, Zykov, Foegele. If I'm Carolina's GM, where's my incentive from Toronto starting from? Assets that most teams have? My incentive comes in the form of assets Toronto shouldn't be using address a player like Pesce i.e. 2018 1st, Morgan Reilly, Travis Dermott, William Nylander, Mitch Marner, etc. That should be expandable to any team concerning any asset. That type of deliberation doesn't negate moving assets for assets when it's justified, it simply identifies the appropriateness of the assets exchanging.

J.Staal + B.Pesce for Kadri + ???...Sure it could work out depending on what the inclusion happens to be. But it has to take into consideration future unsigned contracts and it should take in the perceived value of Kadri around the league. Perhaps other teams offer more for a 27 year old, consensus 2C with grit and skill. The repeated point is, determining our position of need by our position of strength and not simply shoe-horning a deal through due to an exaggerated sense of a limited window in which to do so.

 

[Daisy Jane]

See Winnipeg and Nashville for the models you're occasioning as being questionable for answering necessary questions.

Naturally not "every single answer" is going to be drafted. But good teams draft well and draft abundantly and recognize diminishing assets from foundational assets and maximize from that full cache when the RIGHT piece is made available. In each instance, patience is fundamental to success. So a person either "gets the patience etc" thing or Impatience extracts a horrific price on those who don't.

If you list players in depth charts and begin to match ours with theirs (whatever the club of concern is) and factor in team need, the hypothetical scenario becomes more than simply trying to front load an offer offset by something disparately less valuable and a sense that it could work out for both clubs.

My qualification in volunteering the likes of Brown, Hyman, Kapanen, Johnson for a player like Pesce is because Carolina has their own (and better) versions in the form of Lindholm, McGinn, Zykov, Foegele. If I'm Carolina's GM, where's my incentive from Toronto starting from? Assets that most teams have? My incentive comes in the form of assets Toronto shouldn't be using address a player like Pesce i.e. 2018 1st, Morgan Reilly, Travis Dermott, William Nylander, Mitch Marner, etc. That should be expandable to any team concerning any asset. That type of deliberation doesn't negate moving assets for assets when it's justified, it simply identifies the appropriateness of the assets exchanging.

J.Staal + B.Pesce for Kadri + ???...Sure it could work out depending on what the inclusion happens to be. But it has to take into consideration future unsigned contracts and it should take in the perceived value of Kadri around the league. Perhaps other teams offer more for a 27 year old, consensus 2C with grit and skill. The repeated point is, determining our position of need by our position of strength and not simply shoe-horning a deal through due to an exaggerated sense of a limited window in which to do so.

i. honestly. and truthfully don't know what you are talking about. i'm sorry. you truly confused me.

 

[TMLegend]

If they retain 33% of his contact then maybe




(they won't)

6M for a 45-50 point center who provides selke calibre defensive play is fine.

 

[IBeL34f]

i. honestly. and truthfully don't know what you are talking about. i'm sorry. you truly confused me.

Carolina only wants to move their assets to get the kinds of pieces that they don't already have. The kinds of assets that they would want don't necessarily line up well with the kinds of assets that we should (at this point in time) be looking to move on from. (Nylander for Pesce should be a "no" on our end, Brown for Pesce should be a "no" on Carolina's end, for example)

Making a move from our area of strength (offense) right now to fill a hole (defense) just because there seems to be a misplaced sense of urgency to fill that hole would be a mistake.

 

[Gallagbi]

6M for a 45-50 point center who provides selke calibre defensive play is fine.

Today? Maybe (though I'd say overpaid). For the next 5 years is where it gets real deal dicey.

 

[Gallagbi]

Carolina only wants to move their assets to get the kinds of pieces that they don't already have. The kinds of assets that they would want don't necessarily line up well with the kinds of assets that we should (at this point in time) be looking to move on from. (Nylander for Pesce should be a "no" on our end, Brown for Pesce should be a "no" on Carolina's end, for example)

Making a move from our area of strength (offense) right now to fill a hole (defense) just because there seems to be a misplaced sense of urgency to fill that hole would be a mistake.

Isn't that the ideal time? When we have a surplus to work from, which we do right now?

 

[ITM]

Isn't that the ideal time? When we have a surplus to work from, which we do right now?

We don't have a surplus to sacrifice from. Not yet we don't.

 

[IBeL34f]

Isn't that the ideal time? When we have a surplus to work from, which we do right now?

With JVR and Bozak leaving, how much of a "surplus" do we really have?

Our current NHL C depth is Matthews, Kadri, and then....?

We're deep on the Wing, but the "movable" talent goes from Nylander/Marner to Kapanen/Brown/Hyman/Johnsson pretty quick - On the one hand, you have guys that I would be very uncomfortable trading, and on the other hand you have guys whose value doesn't really line up with the pieces we're discussing acquiring. So while we're certainly strong up front, I don't think we're at the stage where we can be exactly carefree about losing more than we already are in JVR and Bozak.

You also have to consider the fact that taking a piece away from that area of strength makes it less of an area of strength than it was before. Combined with the fact that we have no idea what guys like Nylander, Marner, Kapanen, etc. are going to become once they're fully developed, and this kind of route to team improvement has me quite nervous.

If that hole isn't as big as the media and some fans are making it out to be (and I don't believe it is) then a much more pragmatic approach to improving the team would come from patience, UFA acquisitions, smart trades based around players that are not in your long-term plans (Gardiner, for example) and smaller depth moves that simply look to fill openings on your roster better than the players who previously occupied those positions.

We're 2 years into this core playing together, and there's still tons of development required before we see these guys playing to their full potential - The urgency people feel to make a big splash to fill this hole is, in my opinion, very misplaced.

 

[AllDay28]

I have to wonder what people are viewing as a defensive defenseman. Are they thinking of slow, lumbering ox?
You know who is a defensive defenseman? Chris Tanev. Not going to put up a ton of points.
The ability to skate, move the puck efficiently and take care of business in your own end (shut down the cycle, gap control, puck battles) and move the puck back for transition consistently and effectively can be a defensive defenseman. This team is wildly inconsistent at times and untrustworthy (IMO) at critical times. Having a couple of players who can take that out of us is critical.

ya Tanev would be awesome for the 20 games a season he'd play. Then we'd be in the same boat for 60+ games when hes hurt. And I went to school with Tanev and want him on the Leafs lol

 

[Daisy Jane]

With JVR and Bozak leaving, how much of a "surplus" do we really have?

Our current NHL C depth is Matthews, Kadri, and then....?

We're deep on the Wing, but the "movable" talent goes from Nylander/Marner to Kapanen/Brown/Hyman/Johnsson pretty quick - On the one hand, you have guys that I would be very uncomfortable trading, and on the other hand you have guys whose value doesn't really line up with the pieces we're discussing acquiring. So while we're certainly strong up front, I don't think we're at the stage where we can be exactly carefree about losing more than we already are in JVR and Bozak.

You also have to consider the fact that taking a piece away from that area of strength makes it less of an area of strength than it was before. Combined with the fact that we have no idea what guys like Nylander, Marner, Kapanen, etc. are going to become once they're fully developed, and this kind of route to team improvement has me quite nervous.

If that hole isn't as big as the media and some fans are making it out to be (and I don't believe it is) then a much more pragmatic approach to improving the team would come from patience, UFA acquisitions, smart trades based around players that are not in your long-term plans (Gardiner, for example) and smaller depth moves that simply look to fill openings on your roster better than the players who previously occupied those positions.

We're 2 years into this core playing together, and there's still tons of development required before we see these guys playing to their full potential - The urgency people feel to make a big splash to fill this hole is, in my opinion, very misplaced.

you trade Kadri and ___
and you get Staal and Pesce. lateral move (centre wise) and defense help.

poof.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Carolina only wants to move their assets to get the kinds of pieces that they don't already have. The kinds of assets that they would want don't necessarily line up well with the kinds of assets that we should (at this point in time) be looking to move on from. (Nylander for Pesce should be a "no" on our end, Brown for Pesce should be a "no" on Carolina's end, for example)

Making a move from our area of strength (offense) right now to fill a hole (defense) just because there seems to be a misplaced sense of urgency to fill that hole would be a mistake.

also i don't understand how people feel that our defense (overall, not just the backend) and fixing it is misplaced. we're not good enough there. not as a five man unit, not on the backend.

 

[IBeL34f]

you trade Kadri and ___
and you get Staal and Pesce. lateral move (centre wise) and defense help.

poof.

What's the +? Easy to say when it's just a __________

 

[saltming]

Carolina only wants to move their assets to get the kinds of pieces that they don't already have. The kinds of assets that they would want don't necessarily line up well with the kinds of assets that we should (at this point in time) be looking to move on from. (Nylander for Pesce should be a "no" on our end, Brown for Pesce should be a "no" on Carolina's end, for example)

Making a move from our area of strength (offense) right now to fill a hole (defense) just because there seems to be a misplaced sense of urgency to fill that hole would be a mistake.

I know we went over this but why isn't gardiner a good fit for them? They want offence? Here is a 50 point defensman.
We need defence. Here is a solid stay at home guy.
What am I missing there? Why wouldn't Carolina go for that?

 

[Daisy Jane]

What's the +? Easy to say when it's just a __________

i can't find my post where i had broken it down. and I don't think it's "easy" like i don't think it would take eleventymillion things to get Pesce, he's not that good. Kadri, say a 1st, and something (Leivo, or Rosen, or whomever, I think i tossed in Pickard/Sparks whoemver Kyle wasn't for like a mixture of that).

for Staal, Pesce and whatever. like the combination is there.