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

[Daisy Jane]

Why is it that (some of) the fans that watch Nylander the most are the worst at identifying his value? He's obviously being seasoned at wing so he can grow his game enough to play center. However, it is because of this grooming process, that Nylander's current value is cents on the dollar. The fact of the matter is that he's not looked out of place playing wing on the first line of a top offensive team, and then you add onto this the possibility of his game reaching even greater heights as a center, you have the makings of a steal of a contract. Fact is that, he's been an absolute terror when he does play center - you can ask Backstrom but also guys like Greening.

Yet we're trading this for a guy who, granted, does show potential and whose game is great (and who would be a good fit for our team) but failing to consider the fact that he may not mesh with the system or the big city environment. We eat players and with this trade being Dubas's first significant move, what do you think happens after a bad stretch? This applies to not just Pesce but also any other players being traded here.

Sometimes, the best moves are the ones not made. Nylander's circumstances are priming him for a cost-controlled 2nd contact whose value could shoot much, much higher when he hits free agency. I'd rather keep him when his contract's value is shaping up to be cents on the dollar.

Okay, Cookie..
but I said I didn't want to trade Nylander. I was just asking Nith to explain the positioning he had is all.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Because Brett Pesce and Jeff Finger and Mike Komisarek all operate in the same wheelhouse. Not to say Pesce isn't a valuable asset, but he's not worth players that define their draft classes. That's incompetency and of certain kinds of bias I can't see Dubas tripping over.

As for not trading the Kadris for the Doughtys of the league...I think there's inherently more incentive to part with Kadri for Doughty rather than Pesce, don't you? And one thing's for certain, Doughty and Pesce are pieces miles apart. Surely, the best use of a player of Kadri's calibre is to target a player of Doughty's calibre rather than Pesce's? And as if to prove the point, we have ONE Kadri. As an asset he's rare. Pesce isn't rare. It's rare to have a club announce a firesale but that doesn't mean we should also be thinking about moving a Nylander or a Kadri for a TVR either. It should be like asset for like asset that supplements glaring weakness.

This doesn't mean we restrict movement, it means we target appropriate value while planning to replace what we move. And between Doughty and Pesce, couldn't we think of many more options to inquire about rather rely on what amounts to a yard sale before the draft?

I'd prefer, that our club keep our 1st and draft the most talented player we could. Address outstanding contracts and see if there's a sign and trade to be had or simply a trade to maximize what we could...And then if the targets are Tavares and Carlson or Doughty, focus there. Centering in on Pesce and using a player far superior in value makes no sense, in any sense, independent of Pesce.

When it boils down to it, the aim is to get the most for the least. If that means a player smack dab in the middle value between Doughty and Pesce where Kadri absolutely has to be the principal in the deal...Then given me Player-X who is objectively better, over Pesce

no he doesn't. like it was brought up before. just because he's more defensively minded, doesn't mean he fell off the potato truck and can't play hockey at all.

but like i said. for the most part people here only want to trade crap that we don't want and wish and hope that we get better pieces, and think all the answers are in the draft or on the Marlies. It's not. eventually like it or not, we have got to trade pieces we do like to get pieces that we need. and I'd rather trade a quality piece to get a quality piece back rather than doing a rinky dink trade to get a stop gap. We don't need a stopgap. We need permanent, quality solutions. and I would bet my bottom dollar if the Leafs were to draft such a player people would wring their hands and go how could we draft someone like that because it happens all the dang time.

all year it was we need to be better defensively. we need to be better defensively as a five man unit and on the back end. people constantly stated, well no we don't we always have the puck, we'll just score all the time har har. or it was "Well Pittsburgh didn't need it why do we? but when we don't have the puck, then what? answer. the Boston series happens, that's what. and it's not a 'reactionary' thing, because quite frankly,it was an issue when we kept blowing leads all last year, and it was a serious issue when we were winning (or losing) this year.

getting defensive players or players who are more defensive minded isn't a horrible thing. why people act like it is is beyond me. getting older players is also not a bad thing if they are still mobile and able to contribute. all the offense in the world is not going to help this team if they can't defend properly.

But I don't know. maybe we'll be lucky and something happens at draft.

 

[IBeL34f]

no he doesn't. like it was brought up before. just because he's more defensively minded, doesn't mean he fell off the potato truck and can't play hockey at all.

but like i said. for the most part people here only want to trade crap that we don't want and wish and hope that we get better pieces, and think all the answers are in the draft or on the Marlies. It's not. eventually like it or not, we have got to trade pieces we do like to get pieces that we need. and I'd rather trade a quality piece to get a quality piece back rather than doing a rinky dink trade to get a stop gap. We don't need a stopgap. We need permanent, quality solutions. and I would bet my bottom dollar if the Leafs were to draft such a player people would wring their hands and go how could we draft someone like that because it happens all the dang time.

all year it was we need to be better defensively. we need to be better defensively as a five man unit and on the back end. people constantly stated, well no we don't we always have the puck, we'll just score all the time har har. or it was "Well Pittsburgh didn't need it why do we? but when we don't have the puck, then what? answer. the Boston series happens, that's what. and it's not a 'reactionary' thing, because quite frankly,it was an issue when we kept blowing leads all last year, and it was a serious issue when we were winning (or losing) this year.

getting defensive players or players who are more defensive minded isn't a horrible thing. why people act like it is is beyond me. getting older players is also not a bad thing if they are still mobile and able to contribute. all the offense in the world is not going to help this team if they can't defend properly.

But I don't know. maybe we'll be lucky and something happens at draft.

I don't believe this is a fair or accurate view of the arguments that people have been posing against you in regards to a move like this.

Everyone agrees that we need to get better defensively, but I'm brought back to my original point that, based on where we currently are in our building and development stage, that need is being vastly overstated - We are nowhere near the point where our need to get better defensively should mean stripping away important, core pieces of our active roster to do so. We are 2 years into this group playing together, there is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing in stop-gap players to help stabilize what you already have while you look for better options.

There are so many avenues for improving this team - I feel like you've gotten severe tunnel-vision over this one scenario. Just because it helps our D doesn't make it a smart move, even if improving our D is something we need to look at doing. If you trust that you can turn a guy like Dermott, or Liljegren, or Zaitsev (or our 1st-round pick this year, or a D that can be acquired for less-valuable pieces than Kadri) into a guy like Pesce, then bringing in a guy for a couple years that can provide support while you do that, and keeping the core you've already built, goes way farther than jumping at the very first trade that can improve your area of need.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

'Canes fans would certainly be able to answer that better than I could - But my understanding is that they're looking more for skill up front. They already have quite a solid blueline, and, with Gardiner looking to command upwards of $6M/year to keep after this season, I don't think they'd be looking to add such a big ticket there, especially if they're a team that needs to watch their spending.

This is correct. Without skill upfront, Gardiner isn't going to be a 50 point defenseman on Carolina. Look at his numbers before Matthews, Nylander, Marner, and Marleau showed up. Look at Hainsey going from a 15 point defenseman to a 23 point defenseman just by going from Carolina to Toronto. I watch a lot of both teams and Ron Hainsey is the same Ron Hainsey he was in Carolina, just on a much better team.

The talk about Pesce is fun and all, but I highly doubt Carolina moves him. Yeah, I know the owner said "everyone but Aho" is available, but most owners/GMs say they'd move anyone for the right price. Pesce is a fine defenseman, who skates well, is very good along the boards (wins a lot of puck battles), and plays a smart game. He's the Canes top pairing RHD, but IMO, he's more of a #3/4 than a top pairing guy. I think he has more offense in him, but that will never be his calling card. He's 23, signed to a very good deal even if he never improves 1 bit from today and the deal will be even better in the out years. If he improves even a little, the deal will be fantastic.

All that said, it would be lunacy to trade Nylander for him. Since I don't think the Canes have any intent on moving him, they might ASK for something like that, but Toronto wouldn't (and shouldn't) make a move like that.

 

[Trapper]

Okay, Cookie..
but I said I didn't want to trade Nylander. I was just asking Nith to explain the positioning he had is all.

There is nothing wrong with saying I'd trade Nylander for (insert deal here). That doesn't mean you want to and it doesn't mean you don't like him. People have a hard time with that.
I'd trade anyone for the right deal but be prepared to give half your team for a select few. Which basically means we aren't trading them.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

To further on my point about Canes not looking to really move Pesce, here is an excerpt from an interview with Waddell yesterday:

“I think right now, as I said, we have to look at every position on our hockey team here,” Waddell stated, replying specifically to speculation surrounding the futures of winger Jeff Skinner and defenseman Justin Faulk with the club. “We’ve gone nine years without making the playoffs and some guys have been here five, six, seven years. Not that they’re bad players – actually, both players you mentioned are some of our top players."

“We want to make change, but when you make change you want to make sure you’re making the right change and making the right decision, because anybody can make just change for the sake of making change. But if you’re not making your hockey club better with those changes, it might make sense to take another look at it."

“Obviously getting the No. 2 pick in the NHL draft coming up probably means we’re going to be able to put a player right on our team. If we keep the pick, which it looks like that’s the way it’s going right now – that’s exciting. We have Marty Necas, who we drafted last year in the first round, that we feel is going to make the jump this year to the NHL. We’ve got Aho and a few of our other young guys. I think we have a lot of good pieces in place, and now we have to find the right supplements around those players with some of the veterans like the Williams and Jordan Staal and Slavin and Pesce on defense, Faulk. We feel like we’ve got a lot of good pieces.”

My read on this is that they won't make changes just to make changes, but will if it makes the team better. He calls out the #2OA pick, Necas, Aho, "other young guys", Williams, Staal, Slavin, Pesce and Faulk as good pieces to build around, which tells me he is planning on those guys being on the team, barring a great offer. Absent from the list of players that have been there a while is Skinner and Rask so I suspect they are actively shopping those two. Not sure which of TT, Hanifin, Fleury, Lindholm, and McGinn are included in "other young guys" they'll keep vs. being shopped.

 

[LeafFever]

Waddell is a bad GM. We can fleece him.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Waddell is a bad GM. We can fleece him.

I think the bigger question, and a complete unknown, is what does Dundon want to do here? Waddell, IMO, is a bit of a figurehead GM. Dundon has talked about having a collaborative approach in which the GM has much less power so while Waddell will be doing the talking to other GMs, I don't think he has the same power as a traditional GM.

Even a more Traditional GM doesn't make moves in a vacuum.

 

[ITM]

no he doesn't. like it was brought up before. just because he's more defensively minded, doesn't mean he fell off the potato truck and can't play hockey at all.

but like i said. for the most part people here only want to trade crap that we don't want and wish and hope that we get better pieces, and think all the answers are in the draft or on the Marlies. It's not. eventually like it or not, we have got to trade pieces we do like to get pieces that we need. and I'd rather trade a quality piece to get a quality piece back rather than doing a rinky dink trade to get a stop gap. We don't need a stopgap. We need permanent, quality solutions. and I would bet my bottom dollar if the Leafs were to draft such a player people would wring their hands and go how could we draft someone like that because it happens all the dang time.

all year it was we need to be better defensively. we need to be better defensively as a five man unit and on the back end. people constantly stated, well no we don't we always have the puck, we'll just score all the time har har. or it was "Well Pittsburgh didn't need it why do we? but when we don't have the puck, then what? answer. the Boston series happens, that's what. and it's not a 'reactionary' thing, because quite frankly,it was an issue when we kept blowing leads all last year, and it was a serious issue when we were winning (or losing) this year.

getting defensive players or players who are more defensive minded isn't a horrible thing. why people act like it is is beyond me. getting older players is also not a bad thing if they are still mobile and able to contribute. all the offense in the world is not going to help this team if they can't defend properly.

But I don't know. maybe we'll be lucky and something happens at draft.

Jeff Finger and Mike Komisarek weren't names bandied about as having fallen off the potato truck before they arrived in Toronto. They enjoyed the exact same anticipatory praise that a player like Brett Pesce has here under the same perceived need. And as I mentioned previously, Kyle Dubas will not, I repeat will NOT make a move for a player on the basis of him playing simple hockey i.e. more defensively minded, using an exceptional piece like Kadri.

Remember as well, Daisy, Kadri, was held over from the purge by Shanahan.

I don't think we're locked into an asset-management either/or scenario where on one side you have "people here [who] only want to trade crap" vs people who know we have to trade pieces we like in order to get the pieces we need. Speaking for myself, I see the (simplified) scenario here, as mistakingly defining a top 40-50 C in the league (i.e. Kadri) as being necessary trade bait for a decent, young, RHD in Pesce vs. identifying what Pesce or a player like him could be had for via trade or signing while protecting our core assets and walking away, for now, until we have enough assets to make the right move at the right time for the right piece.

Consider in your model for a moment, Daisy, that by stating the rest of our assets outside of pieces like Kadri, you've defined as "crap", necessarily proves the point, that we're simply not deep enough to move quality assets for quality assets in the way Winnipeg and Nashville have been able to. Under your model, we have to create a hole to fill a hole. And I know haven't said getting defensive players is a horrible thing. And I don't think the idea of moving a core piece for a necessary defensive player or older player if they're of lesser value should bristle a person. The focus should always be positional need and value, not simply positional need and approximate value. If that were the m.o. I'd rather Justin Holl given another shot and retain Kadri vs trading Kadri and getting Pesce and supplementing Kadri's loss with Freddie Gauthier or our recent shiny SEL signing.

As for play without the puck and blown leads, that's as much to do with our forward personnel and our inexperience as it is to do with our backend. And to batter the point home, moving one of our more conscientious, ridiculously paid centers isn't going to increase team attention to defence. Kadri was one of the few players that stood up to Boston. And that Boston series was every bit ours as it was their's. One period differentiated our clubs. Experience mostly.And although we blew leads in the regular season, Daisy...We finished 6th overall two full seasons out from being 30th.

The issue to trade or not to trade doesn't hinge on people resisting trade because they resist address to necessary areas. It's about expending unnecessary assets of higher value from a limited cache for lesser value at a time and juncture when we aren't justified in doing so...anymore than successful clubs like Winnipeg and Nashville weren't justified in doing so at various points in their development.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I don't believe this is a fair or accurate view of the arguments that people have been posing against you in regards to a move like this.

Everyone agrees that we need to get better defensively, but I'm brought back to my original point that, based on where we currently are in our building and development stage, that need is being vastly overstated - We are nowhere near the point where our need to get better defensively should mean stripping away important, core pieces of our active roster to do so. We are 2 years into this group playing together, there is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing in stop-gap players to help stabilize what you already have while you look for better options.

There are so many avenues for improving this team - I feel like you've gotten severe tunnel-vision over this one scenario. Just because it helps our D doesn't make it a smart move, even if improving our D is something we need to look at doing. If you trust that you can turn a guy like Dermott, or Liljegren, or Zaitsev (or our 1st-round pick this year, or a D that can be acquired for less-valuable pieces than Kadri) into a guy like Pesce, then bringing in a guy for a couple years that can provide support while you do that, and keeping the core you've already built, goes way farther than jumping at the very first trade that can improve your area of need.

oho you betcha bottom dollar it is. but it doesn't even have to be a move like this - it's a move period. like anytime there's a trade to get good pieces.

people around these parts generally don't want to spend money on UFA day because it will cost way too much money even if it is on quality ufa (potentials) like Stamkos or something

people never wanna trade any piece no matter what time period is, because of the following reasons
1: because they are "untouchable"
2: because "we don't know what they are yet."
3: because "they are 'insert reason why we possibly can't trade them yet' like heart, or passion etc
4: because "I just have this feeling we'll regret it."

then they have a small group of people who is a-okay to trade. these are generally the players we're supposed to not like and they 'suck' so of course it's fine if we trade'em. (so I am gonna be really surprised who next year's lot is gonna be when Bozak, JVR, etc are gone) or we can do "without them." people are now trying to decide if that's Brown, Hyman or both.

there is always a reason why we can't improve the team using trades as an option. it doesn't have to be Pesce, it could be anyone, but people will then go oh it's overrated, we'll just draft'em, oh it's on the marlies, and round and round and round we'll go. These same people will go "we can just use UFA." then be all like "nope! overrated too expensive, too"insert reason here"

i just personally feel, that believing that all the answers are on the marlies, is wrong. (or even drafting them). I've always believed that trading well and signing well is also part of building a good team. especially now that we've actually got smart management, that i think they could make a move to trade a quality player for a quality player back and make the adjustments to compensate for it. most people here don't. they'd rather not do anything, or just throw a ragtag offer together and hope it brings back a diamond.

I already responded to your Core point though in a previous post.
so again. ultimately. i'm fine with whatever. we don't have to make a trade, let's just hope we get lucky via draft and waiver wires and see what happens.

 

[IPS]

If Leafs sign Tavares, Kadri becomes even more unlikely to get traded. You need good contracts to be able afford JT91. Trading Kadri is the opposite of that.

Pesce is so overrated. You'd be able to get Hamilton for Nylander. If Carolina has 4 top pairing D like everyone says, they'd have the best D in the league and would be in the playoffs irregardless of their goaltenders because they'd get easy shots.

It's typical grass is greener on the other side mentality here on Leafs HFBoards.

Pesce is nothing special. He's honestly the Oduya to Slavin being Hjalmarrson.

 

[IBeL34f]

oho you betcha bottom dollar it is. but it doesn't even have to be a move like this - it's a move period. like anytime there's a trade to get good pieces.

people around these parts generally don't want to spend money on UFA day because it will cost way too much money even if it is on quality ufa (potentials) like Stamkos or something

people never wanna trade any piece no matter what time period is, because of the following reasons
1: because they are "untouchable"
2: because "we don't know what they are yet."
3: because "they are 'insert reason why we possibly can't trade them yet' like heart, or passion etc
4: because "I just have this feeling we'll regret it."

then they have a small group of people who is a-okay to trade. these are generally the players we're supposed to not like and they 'suck' so of course it's fine if we trade'em. (so I am gonna be really surprised who next year's lot is gonna be when Bozak, JVR, etc are gone) or we can do "without them." people are now trying to decide if that's Brown, Hyman or both.

there is always a reason why we can't improve the team using trades as an option. it doesn't have to be Pesce, it could be anyone, but people will then go oh it's overrated, we'll just draft'em, oh it's on the marlies, and round and round and round we'll go. These same people will go "we can just use UFA." then be all like "nope! overrated too expensive, too"insert reason here"

i just personally feel, that believing that all the answers are on the marlies, is wrong. (or even drafting them). I've always believed that trading well and signing well is also part of building a good team. especially now that we've actually got smart management, that i think they could make a move to trade a quality player for a quality player back and make the adjustments to compensate for it. most people here don't. they'd rather not do anything, or just throw a ragtag offer together and hope it brings back a diamond.

I already responded to your Core point though in a previous post.
so again. ultimately. i'm fine with whatever. we don't have to make a trade, let's just hope we get lucky via draft and waiver wires and see what happens.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Daisy Jane]

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

 

[Fogelhund]

(i give zero craps about the RHD/LHD stuff.

But... it's important to the Leafs, and Babcock... so you might as well get used to it, and consider it when chatting about trades, draft picks, Free Agents... It's the way that this team will be built.

 

[Daisy Jane]

But... it's important to the Leafs, and Babcock... so you might as well get used to it, and consider it when chatting about trades, draft picks, Free Agents... It's the way that this team will be built.

honestly though i thin it's a preference. like if the Leafs had a choice to get the 2nd coming of Pronger and he was left handed, and a right handed defenseman, I'd hope they'd go for the Pronger.

 

[Fogelhund]

honestly though i thin it's a preference. like if the Leafs had a choice to get the 2nd coming of Pronger and he was left handed, and a right handed defenseman, I'd hope they'd go for the Pronger.

They would take Pronger, and then move a LHD......