LOL at the bolded. Asinine opening line. As for the italics, he makes 5.25M and is one of the top producing defenseman in the league. I'm failing to see how that point makes the signs point to this feeling that he needs to be traded.
Every player is available for the right price. I think it's funny you look at that statement and seem to ignore the end. "It's very difficult to replace a 60-point guy.
He's grown with our organization. He's grown into a leadership role on and off the ice. He's a big part of our success. I'd say it's unlikely." This doesn't sound like someone who they want to move on from. But you're looking into the line that says, "I'm not actively shopping Torey" and going off that?
Yeah, Bergeron would looked pretty awesome on the 3rd line too if it was possible. Unfortunately, super teams are not possible anymore with the cap. Teams play guys in spots they probably don't belong all the time. I would love Krug as a 3rd pairing defenseman. That would mean our left side is absolutely stacked. To have two better top 4 options than he is? Sign me up... Well, that's not how it works. Krug is a top 4 defenseman now because he is elite in a specific category; offense. You can have top 4 defenseman who specialize in a certain zone. There are shutdown defenseman who don't bring much in the way of offense. You can have top 4 defenseman who bring a lot of offense but struggle in their own end. Just curious....If the Bruins had a Shattenkirk, would you be saying that he belongs on a 3rd pairing?
Well at least you made one good point. I don't think there is anyone that would disagree with this. If Krug is dealt, it should be because they're adding a better all around defenseman or someone who is a top 4 defenseman and can grow into that role. Problem is that they are not easy to come by.
I make that trade because the upside with Hanifin is great but lets not act like he's world's better than Krug is in his own end. He's very much an offensive defenseman, worse than Krug, who struggles in his end. He's just bigger. However, the second part of this point contradicts what you just said above. You wouldn't want to trade Krug to give his spot to some raw rookie. Yet, you'd trade him for #10, which would be doing exactly what you don't want to do? Like whaaaaaa?
What happens to krug in this scenario? Please don't suggest Krug for Edler. I'd like to keep my lunch down today...It was delicious the first time, but I don't think it'd be delicious coming back up. Curious to see how we arrived at the below pairing; mainly Edler in Krug out. Also, Vaakanainen......You missed a few letters, to say the least there
.. Just some advice, if you're unsure about how to spell a player's name or a prospect, it takes 10 seconds to load google and search.
Thankfully, you are not. That's a serious downgrade going from a 5/6/7 core of Miller/McQuaid/Grzelcyk to (one of) Miller/McQuaid-Grzelcyk/Schenn. He sucks. I'd rather just keep McQuaid/Miller at that point. At least you have a serviceable defenseman to step in. What's the point of signing a slug like Schenn if you're just going to recall a rookie every time?
Failing to see how Edler in and Krug out makes us a better team. Obviously I touched on how bad Schenn is so adding him while subtracting Miller (in this situation) is no bueno.
