Does this team lack secondary scoring?

[Bourne Endeavor]

Try all last season when they played together. It just doesnt work like the days when they were checkers and not offense.

Kesler barely played, let alone with Burrows, who himself was underperforming all season. Not the best comparison to justify writing them off.

And for reference sake. The only parallel between Cammalleri and Roy is their size. Cammalleri is a notably better player otherwise.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Ballard trade didn't gut anything though. We lost a chance at a late 1st. Big whoop. Grabner was as good as gone. Yeah it would have been nice to add a Justin Faulk, Tyler Toffoli or a Charlie Coyle, but at the time Ballard was a highly sought after legit top 4 defensman under team control for a few years at 27 years old (generally regarded as entering the prime age for defensman).

I agree with you. The only one that really, really chaps my ass is the Roy deal. Everyone and their dog knew last years team wasn't a Derek Roy away from winning the cup....why even make the deal? Not a big fan of K-Conn, so that loss wasn't that bad...but look what San Jose did, they sold high and bought low....I though we should have done the same.

I'm a big prospect fan, so looking at the players we could have had with that 2nd, knowing we weren't a Roy away from anything just upsets me...same as the two players selected with the 4th's for Pahlsson.

I don't really blame Gillis for the Roy trade, he said himself he wasn't sure if Kesler would be healthy for the playoffs, so he was desperate to add a centre.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm more annoyed that we let him walk. He signed for just 4m, if we had been willing to cut Booth loose we could have fit him in and had change to spare.

 

[dave babych returns]

I don't agree with that list. There are only two that threaten the depth

* 2nd for Roy. Pick for a rental.
* Pahlsson for a 4th. Pick for a rental. It's a 4th, meh.
* Ballard fail train.

As for the rest, I'd consider them decent use of picks because we got extended us out of them

Agreed with this.

Almost all of those trades were good moves that you make 10 times out of 10 when you're a contending team. Even the Ballard deal made sense if Ballard's career didn't go unexpectedly into the toilet - the bigger problem with that move was not cutting our losses after the first year.

Yeah guys my point isn't that every deal is listed is a poor use of those picks.

My point is simply that it's not a use of those picks to restock the proverbial cupboards. We didn't use those picks to select prospects, some of which would have turned into players.

I'd still make the Higgins trade, I'd still make the Lapierre trade, I still defend the Ballard deal within its proper context every time it comes up.

None of those deals handcuffed the organization on its own, but each took a pick or two out of our hands. It adds up.

My only agenda in here is to disagree with the whole "look, these teams traded a high end young NHLer and a high draft pick for a first liner so we should too" rationale. It does not fit with this team's stated goals and current trajectory - perhaps not with its cap situation either.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Yeah guys my point isn't that every deal is listed is a poor use of those picks.

My point is simply that it's not a use of those picks to restock the proverbial cupboards. We didn't use those picks to select prospects, some of which would have turned into players.

I'd still make the Higgins trade, I'd still make the Lapierre trade, I still defend the Ballard deal within its proper context every time it comes up.

None of those deals handcuffed the organization on its own, but each took a pick or two out of our hands. It adds up.

My only agenda in here is to disagree with the whole "look, these teams traded a high end young NHLer and a high draft pick for a first liner so we should too" rationale. It does not fit with this team's stated goals and current trajectory - perhaps not with its cap situation either.

Yes, agreed. I too disagree with "this team traded X prospects for Y NHL talent so we should too" thought process. Team goals and trajectory will affect such a plan of course. What's more, we already have Gillis saying he will focus on younger players. Somehow, I don't think he's going to switch gears and start trading for established veterans mid-stream.

The generally poor picks from 2005-2008, and the dearth of picks from 2008 to now, have contributed to a weaker pipeline. This didn't matter so much when the team was winning, but now that the team has taken a few steps back, I would hope the GM is pretty cautious with what remains. And also more conservative with his picks from here on out. The team is somewhat dictating that approach.

 

[canuck4life16]

well since now Booth is healthy and ready to go......we gain a free top 6 forward who can provide that secondary scoring

 

[PG Canuck]

Is the title even a real question?

 

[King of the ES*]

well since now Booth is healthy and ready to go......we gain a free top 6 forward who can provide that secondary scoring

We don't "gain" anything. Booth's been a part of the team since 2011, and he hasn't exactly been providing secondary scoring during that time, with 17 goals, 33 points in 73 games played.

 

[Betamax*]

We don't "gain" anything. Booth's been a part of the team since 2011, and he hasn't exactly been providing secondary scoring during that time, with 17 goals, 33 points in 73 games played.

Booth owes it to God, his family and the fans to come back this season in #beastmode.

If you pro-rate those numbers, even a non #beastmode Booth is around a 20 goal scorer over the course of an 82 game season which is better than not having that in the line-up.

 

[John Cenaaaaa]

Booth better get healthy and produce CONSISTENTLY this year.