Proposal: Drysdale trade

[Emerald Duck]

I wasn't comparing Drysdale to the guys I mentioned, except for their size. Because you said anyone of his size couldn't be a top pairing guy. First it was size, now it's if they won the Norris. So you can't be a top pairing Dman at Drysdale's size unless you've won a Norris?

No my point was that I wasn't discrimating against "small" dmen. Some smaller guys have made it with success. Drysdale "doesn't have the physical size or strength to shut down guys or clear the crease.", which in mind is a pre-requisite for a prototypical top pairing dman. Just because a few other small dman have achieved success at the NHL level doesn't mean that Drysdale will automatically achieve the same. Different situations, different defensive schemes, different partners can all factor into it.

I don't watch Makar on a nightly basis. I rarely have seen Fox play. Other people obviously do watch them which is why they have received league wide awards.

I am still open to the idea of trading Drysdale if a coveted prospect presents himself during the draft.

 

[Mr Rogers]

It has nothing to do with size for me. the question about Drysdale is does he have the offensive instincts to really be impactful away from the D zone. i'm actually way less worried about him defensively long-term than offensively ironically.

 

[Mr Rogers]

Wasn't Scotty a late bloomer offensively ? His 3 best years came on Anaheim.

I think it was more a function of the systems he was playing in New Jersey. you could still tell he had a ton of offensive skill and even more creativity.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I think this whole discussion is based on comments that it's hard for an undersized d man to be a number 1, not that they can't be.

It wasn’t even that, it was that a true #1 type has to be one of your better defensive guys and that Drysdale lacks a lot of the physical tools to probably be that. I don’t think that’s remotely controversial no matter the exceptions that get listed.

 

[DavidBL]

It wasn’t even that, it was that a true #1 type has to be one of your better defensive guys and that Drysdale lacks a lot of the physical tools to probably be that. I don’t think that’s remotely controversial no matter the exceptions that get listed.

Thats fair, but it doesn't mean we should trade him. Even if he doesn't end up a #1.

 

[AngelDuck]

I think a better, more explosive Spurgeon is a fair expectation for him. That’s an obvious top pairing player and probably a true #1 even.

I’m very very high on him though