I let this go earlier, but... A straw man is a misrepresentation of a persons argument to make it easier to attack. Saying a realistic scienario could happen and that is why you prepare for the future to prepare against that scienario is not a strawman. A strawman would be if I said that you wanted to get rid of Sgarbossa, so why not get rid of all top prospects to improve the defense here and now. Then point out the flaws in that thinking. Big difference between the two.
I don't see any strawman arguments in this thread, just debate and obviously different viewpoints.
I will say Klesla has only played 65 games once since 2008. In that span he had seasons of 34 and 26 games. He is more of a lock to miss 40 games than he is 15. While Mez has played two seasons of 81 games in that same span. He has had a year and a half of just crap luck. I think he rebounds, but that is only a feeling on my part (and looking that only the shoulder was a somewhat recurring injury).
It is just a debate among different viewpoints, that's how I see it. We disagree.
You suggested by trading Sgarbossa and letting go of Stastny somehow they would be left with one of two options, including two different types of lineups. You didn't account for a possible return on Stastny, the possible re-signing of Downie and Klesla, and you included the idea that they had to sign an over paid UFA.
You created a fallacy scenario in which I had to say which lineup you listed was better, and that trading Sgarbossa (i.e. my argument) resulted in having to pick from one of two options, that included a roster with no replacements, or signing an over paid UFA. These are not their only options, and it is a fallacy to suggest any UFA they sign will be over paid.
It's not that big a deal, I don't think you intentionally misrepresented the situation, that's just how you decided to phrase that particular post.
What I feel should be pointed out though is that you're not concerned about the effect of losing Sgarbossa for a defenseman like Kulikov. They would fall into the same situation you're afraid of with their forwards in that scenario.
If it's an issue of you don't think Klesla is a trade they should make, that's just your opinion. But the main point I'm arguing is the idea that losing Sgarbossa, or using him in a trade for a D that may only be here one year will be that risky in terms of their forward depth.
The reason why I'm making that argument is because that's what makes the trade make sense in my eyes. Klesla's not a perfect option, and he's a risk to stay longer than a year. But they can afford to take that risk, and they NEED a defenseman to play a role he's capable of.
