I've read the thread. If you disagree with me that's ok. It's my opinion if MPR doesn't start it's a bad trade. The Blues are in all in mode. If your intention in the off-season as a franchise (which it was) is to trade David Perron that's fine. But you have to get fair value. A bench player is not fair value at this moment in time.
That's my opinion. You shouldn't name call if you disagree with me.
To be fair, he said your opinion is crazy, not that you are crazy. The most rational people I've known still say crazy things from time to time. That's how being a human works.
The evaluation of the trade is not that simple. Schwartz and Tarasenko are set to inherit Perron's icetime and they spent his salary shoring up their depth. They also got a 2nd rounder, which could be a valuable piece in making a deadline deal.
They very well may have lost that trade, and badly, but choosing opening night as your point of judgment is shortsighted. I have very little doubt they'll make the playoffs without Perron, so having him or not having him between now and then is not a big deal. It's how the Blues are prepared between now and then that matters. If guys like Morrow, Paajarvi, and Lapierre perform as depth and if guys like Schwartz do well with increased minutes, those are dividends of the trade that I cannot ignore and I think anyone else has to deliberately ignore.
Because the Blues
are all in, why evaluate movement until the time when that matters? If Paajarvi is the only element you want to focus on, no matter how much that is contrary to reality, at least let the coaches work with Paajarvi and see what he becomes. He'll improve, they'll have injuries, he'll get a chance. If you can judge Armstrong's trade as bad right this second, why can't you judge Hitchcock's choice not to start Paajarvi as bad right this second? In that case, it's a good trade, he's just being misused! You can go around in circles with that one for a long time...