Should we trade for Puljujarvi?

[maplepred]

prefer to ge ta left shot hard to see where Smith could fit with the Edmonton right side pretty full but not a bad offer

Fair. What about Turris? He’s back to his 50 point form so if we moved Turris I think Oilers add. Not a ton but something.

 

[NoNecksCurse]

Fair. What about Turris? He’s back to his 50 point form so if we moved Turris I think Oilers add. Not a ton but something.

you want to give up smith or turris? that would never happen.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Smith or Turris or Granlund would be worth thinking about. Puljujarvi has "upside" "cheapness" "retainability" on his side. He might also just bust and do nothing. But right now, it's not like these 3 other guys are doing a great deal more than nothing. I know, we hope they will get it going. Or in Turris' case, he's playing fine, just in an auxiliary role due to our C depth. Neither Smith nor Granlund are really playing at a level where we'd entertain retaining them as impending-UFAs. So the question is going to be, are any of these guys actually contributing enough right now, valuable enough in a hypothetical contending season, that we would choose them over the potential envisioned in Puljujarvi.

I don't think the answer is necessarily known today. IF it was just based on today's results, then no, none of those guys is really making any difference to us. But it's still relatively early. I think we need to wait it out a little bit longer.

 

[Legionnaire11]

The only player i'd trade for Puljujarvi today is Salomaki. Otherwise it's a MASSIVE risk that you trade a useful (even in some limited capacity) roster player and end up with nothing. It's just a really dumb trade that no GM is going to make.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

The only player i'd trade for Puljujarvi today is Salomaki. Otherwise it's a MASSIVE risk that you trade a useful (even in some limited capacity) roster player and end up with nothing. It's just a really dumb trade that no GM is going to make.

I bet Fenton would make it.

I'd make it if we were out of the playoffs, though, if we're essentially sellers at the trade deadline. I'd also have somebody on my scouting staff taking a look a Puljujarvi just as a matter of due diligence. I don't think the risk can be considered "MASSIVE"... there is risk... but that's a young player who has serious prospect credentials and is known to be on the market. If you're in a seller's spot and you are looking to get futures, there are no guarantees in anything you're going to get at the deadline. Puljujarvi is legitimately worth looking at, in that context.

 

[Predsanddead24]

I dont see Puljujarvi as much different from Yakupov when he was traded at this point. Each were 4 years post draft and despite once being top prospects they have failed to make any impact at the NHL level. Yakupov got a mid tier prospect and a conditional third. I'd do about the same for Puljujaarvi as for Yakupov, but no way a roster player unless we were moving someone as a rental which I hope is incredibly unlikely.

 

[JustaFinnishGuy]

I've seen him play first hand for the whole fall season and he's easily the best player on Kärpät. He's driving play on his own most of the time.
I still don't consider getting him as a huge plus outside of personal bias. He's most likely going back to the Oilers after the season, methinks. They'll talk him back into the locker room and see if it works out again.
I wouldn't categorize getting him as a grand risk though. I would if he wasn't improving at any facet of the game so far in Finland. He's creating chances. He's hitting the body. He's not the best puck handler though. His passes have been on tape most of the time. Hard and precise.
But we don't have a spot for him in our roster. Not for him to develop.

And you don't trade for Puljujärvi with Granlund. He's a season removed from a 69 point season.
He should figure it out with us eventually.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

At the very least, we aren't in the market relative to the December 1st deadline, anyway. If there are suitors for him now, they would be from amongst the teams that are consciously rebuilding. If he gets past that first deadline, then who knows what things will look like come February. Edmonton's spot in the standings is the first gate at that time. Maybe they will be buyers, maybe they will have fallen back. If they're out of it, no real reason for them to move him anymore.

 

[Persona5]

My personal opinion is any trade made right now should be to improve our D. I wouldn't take a big risk on a forward like this right now. Especially is it involves moving one of our proven forwards in the process to do it. If we are talking draft picks only I may consider it. Otherwise nope.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

I have zero interest in trading for Puljujarvi.

 

[maplepred]

you want to give up smith or turris? that would never happen.

Yeah we sure would miss Craig smith’s one goal and 5 total points this season. He also likely walks as a free agent at season end. Would be awful to get a 21 year old guy that had enormous potential and was considered an elite prospect just a couple years ago.

That’s worth the chance to me, could not turn out but regardless Smith is gone 99% chance this offseason.

 

[maplepred]

My personal opinion is any trade made right now should be to improve our D. I wouldn't take a big risk on a forward like this right now. Especially is it involves moving one of our proven forwards in the process to do it. If we are talking draft picks only I may consider it. Otherwise nope.

Definitely agree we need to improve our bottom defense pair... although Irwin has been decent lately. Still need a guy I believe.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Definitely agree we need to improve our bottom defense pair... although Irwin has been decent lately. Still need a guy I believe.

I am terrified of jinxing anything here, but... the main worry I have is an injury to one of the Big Three. We scrape by with our bottom pairing, and it has been a relative weakness for several years and could stand to be improved for sure, but where it will really hurt us big time is if one of the top guys goes down for any significant duration.

Poile probably has to conserve his trade assets against such eventualities. For now. In case we end up needing to trade a departing forward for a D.

 

[Armourboy]

Poile isn't going to trade Smith or Turris for him, this is the kind of guy where you swap a couple of guys around that both need a change of scenery at years end.

 

[nine_inch_fang]

I'm really glad you people aren't the GM...

 

[Soundgarden]

Poile isn't going to trade Smith or Turris for him, this is the kind of guy where you swap a couple of guys around that both need a change of scenery at years end.

Yeah, someone like Fiala would have made a lot of sense.

 

[herzausstein]

I’d give them smith or granlund for puljujarvi. Let puljujarvi spend the rest of the season overseas and bring him back next season. Then go get toffoli to to replace smith/granlund for the season. Then sign whoever plays better and puljujarvi replaces the other one. Sets us up better for next season when we are destined to lose one of smith/granlund.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I’d give them smith or granlund for puljujarvi. Let puljujarvi spend the rest of the season overseas and bring him back next season. Then go get toffoli to to replace smith/granlund for the season. Then sign whoever plays better and puljujarvi replaces the other one. Sets us up better for next season when we are destined to lose one of smith/granlund.

It might set us up better for next season, but doesn't it "set us up worse" for this season? Which I don't think the team is willing to consider. THIS season should be as much a priority as anything. Toffoli and Puljujarvi for next season I'd agree is pretty good. Well, assuming we could retain Toffoli, even. What do we give up for that, Granlund, Smith, and Tolvanen? It might still be worthwhile, given we are de facto losing one of Granlund or Smith anyway. But that's next season. I just don't know that lining things up nicely for next season is more important than taking our best run at things this season.

But let's see how things progress. We're 15 games in. Only. Granlund and Smith have a lot of time left to improve their status in our eyes.

 

[Bringer of Jollity]

One more overhyped under-delivering Finnish forward and we complete the set.

 

[Scoresberg]

No. Just no. He's been good in Finland but no way we trade a roster player for him this season when we're trying to contend.

 

[maplepred]

I’d give them smith or granlund for puljujarvi. Let puljujarvi spend the rest of the season overseas and bring him back next season. Then go get toffoli to to replace smith/granlund for the season. Then sign whoever plays better and puljujarvi replaces the other one. Sets us up better for next season when we are destined to lose one of smith/granlund.

I like it.

Definitely not for granlund but for smith for sure. The guy gets all kinds of credit that I don’t understand. He’s “decent” if he has good linemates but I am sure we will not miss his one goal and four assists. Plus he almost certainly walks after season. Losing Smith right now does not really help or hurt our cup aspirations. Granlund I still think will turn it up a notch, he has proven he is super talented for many years in Minnesota.

Puljujarvi has loads of talent which is why he was drafted so high. He’s worth a shot.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Puljujarvi is worth a shot... in general... I do think he's still a good prospect and not just a Yakupov. Yakupov was more of a Fiala type. Puljujarvi can be a more complete hockey player than those guys.

Just... we're probably not the team in the best situation to take the shot. Trading Smith or Granlund for him flies in the face of our status as a contender. Maybe in the next 15 games they each get 10 points and it's Bonino and Turris who get 4. Maybe the 15 games after that it's Jarnkrok and Sissons who cool off on the scoresheet. Who knows. But it has been a strength for us overall that we have a deep forward group at last. We've been able to ride through an unproductive start from Smith and Granlund without batting an eye. And maybe they'll catch fire and help us ride through some other stretch of the season. They're both capable players and either one could step up when we need them most. That helps us contend.

Some other teams that are more in a clear building/rebuilding state are really the ones who should take the shot at Puljujarvi. Detroit or New Jersey or the Rangers or some team like that. Surely one of them has to step up and do it. We can't and shouldn't be competing with them on this one. Not unless circumstances change for us first, anyway.

Although if somehow Puljujarvi makes it through to the summer and still hasn't been traded, I'll start to dream up ways of trying to get him then.

 

[Armourboy]

I like it.

Definitely not for granlund but for smith for sure. The guy gets all kinds of credit that I don’t understand. He’s “decent” if he has good linemates but I am sure we will not miss his one goal and four assists. Plus he almost certainly walks after season. Losing Smith right now does not really help or hurt our cup aspirations. Granlund I still think will turn it up a notch, he has proven he is super talented for many years in Minnesota.

Puljujarvi has loads of talent which is why he was drafted so high. He’s worth a shot.

He gets all kind of credit because he generally gets 20-25 goals a season. David Poile is not going to trade a 20g+ roster player for a guy who can't even find a spot on a team that needed wingers so bad I probably could have gotten a contract and then ended up taking his ball and going back home.

If Edmonton was getting anywhere close to that type of player for him from GM's he would have been traded by now. He's the type of player they will end up trading a 4th and a B level prospect for, or another teams guy that hasn't worked out either. GM's contending for cups don't trade guys like Smith or Granlund for hopes and a prayer players because at the trade deadline they are just going to be trading again to try and get the same type of player back. It makes zero sense.

 

[GoldOnGold]

He gets all kind of credit because he generally gets 20-25 goals a season. David Poile is not going to trade a 20g+ roster player for a guy who can't even find a spot on a team that needed wingers so bad I probably could have gotten a contract and then ended up taking his ball and going back home.

If Edmonton was getting anywhere close to that type of player for him from GM's he would have been traded by now. He's the type of player they will end up trading a 4th and a B level prospect for, or another teams guy that hasn't worked out either. GM's contending for cups don't trade guys like Smith or Granlund for hopes and a prayer players because at the trade deadline they are just going to be trading again to try and get the same type of player back. It makes zero sense.

High pedigree prospects that seem to be busting or have some sort of issue never cost as much as people predict.

I seem to recall predictions that Yakupov would fetch a hefty price but it ended up being an ECHL player and a conditional 3rd. And Yakupov's worst year in the NHL was better than Puljujarvi's best.

Heck, look at Ingram, who we got for a 7th round pick.

 

[Armourboy]

High pedigree prospects that seem to be busting or have some sort of issue never cost as much as people predict.

I seem to recall predictions that Yakupov would fetch a hefty price but it ended up being an ECHL player and a conditional 3rd. And Yakupov's worst year in the NHL was better than Puljujarvi's best.

Heck, look at Ingram, who we got for a 7th round pick.

Oh around here everyone is always worth way more than they ever actually go for. Occasionally you get guys that bring close to what they should, but usually those are guys that are proven to put up numbers like you saw with Stone and Duchene at the trade deadline last season. It's the reason a guy like Smith hasn't been traded sooner, he's worth more to us than whatever we would be getting back most of the time.