Like I said; I’m open minded. You can make a case for the other guys as well. It’s just that I feel there’s a dearth of playmaking in the bottom 9 and I’ve often wondered if this was the source of some of the inconsistency.
A heavier game is played in the playoffs but I go back and forth on that. Maybe it’s better to diversify or maybe it’s better to stay true to identity and maintain a purity of vision? I’m not sure which is better.
I wouldnt' be disappoined at all if we got Granlund, as he gives us options with the lines. I just think he'd be a bit overkill in the role we'd have for him.
Then again, if you add him and put him on the wing on th 2nd line to feed passes to Burakovsky and Kadri you can drop Saad to the 3rd line, and theoretically he should be able to replicate what Nichuskin does enough for that line to continue working. Then you get Nichuskin on the 4th line which is just a pure luxury.
Landeskog --- Mackinnon --- Rantanen
Granlund ------- Kadri --------- Burakovsky
Saad -------------- Jost ---------- Donskoi
Nichuskin ----- Bellemare ---- Compher/Calvert/O'Connor
The 3rd line has been pretty amazing lately, but the 2nd line has been ice-cold, so perhaps adding a playmaker on the bottom 6 and upgrading your bottom 6 by extension wouldn't be a bad idea. Moreover, Granlund provides insurance at C in case you have an injury.
That said, Nashville are in a playoff spot, so it's no a given that they'd want to move him.
