Contenders in 2 years. multi[proposal]

[flickyoursedin]

Love the attempts but the only trades I see the other teams doing are deals 4 and 5

[khay]

13 hours ago, kloubek said:

I am not claiming #1 is likely.  I agree they want to build around Nylander and such has already been said.  I was thinking if it helped them avoid having to give him a raise (which is going to be a challenge against the cap) it might encourage them to hand him over.

#2: Of course you are right - he is a rental.  But their time to win is right now and with Vanek having a decent season they get closer to that goal.  I honestly have no idea what Honka is capable of.  If he is as much a failure as he has shown so far then I wouldn't even want to make the trade.

 

#3: The idea with Edler is that they get a guy who is a settling force while their plethora of young defencemen develop.  I do agree with the strong value in Provorov though, and that would make it hard to give him up.  Perhaps we would be better to pluck one of the other defensemen at a cheaper price.

I disagree about Nylander though.  Assuming his slowdown right now is an anomaly, I think he is exactly what we need to play with the other Swedes.  With that said, I can 100% see your perspective that we need a strong, bullish player to help out.  Let's face it - that line is hardly oversized.  Mind you, they said the Sedins weren't give enough either and who did we give them - Burrows. And that was back when physical play WAS needed.  In today's skill game, I feel the kind of player you are looking for might not be required.  But since you believe it is, may I assume you are in the Kane bandwagon?  

Demko: Absolutely true.  I feel we have gotten good goaltending with what we have, but an elite goalie is always hugely helpful when making a cup run.  His development is important in any scenario.

Stecher, Tanev, Pouliot and Juolevi aren't enough?  Nope.  They aren't.  Which is why I tried to put the main focus here on a couple of high potential blueliners.  Even if Juolevi hits, we still need 1 more pmd imo.  I love Stecher but he's never going to be a #1 d, and while Pouliot shows promise he's likely a 2nd pairing at best.  So we're on the same page there.

Sedins with Burrows got us there (there meaning the playoffs, but didn't get us the cup). I think with Nylander and that top 6, we will get there basically almost every year barring injuries. But with the rules changing in the playoffs (let's not pretend that they don't change the rules), we need a bullish player on top 6. 

 

As for Kane, if he comes at 6 mil or below, then yes, I am on Kane bandwagon. But my guess is that he will ask for 7+. I haven't given up on Jake Virtanen yet. I think he can still become a serviceable top 6. Not a driver but an important contributor of a scoring line, like Burr.

 

The forwards I think we have high caliber talent as well as very good depth options the pipeline to ice a playoff team. And goalie, we have two promising prospects in Demko and DiPietro. My concern is the defence. We need to draft a top 2 D to have any chance of winning a cup in the next era.

 

Juolevi will be a top 2D or a top 3D and he can run PP fine.

Tanev is a top 3D.

Stcher is a top 4D. 

Pouliot will be a top 4D.

Gudbranson is a top 4D with toughness (assuming we keep him, we need his presence at the back end).

 

But the above is not enough. Unless we get extremely lucky and pick Dahlin, I don't see how we add a top 2D. Perhaps you had the right idea when you wanted us to get Provorov. But we would have to give up a young player with equivalent value to get him and the only players that are similar in value are Boeser and Pettersson. These two are not tradeable.

 

 

 

[kloubek]

I agree with much of what you say Khay - although I would suggest your assessments of Pouliot and Gudbranson are about 1 spot too *high* in my opinion - both of which are highly subjective.  I would say that Tanev is a perfect complimentary #2 defenseman though rather than a #3.  Pair him with a guy who is highly offensively skilled and takes chances, and he will do a ton to cover that guy's butt.

 

I am also not as high on Kane for reasons outlined in the Pettersson thread, though I do agree that some toughness on our top line would be ideal - especially if we did indeed have 2/3 of the players the aforementioned Swedes.

Overall guys, I think the assessment of what we need is pretty much dead-on in my original post.  Possibly 1 more high-end forward and one or possibly two high-end defensemen. I tried to get us there with what assets we have and don't think the values are off quite as much as many of you seem to think, but if you consider that we also have some other strong forward prospects in Lind, Gadjovich (who was an extra but will likely be a serviceable nhler in a year or two) I think we have the assets to get us there in any case.