Like the addition of Hjalmarsson, dislike the addition of Franson, and hate the d-pairings. I’ve been through this like a billion times, but I don’t understand the logic behind the ARI trade. You’re moving Ritchie because you think he’s bad/a bust (you don’t move young, developing, cost-controlled, former 1st rounders otherwise), bad players/busts have bad value, but you’ve added him as the main piece in a deal for Hjalmarsson, a good player of good value. Doesn’t make any sense unless you think you’re the only one who can see that Ritchie is struggling, which is obviously not true. As a result, the ARI deal needs significantly more value. Ritchie would be just a throw in. Makes no sense to move him when he’s of such low value.

No one wants our high risk, struggling prospect for their good players, just as much as we don’t want their’s.

The d pairing are great, Franson is a huge upgrade on BIeksa as he can actually get zone exits, he isn't fast but he can handle the puck which makes up for it.
Franson's stay-at-home style and proficiency at that position (which Bieksa lacks) will allow Fowler to actually perform to the level he's able to, because he won't have to cover all the mistakes Bieksa makes.
Hjalmarsson has a similar effect with Montour, Hjalmarsson is an amazing stay-at-home dman on a good team (Arizona has made him look real bad) and has the experience to teach Montour how to defend well, while allowing him to push his offensive game.

Hjalmarsson was traded for a 6th dman and an AHL goalie as a 2nd pairing dman on Chicago. Now he's playing on the third pair in Arizona with little to know production, his trade value is at an all time low. Ritchie still has perceived value around the league and a team like Arizona is desperate to trade for a low risk high reward player like Ritchie. Anaheim needs someone to sure up their bottom pairings and Hjalmarsson does just that. I think these trades are good for everyone involved.

I agree whole heartedly on Hjalmarson. I think he frees up Fowler Personally as I see him as a second pairing D. Personally I think it’s time to move on from Ritchie. He has talent. It’s visible, scouts have seen it, but I think he has gotten stale here. I think a fresh start is exactly what he needs.

As for Franson... I don’t hate it. I’d rather persue a scoring winger than a mother D. I think Franson is an upgrade for us but I also think if you keep Beauch and Bieksa fresh and rotating with time off... you will see better play. Beauch isn’t what he was last time he was here... but I still think he can play bottom pair mins. Same with Bieksa. I know the fans love to hate on him, but realistically the guy has shown moments of respectability. I especially like them if we can give them time to stay fresh.

Overall I like the move for Hjalmarson but I think we need another forward. Especially if we move out Ritchie. I’m not a diehard member of the Kevin Roy fan club though.

You must have been watching a different Franson. The guy is slow and bad defensively. He’s not a stay-at-home D-man. In fact, this is part of the issue with him. He excels as an offensive D-man, but hasn’t got the wheels to jump in and out of the play and gets caught out of position a lot. He’s also incredibly weak along the boards, especially for a very big guy. Whilst I don’t like the addition, I don’t hate it either. Anything is better than Bieksa. However, I’d prefer bringing up Larsson or, at the very least, I’d have Franson on the 3rd pairing.

Like I said, I think the addition of Hjalmarsson is great. He’s been fine in ARI. All I’d change with him is I’d put him on his natural right side in our top 4 alongside Fowler. However, the value is just way off. Hjalmarsson may have been moved for little, but that’s probably because CHI could only send him to somewhere on his list (Hjalmarsson has a limited NTC) and they didn’t want him going to a competitor, so they took lower value to send him to ARI. He’s worth significantly more than what ARI paid for him. Everyone knows this. Moreover, his value isn’t at an all time low. He’s in the top 4 (not the 3rd pairing) and playing well alongside Chychrun. He’s never been a big points producer, so nothing has changed there. He’s been fine and is a highly desirable player that many teams will want and that ARI doesn’t have to move unless they want to (he still has term on his contract). Sorry to burst your bubble, but he’s going to command a decent package and that is only if ARI even want to move him.

I find it laughable that you think Ritchie has perceived value around the league. How exactly? Care to expand on that point? I mean, using my clearly inferior logical reasoning, I’m pretty sure the whole league will be suspicious of us moving a 22 year old former top 10 pick so early on in his career. So much so in fact, that they’ll probably give Ritchie a good scouting before going ahead with any trade and I’m sure they won’t be impressed enough to say he’s worth giving up Hjalmarsson for. But obviously I’m giving NHL scouts too much credit. It is you and only you who can see Ritichie is bad, but the NHL scouts will watch him and think he’s good, right? “Arizona is desperate to trade for a low risk high reward player like Ritchie”... hahahahaha... how is a guy you’re moving because you think he’s a bust = low risk? Seriously, your proposal is nonsensical and certainly not founded in logic.

I think giving up on 22 year old is ridiculous personally. It’s very much a short term (what have you done for me lately) attitude that I’ve never found to be a positive trait in hockey fans. Regardless, if you want to move Ritchie, you need a deal that makes sense for both. Struggling forward prospect for desirable, top 4, RH D-man doesn’t make sense. Struggling forward prospect for struggling forward prospect does make sense, which is why I would suggest a Ritchie for Domi trade.

Something like Ritchie + Welinski + Roy + 3rd for Domi + Hjalmarsson is a deal I can get behind and addresses both forward and defensive situation. But Ritchie + 3rd for Hjalmarsson makes zero sense.

Even a rested Bieksa is terrible. He’s makes too many mistakes that lead to golden scoring opportunities for the opposition. Just get him out the line-up period. Beauchemin is fine if on the 3rd pairing and rotated properly.

Ritchie still has potential to be a top 6, GMs love to deal for top draft picks, just look at the Gudbranson trade, any of the Deangelo trades, Crouse, etc., all players that were drafted early and weren't producing. GMs just think they can tap into that potential. Ritchie showed signs last season, and GMs may just toss his performance this year up with all the injuries for the Ducks. Teams like Arizona who are trying to get a quick boost to their rebuild in a 22 year old player would be very interested in Ritchie as he could blossom in a more expanded role.

Hjalmarsson's value is at an all time low, he's had the worst performance of his career this year with ATOI of 21 minutes, and the worst possession stats of his team (and his team sucks). His value is definitely at an all time low, regardless of what your "logical reasoning" claims.

Cody Franson has the best possession numbers on Chicago, that tells me he knows how to keep the puck in the oppositions end which is the best kind of defensemen.

Those examples of teams going after young players are terrible and nothing like Ritchie’s situation. Crouse and the first trade of DeAngelo were completed before either player had even played at single NHL game. Meanwhile, Ritchie’s played in 159 NHL games. Ritchie’s issues and his struggles to transition to the NHL (even though I think it’s the system RC is playing that is the problem) are apparent and for all to see. Conversely, Crouse and DeAngelo were complete unknowns at the NHL level and both had put up better junior numbers than in their draft years, so no reason assume they’d struggle in the NHL. The second time DeAngelo was moved was in a hockey trade for a 2nd line C and a back-up GT where the main piece was the 7th overall pick in the 2017 draft. DeAngelo was pretty much a throw in and of little value (which is exactly what I’m saying Ritchie would be). Hence, DeAngelo has spent most of this season in the AHL. The McCann deal was also a pure hockey trade and McCann was coming off a good first year. Most VAN fans were annoyed and angered by the deal. Only since his trade has McCann taken a nose dive. Conversely, Ritchie is bad now. We’d have had to have traded him last season for McCann to be a good comparison. Yeah, apart from the 2nd trade of DeAngelo, where he was pretty much a throw in as part of a much bigger deal, I’d say those are all bad comparisons. Ritchie isn’t a prospect looking to enter the NHL after putting up some excellent numbers at the junior level (i.e. Crouse and DeAngelo). He’s also not coming fresh off a strong first season (i.e. McCann). He’s an NHL player in his 2nd full year, struggling to produce and just looks bad. Its funny that you now say Ritchie has top 6 potential and are coming up with all these excuses as to why he’s played badly this season, but, at the same time, believe he’s a bust that has to be moved. Nice sales pitch, but professional teams aren’t that gullible. A lot of what you are saying just seems like pure fantasy and wishful thinking. Maybe ARI will think this, maybe ARI will think that (even though you don’t believe any of what you’re saying, you’re just hoping). I mean, why would ARI think that Ritchie will “blossom” into an “expanded role” when you don’t? Are they just too stupid to see that Ritchie is struggling?

Averaging 21 mins a game is like 30 seconds less than Hjalmarsson played in CHI and is good amount of TOI for a top 4 D-man. He’s also been injured this season (missing quite few games) and so would have gotten slightly reduced minutes as he slowly caught up to game speed. He’s 4th in EV TOI and 1st in SH TOI for ARI. His TOI is no indication that he’s been bad or is playing bad and, given that you told me he was on the 3rd pairing 1 post ago, I’m going to take your assessment of his TOI stats with a grain of salt. I will also be doing the same for your assessment of his possession stats. I don’t really care for corsi scores. It’s a stat that is relied on too much by people too lazy to watch a player actually play. I prefer to judge a players defensive abilities with my eyes. Moreover, I’ve never really understood how you get an individual number for a stat that involves the entire team? I mean, do you really think it’s just a coincidence that Hjalmarsson possession stats have dropped since he moved from a good possession team to a bad one? The same goes for Franson. I bet you haven’t even looked at usage too. I haven’t looked it up, but I’m sure that Hjalmarsson is getting mostly defensive zone starts and Franson is getting mostly offensive zone starts.

Edit: I just checked, Hjalmarsson is 3rd amongst ARI D-men for D-zone starts at 56.1%. The 1st guy is Schenm at 58.4%.
Conversely, Franson is last amongst CHI D-men in D-zone starts at 34.2% (2nd from last only to Kane in the whole team) and 1st amongst CHI D-men for O-zone starts at 65.8%!!! Yeah, it’s a lot easier to keep the puck in the oppositions zone when you start with the puck in their zone... lol. This is just one example of why judging a player’s defensive ability based on a number is pointless. Try watching them play next time or, at the very least, try to understand the stat you’re using to judge them by (and it’s limitations).