@MNBassman you wanted someone to post a thread with that trade so yeah

As much as the Backes contract makes me cringe, I think I would do this. His contract would expire right about the right time for this team to take off (assuming Kaprizov is as advertised).

Bruins decline easily. But thanks anyway.

I'd probably do this as Boston. This means a pretty hard 2-year window, but it makes sense with age curves and what not

They might very well decline, but no way would the decision be an easy one!

Does not solve the problem spots on the roster. Adds to the cap when signing all the RFAs and UFAs over the next 2 years is already rough. Only real benefit is dumping Backes, that can be done in other ways while actually improving the team with other deals. No thanks.

Yes, it is. Not trading a career of Carlo and Frederic and 2 early picks for 2 guys that will be moved this time next year and Zucker.

They would not trade Carlo for Landeskog last offseaon. Would not include him in deal for Panarin this offseason. Not moving him for this. Does not fix their problems. Only real incentive is dumping Backes. There are better ways.

You realize this is a circle argument though? Also, that was for a Landeskog that was due some regression. They would probably trade Carlo for him now, and he is basically the same player with only him and Mackinnon shooting better. Overevaluating Carlo is part of a market inefficiency in believing that just because a young defenseman plays means that he is good.



Carlo is part of that group, so that money is off the books too. Also yes it does? You improve RHD, you get a cheap 3C, and you get a very good 2nd line winger. This is a homerun the more I think about it.
As always with prospects you're buying a pig in a poke. Roster players should more or less always have a higher value, and bar Coyle you get a 1st line winger and a 1st pairing defenseman. That's insane.

Lol, no it does not. They need a top 6 RW. None there. Zucker replaces Cehlarik. Upgrade...sure. Need...no. Spurgeon - Carlo. 2 different type of D men. Upgrade. Sure. Sort of. Need.... No. Coyle better suited for wing. Not overly productive. Just a younger version of what Backes is now. He and Spurgeon both would be in their UFA year next year and highly unlikely to be able to re-sign both. It’s an incredibly short sighted move. Still 3rd best team in the division after the move. Still have holes to fill with no means to fill them now. It’s a bad move.

I'd say that team is at least 50/50 vs leafs and underdogs (as any team is) vs tampa. Thing about Cehlarik is that he's been up before, he's scored in stretches, and then we remember why he doesn't manage to stay in the NHL lineup. I personally think he's fine, but if he can play 3rd liner for two years, or some combination of him/Heinen/JFK with Coyle I think they're all better off. Zucker could play 1st line with Marchand on RW, and 2nd could be 74-46-88. I think Spurgeon is a massive upgrade on Carlo and is much better defensively too.

Does this come with flaws? Sure, but so does keeping the roster and it's honestly a bunch of zero-risk perception bias. Worst case you still get Zucker and can ship Spurgeon/Coyle next year to regain some of the value. Even if they leave on a free you can sign other FA's or make other moves with that cap space.

I’ve seen enough of square peg round hole solutions. I’d rather fix the problem rather than polish a turd.

Well we have very different philosophies when it comes to team building then. My perception is that more talent wins out, and if you have 8 really good square pegs, you don't really need to worry about the round holes

In the NBA or NFL sure. Most talented will almost always win. Does not work that way in NHL or MLB as much. Helps certainly.

Pittsburgh just won twice with one of the worst d-corps in the league