Vegas say no, Avs would be foolish to trade the OTT pick like that. Darling is unnecessary. Russell....meh,plus not even in the team.

It's not really trading the Ottawa pick as much as moving down two spots and picking up an extra second rounder. Honestly if Turcotte's off the board might make sense, seems like most of the other forwards are in a similar group.

That's a pretty steep price for an emergency goalie, just sign Pickard or someone.

Thank you. Exactly. Detroit covets Byram and the avs would be able to get a forward similar at 6 as they would 4. Makes sense

I agree with you, I was more interested in Drury though, & Darling would be a solid #3 tho

I understand your point but if Byram is still there you draft him, however much Detroit may or may not covet him, and by that point I'm guessing the trade would need to be a done deal. None of us truly knows how that works, whether they could have a 'just in case' set up. Why trade for Russell and not have him in the team or at least flip him somewhere for a pick? No need to buy him out even if he is only an average D now. As I said, Darling is also unnecessary. Plenty of budget goalies to fill that spot, some who may improve over time, who are younger or simply cheaper and could play a bit. I now see what you've done with the Vegas trade so I'll take back what I said on that one. It's a maybe.

My thing is the avs have expressed that they want to take a forward at 4. Turcotte to Chicago seems close to a lock currently. L.A & Detroit are both teams that would kill for a top D prospect, you can play them against each other, and in this case, move back 2 spots with Detroit and pick up the extra 2nd.
I can see your point on Russel, I personally think he’s a 3rd pairing guy max and Edmonton would likely love getting out of that contract. I think the idea of my initial trade is solid, you’re right though, he likely doesn’t NEED bought out & could be flipped for a pick if the avs retainer some. I just went the clean slate approach, which wasn’t necessary.
Similar idea with Darking, he’s a perfect #3 for Colorado, and I really like Jack Drury as a prospect, & I don’t think they could get a player as good as drury with the 3rd pick. Colorado can afford to pay for Darling.

I won't disagree on them affording it, I'd just prefer they used it better or kept it safe for the extensions to come. As for Darling, again I get where you're coming from, I just think using that time on a Parker Gahagen type goalie, for an example (elite prospects says retired but I think that's down to his army service as he was Colorado's EBUG last year, and was talking about still playing), would be a better route to take (alongside Werner), but I do get the 'being high' on a prospect you could take besides.

As for what player teams take at the draft, first round is usually best player available and Byram would be a smart pick as the Avs left hand side prospects are very weak bar Graves really. Obviously the question is would the Avs deem him so if he fell to #4. Knight would be my pick with the later first rounder to improve the goalie pool. As for forwards it doesn't make a great amount of sense with all the youngsters they have now. Could of course also be bluff, there is always some of that before/at the draft it seems or maybe that's just me seeing it that way. I do also get the whole extra second rounder too. Not saying it's all that bad. I just disagree on doing it for various reasons.