Not sure the B's can solve their long-term needs at LD and C at the deadline, but I would be content to fill other existing short-term gaps in the lineup. Braun has been linked to the B's a few times, as has Garland and Bissonnette specifically said the Bruins were looking at Garland on TNT last night. I like the Garland fit much more than DeBrusk, but because the two are so similar I think a swap would offset much of the cost:
Braun is a huge upgrade to Clifton at RD3 and helps to balance out the pairs and adds another experience, defensively sound option. The left side remains an issue, but Forbort-Braun can now play more minutes and take some pressure off the top four. Clifton, Vaakanainen, Ahcan and Moore provide solid depth.
Just threw in Blackwell because may as well maximize the roster and cap space. I actually like his game and there is a lack of experience in the depth ranks in case of injury. Blidh, Studnicka, Steen, and Froden are all fine depth options, but might not be ready to be thrown into a top-nine role in the postseason. Plus, Blackwell's a local guy. Hard to gauge his value, hasn't been much talk about him and he's only played in 38 games in a bottom-six role.
What about helping your salary cap? These two are far too similar statistically to just say "decline easily".
All we have as a reference is your predicted cap value. Debrusk's QO is not much lower than Garland's current value, and Garland is the better all round player. Not to mention our clogged LW pool. Unless we were guaranteed to have a discount in his cap hit (which we aren't), then there's no cap savings and our team takes a value loss and a positional loss.
What about helping your salary cap? These two are far too similar statistically to just say "decline easily".
Quoting: Wqrrior
All we have as a reference is your predicted cap value. Debrusk's QO is not much lower than Garland's current value, and Garland is the better all round player. Not to mention our clogged LW pool. Unless we were guaranteed to have a discount in his cap hit (which we aren't), then there's no cap savings and our team takes a value loss and a positional loss.
This is why I said I don't think the Canucks do the trade without a 1st going back to them.
All we have as a reference is your predicted cap value. Debrusk's QO is not much lower than Garland's current value, and Garland is the better all round player. Not to mention our clogged LW pool. Unless we were guaranteed to have a discount in his cap hit (which we aren't), then there's no cap savings and our team takes a value loss and a positional loss.
clogged LW pool? If Nucks keep using MIller as a C whos their best LW, Hoglander? That position is just weak for the team as RHD. Pods can play LW but hes a right shot. I think trading a natural RW which they are stacked at for a natural LW makes some sense. Not sure this is the trade though but in general.
clogged LW pool? If Nucks keep using MIller as a C whos their best LW, Hoglander? That position is just weak for the team as RHD. Pods can play LW but hes a right shot. I think trading a natural RW which they are stacked at for a natural LW makes some sense. Not sure this is the trade though but in general.
Podkolzin, Hoglander, Pearson and Motte make up our LW system rn. Pearson is having a great year, and the other two have lots of room to grow. Why make our RW weaker if our LW is fine?
mv21227, TheAlien et remowilliams a aimé ceci.
Répondre
CapFriendly
CapFriendly