If EDM were truly desperate for a very solid 2nd goalie then I’d say the trade makes sense. However, Pickard has exceeded expectations backing up Skinner. In a vacuum, the value is pretty fair, but EDM just doesn’t need to make the move. They’re better off keeping the RFA McLeod unless Pickard completely falls off in the coming weeks.

I’m sure DAL would want to use the cap space gained in the Guentzel trade toward a bigger piece at RD, such as Tanev. Therefore, including Ruhwedel in that trade really wouldn’t be necessary.

Even if we assume the wheels fall off the Pickard wagon, why is the philosophy here that moving McLeod is Edmonton's sole answer for a goaltender? This is a roster player with term and club control and the Oilers are going to be strapped for value contracts over the next two seasons. McLeod is a strong #3C and plays exceptionally well on Draisaitl's wing: where else is Edmonton finding THAT specific thing for $2.1M?

I mean no point of exaggeration here but I would rather the Oilers coughed up a first-round pick for a rental goaltender than make a McLeod/Eller+Ned swap. Eller is at best in the twilight of his career and has barely out-produced McLeod in 39 more games played (it's a 7 point difference). The sum of the loss of the roster certainty for what could be the remainder of the Draisaitl-McDavid Oilers and drop-off in player quality between Eller and McLeod far outweighs whatever gains are had by having Nedeljkovic over Pickard.

The trade as presented is virtually nonsensical.

I’m not even reading that, but judging by the first few words, I’m assuming you’re going to say that the McLeod trade wouldn’t make sense even if Pickard fell off.

I completely agree. That’s why I said that Edmonton doesn’t need to make the move.

They could simply trade a pick for a back up if Pickard were to fall off. I was just trying to work within the constraints of OP’s hypothetical, while in reality moving McLeod would be foolish. He’s a great complimentary player that can move up and down the line up. I’ve long had that stance, even when people were clamoring to move him at the start of the year.

No you weren't.



Points like "the trade makes sense" and "don't do this unless Pickard completely falls off" do not align with agreeing to my points. This isn't one of those "team doesn't necessarily need to make this move but could under specific scenario" sorts of trades. This is an outright fleecing of what should be a permanent fixture of Edmonton's roster into the 2030s. It's a fundamentally bad trade and your value assessment is woefully off if you're agreeing that this is a fair value trade for Edmonton.

If the Oilers were in Tampa Bay territory and trying to cap the finishing touches of a long stretch of success (a final hurrah) then maybe, just maybe I could get down with the premise if I squinted hard enough and looked at it from a crooked angle. But we're not in that scenario and Edmonton hasn't accomplished anything since 2006. Sustained success can justify and cover up for foolish trades. A lack of success only magnifies their negative impact.

Buddy, what are you doing? You must not have read what I wrote. First of all, I’m not reading that. Secondly, if you choose not to believe the words that I write then that’s on you and probably has more to do with something outside of fake capfriendly trade scenarios. Take care.

I appreciate the insight. I think you are right