The image didn't embed properly

Edit: It did after I replied

I just see it being such a large boost to our secondary depth. But then again, i'm not too familiar with how worrisome Couterier's injury is long-term.

Not in position to trade that 1st. I’d risk it on the contract but not for significant futures

Is secondary depth a greater concern than our D stable outlook? In a draft with several really good D prospects in the first half of the first round this year? Couts is great, but he's only barely a legit 2C these days and his contract is the stuff of nightmares. This would be a gross misuse of assets and cap. We're not one Couts away from anything worth chasing. If we want to rescue a Flyers C, let's make it Laughton instead.

I mean I personally don't see Laughton helping our current issues like Couterier could. Here's my issue with our current draft position. In the event that one of the following doesn't fall: Dickinson, Levshuvnov, Buium, Parekh, Silayev, there's alot of risk involved in what's left. The options behind that that I would deem at least the potential long-term to fill a blinding hole and play a significant spot would be: Yakemchuk (Hard to tell exactly what he is, but physical tools are definitely there), Jiricek (big injury risk and down play), Kiviharju (Again large question mark due to injuries stunting development), and then there's the ceiling concerns with Badinka, Emery and Elick.

There's alot of risk involved on both sides for sure. But having a true shutdown Center with some offensive ability would look nice to pair with Thomas. Also creates a lot more stable of an environment for our young guys to come in to as Hayes and Saad filter out of the lineup.

Trying to become the sharks?

I think I’d want to see what else was on the market if that is what I was paying. I can’t imagine Clayton Keller’s situation changes from last off season if their team status is ambivalent again. I would prefer we add one legitimate forward with our futures. It’s not fun being awful at 5v5 goals. The blues can move the first and still have nearly a full allotment due to 2 seconds. I’d be happy with this if there were no other choices.

Yes, it is kinda dumb.

Coots has an NMC, so that trade gets blocked probably and that contract is already starting to look bad.

Okay, well like I said, Couts is slipping out of the legit 2C tier as we speak. Laughton is basically Couts light, but a legit 3C and paid like one. But he's just an example, there's other fish in that particular sea.

As for the draft, there's little sense in placing expectations on our draft position until we know better what that will be. It could be 10, it could be 22 for all we know, but it would be monumentally dumb as an idea to trade it before we know what it is, let alone for a declining over 30 guy with 6x7.75 left.

Once we do know, I would certainly not assume that we will stay in that slot. We have the ammo to trade up and there's a bunch of teams with fat fat fatty fat D prospect pools who will be picking in that 4 or 5-10 range. It should not be much of a trick to get the right guy with our pick.

As for the D available to be drafted with our 1st, I think you can narrow your scope there. Lev will be gone. Parekh is the semi opposite of what we're looking for. Same goes for teeny tiny Kiviharju. Badinka, Emery and Elick are not good enough for this discussion. I do think you are underrating Yakemchuk a good bit. Silayev probably will be gone already, but there is a chance he drops to us somehow. Buium would be a very nice consolation price for missing out on Dickinson, who I have to think has to be the #1 target.

And I think it's attainable. And I think it is going to take a trade-up whether we make the playoffs or not. None of these guys worthy of that pick are going to fall to 14 or 16 or 18 or whatever. Army has to be proactive, like he was the summer of 2018. Like he was with Buch. We can do this! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!??!?

I know. It's kinda blowing my mind that people are seriously considering such a thing. Makes zero sense.

Stephenson UFA? How is anybody talking about taking this contract when all we do is talk about being stuck in bad contracts? Help me understand.

I just can't see having a 31 year Couturier for six full seasons as a good option at all.
Surely there are better ways to spend 7.75m.

Trying to explore avenues to help our massively inconsistent middle 6. Just an idea, fit definitely isn't ideal, position is however. The risk is massive, haven't watched enough of the player since he's come back to understand what exactly he is. Mainly curiosity as our front office seems more interested in building a culture for these younger guys to come in to as opposed to bottoming out.

You need to send that last paragraph to Army it was inspirational

I don't disagree, wanted to test the waters moreso on where Couterier was at as I admittedly haven't watched alot of him since his injuries started coming. What he was (in my memory) when he was more in the 27 age range would be a fantastic fit in my mind. And regardless, was of the assumption 14-18 for the pick for it to be a draft day type of deal. Contract certainly isn't ideal. But sometimes if you pile more **** on top of **** you get mushrooms to grow. Or you just get a bigger pile of ****.

I may be selling Yakemchuk short, I agree. And Dickinson also would be my first pick. Almost too ideal for what we need. I just saw a gap in the talent pool after the first 5-6 defenseman and trade ups aren't always possible (But i agree I would do so in a heart beat if it meant that we could ssnag one of Levshuvnov, Dickinson, Buium or Silayev).

This contract could definitely be a Schenn 2.0 situation where in a year or two we're going oh shoot we need a 2C now because he's more of a 3rd liner. But it could be a decent bridge to a Dvorsky (assuming he sticks at center) in which they could interchange.

Maybe Danault would be a better target to accomplish what my pie in the sky idea was

Just FYI: Today, Couts will be a healthy scratch vs Toronto, which would ordinarily seem like an awful idea against the Leafs. Didn't even realize he has six points and a -17 in his last 24 games. Or that he was benched the other day. I'm all for finding a proper 2C stopgap. Couts ain't the one.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/flyers-sean-couturier-to-be-healthy-scratch-vs-maple-leafs/

I saw that, that's what sparked the idea he may be available. Just wasn't really sure where to value a guy like him.

Well, perhaps if Briere feels like retaining half to dump a contract again, but I doubt that's on the table this time.

i see we have a man of culture among us