Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Pretty simple actually. His performance exceeds any other year he's played. To keep him you have to believe that this performance is the new normal for him. I don't. I also look at acquisition cost versus the potential benefit of moving him. We are likely in a big advantage in benefit versus cost. The whole idea for rebuilding teams is to get better over the long term by dealing away short term assets. Russell is a very short term asset. Using your same logic the Flames shouldn't deal Stajan because he's been our best center. The Flames should deal away Cammalleri because he's been our best goal scorer. The Flames shouldn't trade away Stempniak because he's been our best character player. You have expiring contracts you have to evaluate where they fit in the long term plan and deal accordingly. None of the players on expiring contracts fit in the team long term, especially Russell.
|
Completely disagree.
Stajan is much older and established in his career. Forwards usually mature and fully develop much earlier than defencemen. Defencemen often mature right around the age Russell is now. So I think it is reasonable to believe that what Russell has shown this year is the new normal.
In addition the depth at both positions is totally different. Without Stajan we still have Monahan, Backlund, Colborne, Knight, Street, Reinhart, Byron, B Jones who can all play centre. If you get rid of Russell, Butler and Smith we don't really have many guys ready to step in and replace them.
Russell has been one of our top 2-3 defencemen all year. He's a great fit long term and obviously a much better fit long term than Cammalleri, Stajan, or Stempniak. Hope we re-sign him. Your statement that Russell especially doesn't fit long term makes absolutely no sense to me. He's right in that age range we want to be adding and keeping players.