Quote:
Originally Posted by aedge
How is hudler so easily replaced? Does gaudreau become that good after a year or two in the ahl automatically? How do you replace veteran presence with young players and assume it's the same? If we move hudler it better be a first..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
Easily replaced in 1-2 years is what I said. Yes I think Gaudreau has a good chance to be an even more special player than Hudler. And I think Granlund and Baertschi have a good chance to become as good. So between those 3 we should have a Hudler replacement within 1-2 years. With 3 good rolls of the dice I'm confident in saying that he can be easily replaced within 1-2 years, not immediately.
Moving him for a 1st makes us immediately worse. But he could also be packaged in a trade for a player that could play now. There's also the idea that we move Hudler in one deal, and then move a 2nd/3rd rounder for a winger who can play now.
Long term I don't think you can have as many small or non-physical guys as we have in Hudler, Byron, Gaudreau, Baertschi, Granlund, potentially Cammalleri, etc. If we want to keep both Gaudreau and Baertschi then we have to move Hudler at some point. It makes some sense to move him after a really good year where he led the team in scoring because his value may never be higher than it is right now.
I'm fine either way but he remains one of our best assets that can be considered expendable long term. Long term we are deep in small, skilled forwards. Treliving and Burke both want the team to get bigger and stronger so if you keep Hudler then you're probably looking at trading Baertschi. Take your pick. Gaudreau's upside is so big that I don't think we can really consider trading him at this point.
And if we trade Hudler it doesn't have to mean we're handing spots to Gaudreau or Baertschi. Treliving can trade picks or prospects for a young winger to replace him or you could get a replacement in the Hudler deal itself.