Quote:
Originally Posted by Love
Dude, Pastrnak just scored 70 points in 75 games as a 20 year old. He's going to be elite for the next decade+. Bruins laugh and hang-up at that offer
|
Dude, the Bruins are having problems signing Pastrnak. Did you not read the OP?
I think the Flames have the pieces to get Pastrnak, but doing so would hurt them in many ways. Salary demands appear to be high, so that is something to consider. Also, what do you have to give up? How many pieces, and how bad does it hurt you long term. Treliving has already sold out a big chunk of the future, so losing more futures is likely not in the plans for this team. Not unless they want to have a rebuild in three years that makes this last one look like a walk in the park.
Personally, I don't trade Bennett for Pastrnak, mostly because of his upside and the cost of his contract. If I'm moving a player, I'm moving Backlund. Brining in a player with Pastrnak's salary demands means you have to move a player with big salary demands out. You require cost certainty at a lower level than what Backlund is going to provide. Frankly, it would be stupid to trade Bennett for Pastrnk, pay Pastrnak big bank, then all of a sudden have to pay Backlund to the point where you are forced to move him too. You're better off to move that larger salary for Pastrnk. If Backlund is likely going to cost you $6M, then you can't afford Pastrnak.
The hope would be that you move the expected big salary, along with a defensive prospect, for Pastrnak and then sign him for the same as Gaudreau/Monahan. If you can do that, then you're way better off long term from a salary perspective, as you're still staring down big salaries in Bennett and Tkachuk in another two or three years. You have to keep all of this in mind. You just can't keep trading young cost controlled players for big salaries. It just doesn't work if you want to be competitive long term.