Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
Take Klimchuk for example. His skillset is very similar to Frolik. Strong defensive play with the odd offensive flourish. I see the dropoff between the two being minimal. Klimchuk is paid below 1M a year. Therefore I see Frolik expendable in almost any potential trade, and he still has value in the league, but his name is never mentioned.
I'm a big Foo believer, and he would be a natural fit on the second or third line, with Ferland taking the other spot.
Now, if Frolik were the odd man out, and could be included in a trade (or a second trade to acquire tradable assets) would we no longer have to trade away all of our own high risk-reward players, for a RW?
I wasn't really talking about optics at all, but mediocrity.
|
I've seen several people talk about trading Frolik, including earlier today in either this thread or the build the roster one. The reason it's not a staple in discussion is because he's not going to return much.
I don't want to see this team trading a Jankowski or Bennett just for the sake of it, but the reason they and Fox etc are brought up, is because those are the type of pieces we do have that would most likely garner a significant return.
What you're effectively doing (saying you don't want top prospects discussed as trade chips) is feeding into one of the other most problematic things about this thread. Furthering the idea that we try to make a trade to improve the team now without giving up anything of signifiant value. No one is going to give us a player that improves us for spare parts.
As for mediocrity... the majority of the league battles with it. There's a ton of parity and the cup is one of the most difficult championships to win in all of pro sports. There's nothing worse to read than the constant and enduring Flash-Walken type digs at the franchise. If anyone is that bothered by it no one's forcing anyone to be a fan.