Quote:
Originally Posted by Royle9
You're basically saying we cant afford to lose 2 D men.
Hypothetically we lose Brodie to Toronto for _____
Rasmus moves up and plays the 2 spot.
Under these circumstances you're saying we're okay with just having lost 1.
But if we lose 2 then our depth is gone (accurate assumption)
However, say we now trade Hamonic to WPG for ____ and and Dman then we're right back to technically being down 1 D.
This doesn't include Tre looking to go after a UFA D man or something OR potentially the Russian we picked up steps in. We can afford to lose both so long as we recoup 1 D via UFA/Trade which is my point.
I think we're fine with losing both ASSUMING we get a serviceable top 5/6 D man in return one way or another.
We CANNOT afford to lose BOTH and not get one in return.
|
I don’t think trading our 2 and 3 Dman and acquiring a 5/6 is going to allow the team to remain strong on the blueline. So I disagree with your take unless we are getting a top 4D in return and I don’t get why they would trade Hamonic for another Dman. If he returns a forward and a lesser D is that the type of deal the Flames would want?
The team still has Valimaki, Kylington, Stone for the bottom pair. Move one of Brodie or Hamonic and the remaining top 4 is Gio, Hanifin, Andersson. Maybe in another year Valimaki is a surefire top 4 but too risky right now.