Quote:
Originally Posted by Poe969
I'd take tarasenko if he was part of a return for Tkachuk but not the centerpiece. And salary needs to be retained for him to be worth it IMO.
|
There's the part that is just hard to get past with the Eichel group. They don't realize acquisition cost or return. They're willing to give up anywhere between four and seven assets to acquire a single player. That is a crippling deal from an organizational depth perspective. You're rolling the dice on that one player. If that one player gets hurt, you're not just ####ed for the short-term, you're ####ed for the long-term.
Conversely, the St. Louis trade is one where you're receiving depth in return for a higher value piece. The deal isn't just for Tarasenko, it's also for two other young assets and a draft pick. We get the four-for-one and we address some pressing concerns on the team at a position where we literally have no organizational depth. If Tarasenko goes down with an injury, and is done, the impact is greatly lessened because you have three other assets to fall back to.
For a team where the fans were crying all last season about lack of depth - and yes, a large percentage of those squeaky wheels are the same who want Eichel regardless of cost - making a multi-player deal for a single player is illogical. This puts us in the same boat as the Edmonton Oilers IMO. A one line team with three other lines that just hold on for dear life, and hope that wins you game. It might win you enough games to get into the post season, but it certainly doesn't work when depth matters.
I'm not against trading for Eichel, if the price is right. I'm not against trading any player if the price is right. What I've seen so far is that Eichel is not worth the squeeze because it weakens our depth and makes us a really easy team to defend against. If that St. Louis deal is available, that is well worth the squeeze, because it adds depth throughout the lineup and makes us harder to play against. In the Eichel scenario, if the first line disappears, its likely a crushing loss on the scoreboard. In the Tarasenko scenario, if the 1st line disappears, you still have threats on the second and third line that could score enough to win. I'll always take depth over the superstar. One player doesn't win you games.