Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
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.
|
Many posters here are fully aware of the potential acquisition cost in an Eichel trade. It's been widely reported that Buffalo is looking for predominantly future assets (although they will likely need to take some cap back). I fail to see how replacing Monahan with Eichel at the expense of some combination of a couple 1st round picks, Valimaki, Zary, Pelletier, Coranato, Kylington, etc is "crippling a franchise". There's a significant chance some of these assets don't develop into anything more than depth or bottom half of the roster players.
Conversely the Flames would retain prime assets in Hanifin, Andersson, Gaudreau, Lindholm, and Tkachuk. Valuable for competing now (or via trade if they decide to pull the chute in the coming years).
A large portion of these posters also understand that you can not win in the NHL without elite talent. Take a look at every Stanley Cup champion in the past decade and they are all stocked with elite talent which Eichel is. Some fans want to see the Flames (who seem to be committed to trying to win now) push all their chips in and acquire the hardest piece to get- a young, elite, top line center. These types of players rarely become available via trade. Who was the last center of this caliber? Joe Thornton? I don't think SJ regrets that trade.
The St.Louis scenario you have described is Dion Phaneuf 2.0. We give up the younger, elite talent for which reason? So we can get a couple prospects and picks? Why are we doing this if we are trying to win now? Tarasenko for Tkachuk makes us a worse team today. You state the trade is good because we have no RW depth, but we have Coleman, Tkachuk, Mangiapane, and Dube all capable of playing the right side in the top 6.
So no, trading prospects, picks, and Monahan doesn't cripple the Flames depth and put them in the same position as the Edmonton Oilers- far from it. In fact a potential Eichel trade would probably leave us with 95% of the current roster in tact.
Yes, one player doesn't win you games but does a combination of Eichel, Gaudreau, Lindholm, Tkachuk, Mangiapane, Backlund, Hanifin, Andersson, Tanev, and Markstrom win you games? I would say yes, and probably a lot of them.