Hoss

That’s definitely the debate. Have to land pieces that mitigate risk and increase potential. A guy like Zegras is that, for sure. Comtois seems to like a low ceiling guy who has already found some footing in the league.

Either of them have proven anything definitive so there remains a chance you are left with nothing. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do the deal. It’s just a risk you may take. Ideally you’re getting at least one more proven piece, though.

Columbus is the only team that has made a move. Let’s not pile misplaced and premature hate here. For all we know we could be next.

I don’t care about the semantics here. He’s one of the best players we’ve had. This is an extremely important deal.

And there are only three other openings. As I suspected, the Sabres won’t have any competition for their targets aside from Gallant who so far they haven’t interviewed anyways.

It’s still the type of deal that scares me because you could ultimately end up empty handed. If Zegras and Comtois fail to progress you’re left with nothing for one of the best players in franchise history.

I think the deal might be close or there if you remove the picks.

I’m confused. The Sabres report is that they ARE ready to move on.

My question in the Ducks equation is: what would you be willing to Eichel (aside from 1OA) to get two of Zegras, Drysdale and 3?

He’s 28 with one year left on his deal and hasn’t produced at a high level for three years. We also don’t have the talent to help him get back on track. He’s a throw-in in an Eichel deal. I’d have interest in him in a separate deal but I don’t think he has value in a big boy trade.

But you might land a girl when she realizes your box is much bigger on the inside.

This is true but it’s the third best asset in the deal. I got a little ahead of myself there. Still doesn’t fix the deal.

He’s the fourth piece coming back from Anaheim and the worst piece in the deal. He is also UFA in a year and there’s no extension I’m willing to give him until I see his production rebound.

No, not even a little bit. You’re giving up the two best assets in the trade. Do you think very highly of Rakell? That may be why you’re feeling the value in your deal is right but I’d implore you to look at his age and production.

That certainly should’ve been the plan and they tried to do this (but failed) with guys like Okposo and Skinner. They succeeded with guys like Kane and O’Reilly but got cheap and impatient.

I don’t think anyone thinks they’re the problem. I’ve never seen anybody say that but it keeps getting repeated. They’re definitely not the problem but they don’t appear to be the solution right now either. The assets they return could very well be the answer.

Making actual change and not just shuffling the chairs on the titanic a million times hoping it makes a difference. You have the chance to turn one asset into many which is an enticing opportunity. If you get it right it changes the fortunes of the franchise. If you get it wrong, well, you don’t have far to fall. This isn’t me saying it’s the direction I would’ve picked two months ago but it has its appeal.

That’s part of the equation.

Be all flirty about it too and hold hands with their GM in front of Blake.

We should definitely trade some of our bottom six players for guys like Zegras and other potentially franchise-changing players then.

This is correct.

Indeed. The Kings are putting out word right now that they’re not interested to drive the price down.

That might be Adams’ thinking which scares me a bit because I’m not sure he knows what’s best for the team in the long haul.

No?