Tulipunaruusu*
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2014
- 2,193
- 2
I do not support the possible lack of action on Daniel Zaar. I do support the action on Marian Gaborik, and the front office was speaking truthfully when it was said publicly that trading Gaborik was about preserving the future. Atkinson began to emulate Gaborik, who is clearly nowhere close to the same player that he once was. Gaborik has an injury history that's only grown longer, which has caused him to become more of a perimeter player. He also started pacing himself during games, which is fine if it's a free-flowing system that allows players a lot of open ice. In something more tightly structured that's about finding open ice and continuing to move, Gaborik was a mismatch. And by emulating Gaborik, Atkinson became a mismatch.
If we speak only from an asset standpoint, the Marian Gaborik trade was a dud on both ends. But the assertion that he had to be moved for vague reasons that were never clarified is true.
I think you got the tactical part of why Gaborik was traded about right but I wouldn't say that Kekäläinen traded him to protect Atkinson's or any other player's development but the organization's future when they weren't in position to really gamble with Gaborik any more (in what might not have been even a game of post-season) after he had just returned from injury and hadn't really found his place on the ice.
In European context at least (football especially) "protecting the future" basicly means trading away free agent in his last contract year before you lose him for nothing.
Surely you can argue that Gaborik (even as a missed gamble) would have slightly boosted Blue Jackets play-off stock this year but what this team still needs is long-term talent injection that Horton, Murray, Jenner and Tropp represented in this year's team (with their current contract situation). In that view every acquired second round pick does help if they give you chance to draft the next team captain. Signing Zaar is surely one of those steps...