5'9 defensemen typically don't make the NHL. Hopefully Cagnoni is the exceedingly rare exception but planning the future defense around him is delusional.
Oh certainly there are outliers. Some righty will shoot left naturally. It's all in your feel
Personally, there are a few criteria I'd need to have met for me to want to keep Granlund:
I don't know how a 2nd isn't available in the trade market if Granlund is still playing top-6 C level but yeah I pretty much agree with where you're at. I'm also okay with all of that criteria being met and still taking what we can get for him or letting him walk. I don't think there's a wrong way to go with Granlund except for giving him term beyond two years.
I was just sharing that at least in Ontario in the 50's or 60's, it was indeed normal for people to put their dominant hand on top. It might not have been as forced as you're describing, but it was definitely normal and even encouraged. It wasn't "just do what feels natural" as you described for you.
There's like twice as many lefties (historically probably an even greater disparity) so not exactly surprising that lefties would be overrepresented among the best dmen ever.
Then that proves the point even more that it doesn't matter, lefty or righty. As there wasn’t a care for it the past 100 years, and it is only recently that this whole righty vs lefty thing has become a talking point.
There have been multiple studies that have scientifically demonstrated that playing on an off side is less effective. It might be a small difference but in a game out inches every advantage is worth going after.
Without a retention slot it'll be difficult. Not a lot of teams are gonna have that kind of space to waste.
I'll concede that when it comes to the lower and middle levels, where players are more machine than man, yes, every little advantage helps. When it comes to the top level, the superstars, I don't think it matters much.
The majority of the league will accrue enough cap space by the deadline to acquire Granlund with no retention and third party retention exists for the others.
Some data supporting this discussion:
My guess would be that it'd involve a 3rd team and either the team acquiring Granlund or us would fork over a 4th or 5th to get them to retain. That shouldn't be too difficult to negotiate.
I think it's worth doing even if we're effectively just trading Granlund to upgrade from a 4th to a 2nd. We should be able to replace him with a younger forward in free agency. Sam Bennett for example.
Even more important is that a 2nd round pick is a useful asset to acquire a top-4 veteran D in the summer. John Marino went for two 2nds, as an example. That's my main reason for being in favor of trading Granlund at the deadline.
I'd probably do that as well. We may not even need to replace him if things go well enough with our younger players. Granlund has been valuable in getting Eklund and Zetterlund to play more consistently but the 2025-26 season shouldn't need those two to have vets around them to play anymore and will probably be great fits on Celebrini or Smith's wings themselves..
I think we will need an established center beyond Wennberg to soak up some tough minutes behind Celebrini and Smith. I just don't want to commit to 33 year old Granlund to be that guy if we can get any sort of return for him at the deadline.
It actually matters more at the highest levels.
Possibly. They could go that route if they want. If they think Bystedt is ready to be their 3C next year based on whatever opportunities he's afforded this season, they could go the old Pens route when they had three young centers anchoring their team. Wennberg could be his linemate so that Bystedt doesn't always have to shoulder the load of the center's responsibilities.
When I meant levels, I meant within the NHL. My contention is that when you play your off-side, you get more options and more ability to make plays, at the cost of simplicity and increased risks. Meaning that for the bottom-pairing, where they're not expected to be creative, playing on their true side has little downside and captures all the upside, while at the top-pairing, you're actually giving up something of value.
Playing on the off side requires a lot more back hand passing for both D and W’s. It’s not as critical for W’s and can open up different shooting angles but for D in their zone that could be the difference between a turnover or a completed breakout pass.
A lot of exceptionally talented offensive and defensive Dmen who were top pair say otherwise. They did several articles in the last 2 years where modern top pair Dmen talked about it, and its pretty unanimous.
If we're using a third party then we're not getting a 2nd, or if we are we're probably giving away a 3rd in the process.
The problem is if it's a 4th (for example), the difference between the low 2nd we get and the high 4th we give away would only account to about 40 spots or so. I'd honestly rather just hang onto him if he wants to stay.
