The argument wasn't for or against the guy though. It was whether the price Sweeney paid for him was too high, and that's still a fair question. Could they have gotten Peeke for less in the offseason as a potential buy out candidate? That was always the knock on this trade. Not them taking a flier on a guy that played himself out of favor but may have been salvageable. Just the cost to obtain and his current contract.
Peeke was traded on 3/8 though. So a moot point.
I'm not against Peeke or the move of them taking a flier. I'm simply saying that second guessing the value is a valid topic for debate. Obviously time will tell how it works out, but there are certainly areas of the move that can be discussed/debated.
And those are valid justifications for making the move. People here always want to make shit black or white and boil it down to the most basic things (usually to say their view is right) instead of realizing most moves are nuanced and can be open to interpretation. All I'm saying is what's wrong with a little back and forth on it?
Forbort and Gryz gone who else?
The buy out suggestion is complete nonsense, he would never even clear waivers. The only angle you can reasonably take is that he may not have cost a 2027 3rd in the offseason, but then you lose the value of having him in the postseason. I'm not even sure if that's reasonable given how many teams were precluded from taking on his contract because of the cap situation this season, it's much easier to move him later.
You're laughably putting your opinion forth as fact, which it's not. You don't think he'd clear waivers, but nobody is jumping to overpay bottom pairing dmen, aside from Sweeney.
You already lost this argument when the trade happened. The only right handed defensemen you can get for half of his contract are players on their ELC, players over 35, and tweeners just happy to get a one way contract. You would be hard pressed to get one who has averaged 19+ minutes even for what he's being paid now.
The buyout rumor is unfounded speculation by a national writer who doesn't know shit. Even if he were it is absurd to think that making Andrew Peeke an unrestricted free agent in this year's market would result in a pay cut.
20k posts leading up to the trade deadline in about 20 different deadline threads and not once do I remember reading this.... "You know who would be a great get? Andrew Peeke, that healthy scratch on one of the worst teams in the league with that bloated contract."
Pretty much. He's fine for now. A 3rd isn't a hefty price, but I suspect before long we'll be saying they need to improve upon him.
Again that’s just your speculation. Weird how you call the speculation of a national hockey writer that has contacts and sources in the league “shit” but you call your own unfounded opinion fact. Hilarious dude. f***ing hilarious.
He was the definition of a desperation addition. And we are a top 5 team (if not were 6 or 7) we aren't going to sell and tank for draft position with no pick. You have to add a guy like him to bump down unplayable crap like Gryz. The price was too high but in that context it is what it is. We couldn't enter the playoffs without someone better than Gryz and on the same level and Spoon and Shatty.
Desharnais is on his ELC, they drafted and developed him. He's played a season and a half in the league and averages 15 mins a game. Not a great comp.
I wouldn't, and I bet Toronto wouldn't either. Peeke would've been the ideal candidate for what they're looking for, an inexpensive partner for Rielly, if he were still on the trade market. What does Toronto do now? Hakanpaa would be cheaper but he's pretty slow. Jan Rutta's older but makes the same money as Peeke. Luke Schenn, same money as Peeke, slow and old. Gudbrandson at 50% retained would be expensive.
