Bojack Horvatman
IAMGROOT
- Jun 15, 2016
- 4,567
- 8,366
I think it's more the other way around than what you're thinking of (although there's a chance I misread your post). In this case, Washington dumped a contract that would have taken more than a 1st to move for a player who, while overpaid, is still a useful player and might bounce back. Kuemper at this point is closer to replacement level and unusable as a starter. Of course, on the flip side, Washington is taking on more years of what is/could be a very bad contract.
I'm not entirely clear on what happened to him in LA. I think he'll bounce back.
I meant that the original Dubois trade with Winnipeg was his OEL trade plus all the assets he had to give up to make the cap work.
Kuemper for sure is a negative value contract. Solid starter and underrated during his prime, but not a starter anymore and declining. Maybe LA gets some goalie voodoo and he rebounds but I wouldn’t count on it.
Washington definitely took on the most risk with the length of his contract and history of quitting on his team. At least Washington didn’t give up anything of value like Chicago did in the Jones trade. I think Dubois will rebound too. I don’t think Dubois pouting in the past was team performance based, but because of disagreement with Torts in Columbus, and being stuck behind in 1Cs in Winnipeg and LA. He’ll get to be 1C again in Washington. It’s just a question of how long before he quits again when Washington starts to decline and has to rebuild. They may regret this one in 5 years if they are trying to exit their rebuild