- May 17, 2011
- 60,547
- 9,916
I'm apparently in the minority here, but IMO it makes plenty of sense to trade Bjorkstrand even if Nyquist is the ideal guy to move out.Too much. Lower your sights to Nyquist
Magic beans or Bjorkstrand? Give me Bjorkstrand. The harsh reality is I dont care about Nyquists return. He was a FA signing who already provided his value to the team. For all we know hes traded at the deadline or signs somewhere else next year and we lose bothI'm apparently in the minority here, but IMO it makes plenty of sense to trade Bjorkstrand even if Nyquist is the ideal guy to move out.
Nyquist is a good player whose value is essentially zero right now due to the cap situation and CBJ's lack of leverage. But he's moveable. CBJ just needs to accept a return of basically nothing or add a mid-round pick.
They don't need to trade Bjorkstrand, so Bjorkstrand's value is unaffected by the cap situation. Which means they can use him to get significant value, then turn around and move Gus (with retention) at his full value to get even more assets. That's a quicker path to fixing the holes on the roster (defense and center).
I think it's foolish to dismiss the value he'd return in a trade within this context, though. He has massive value in a trade. On the flip side, Nyquist either returns nothing or requires assets to move.Magic beans or Bjorkstrand? Give me Bjorkstrand. The harsh reality is I dont care about Nyquists return. He was a FA signing who already provided his value to the team. For all we know hes traded at the deadline or signs somewhere else next year and we lose both
It's just not worth giving up Bjorkstrand.. building a successful team is as much about who your veterans are just as much as it matters whothe youngins are. Bjorkstrand provides the leadership while still being on the right side of 30. While Nyquist provides leadership as well, for the long term of the franchise id rather lose Nyquist for nothing than give up Bjorkstrand. It isn't always about getting younger. We're already the youngest team in the NHL.I think it's foolish to dismiss the value he'd return in a trade within this context, though. He has massive value in a trade. On the flip side, Nyquist either returns nothing or requires assets to move.
By contract alone, the Mantha trade is a good framework, although Bjorkstrand is clearly a better player and would be more valuable IMO. Mantha got a good, younger forward (Vrana), a first round pick, a second round pick and a depth piece (Panik).
Bjorkstrand could absolutely fetch a good center prospect (i.e. a Maverik Bourque or Peyton Krebs type) + a first (protected) + another pick/prospect. Then, in regaining leverage in a Nyquist trade, the Jackets could retain and gain *another* first round pick.
The value proposition is essentially:
1. Keep Bjorkstrand + lose Nyquist + a mid-round pick (cost to move him)
or
2. Gain a high-end center prospect + multiple first round picks + additional picks, but lose Bjorkstrand and Nyquist
or
3. A hockey trade involving Bjorkstrand + other pieces that simultaneously frees up salary and gets us a defenseman who can both step in immediately AND be a long-term core piece.
I'm fine with #1 but my point is that it's not wholly unreasonable to say that #2 or #3 could be better paths forward for the franchise.
Not saying that they should look to move Bjorky as Plan A to become cap compliant. Just saying that, if there ever was a time to entertain a godfather offer for a player who is now a long-term second line guy here, it's now. They'd get a massive return and an additional first rounder via a Nyquist deadline trade.
Right, I'm not saying that it's unreasonable to value Bjorkstrand above all that other stuff. What I'm saying is that it's unreasonable to dismiss out of hand what all of that stuff could actually be, first.It's just not worth giving up Bjorkstrand.. building a successful team is as much about who your veterans are just as much as it matters whothe youngins are. Bjorkstrand provides the leadership while still being on the right side of 30. While Nyquist provides leadership as well, for the long term of the franchise id rather lose Nyquist for nothing than give up Bjorkstrand. It isn't always about getting younger. We're already the youngest team in the NHL.
Nope. No interest in Nyquist.Too much. Lower your sights to Nyquist
This is where you are wrong. The cap situation is known, so we're still going to get leveraged to hell and back. There is no avoiding it no matter what we try to do. Either we are going to lose the Nyquist trade, or we're going to lose both Nyquist and Bjorkstrand for suboptimal returns.I'm apparently in the minority here, but IMO it makes plenty of sense to trade Bjorkstrand even if Nyquist is the ideal guy to move out.
Nyquist is a good player whose value is essentially zero right now due to the cap situation and CBJ's lack of leverage. But he's moveable. CBJ just needs to accept a return of basically nothing or add a mid-round pick.
They don't need to trade Bjorkstrand, so Bjorkstrand's value is unaffected by the cap situation.
Isles get even slower.Nope. No interest in Nyquist.
How about something around Beauvillier for Bjorkstrand?
I like the work with using the Mantha trade as a reference, but I don’t believe anyone is going to pay that price for Bjorkstrand- the 1st was a high first at the deadline.I think it's foolish to dismiss the value he'd return in a trade within this context, though. He has massive value in a trade. On the flip side, Nyquist either returns nothing or requires assets to move.
By contract alone, the Mantha trade is a good framework, although Bjorkstrand is clearly a better player and would be more valuable IMO. Mantha got a good, younger forward (Vrana), a first round pick, a second round pick and a depth piece (Panik).
Bjorkstrand could absolutely fetch a good center prospect (i.e. a Maverik Bourque or Peyton Krebs type) + a first (protected) + another pick/prospect. Then, in regaining leverage in a Nyquist trade, the Jackets could retain and gain *another* first round pick.
The value proposition is essentially:
1. Keep Bjorkstrand + lose Nyquist + a mid-round pick (cost to move him)
or
2. Gain a high-end center prospect + multiple first round picks + additional picks, but lose Bjorkstrand and Nyquist
or
3. A hockey trade involving Bjorkstrand + other pieces that simultaneously frees up salary and gets us a defenseman who can both step in immediately AND be a long-term core piece.
I'm fine with #1 but my point is that it's not wholly unreasonable to say that #2 or #3 could be better paths forward for the franchise.
Not saying that they should look to move Bjorky as Plan A to become cap compliant. Just saying that, if there ever was a time to entertain a godfather offer for a player who is now a long-term second line guy here, it's now. They'd get a massive return and an additional first rounder via a Nyquist deadline trade.
Isles would still need to shed salary to make this work for themSomething around Wahlstrom for Bjorkstrand would probably benefit both teams.
CBJ gets cap space and a right shot sniper with potential, NYI gets a proven goal scorer now that they can pair with Barzal now.
Krebs + 1st and another prospect??? LMAO
he got a 3rd and 4th
Too much. Lower your sights to Nyquist
The best I can do are two thirds.Too much. Lower your sights to Nyquist
I mean he wasn't traded for his "real" value.legendary threadddd