You're entitled to your position on [keeping/moving] Foote, and you/other TB fans would know if he is your best D prospect [I am not contesting that].
I am saying I see some saying Foote is even more than all that and a bag of chips.
Congrats on the good asset, but like our friends in Missouri say, 'show me', I want to see that at NHL level after reasonable period as I don't see/project that level of success now.
Accordingly, we are happily on the same page.
You insist on keeping him and we don't want him, but rather an equation with different assets.
Fair enough. I think Foote does have some very nice potential but his development has been slower than we’d hoped for so he may not reach that potential for a while (or at all.) If people are comparing him to McAvoy they’re way off base.
As far as Kreider to Tampa is concerned the issue there is twofold. First, because of our impending cap crunch and the fact that we greatly weakened our system in the trade for McDonagh, we’re in a position where we really can’t afford to be giving up high draft picks and top prospects for short term acquisitions at positions of strength - we’ll need those to replace our expensive complementary players as they become cap casualties, to use as incentive if needed to move cap dumps, and/or to package for long term upgrades at positions of need. The second issue is that we’re already having to shed cap dollars to resign our RFAs this summer so we can’t add Kreider without another big contract going out in addition to the ones that will already be leaving.
An idea I’ve floated before is that if we’re looking for a trade to mix things up, we could consider trading Gourde for a better or at least different sort of player with less term - the idea being that we would upgrade or at least change things around in the short term while gaining cap flexibility in the longer term. I don’t know if we really want to be messing with our lineup at this point considering how well we’ve been playing, and Gourde has proven himself to be an effective member of our team and was just signed to an extension, but Kreider would add some much needed size to our forward corps and in a couple of years we could choose between trying to resign him or letting him walk if necessary to afford all our RFAs. Not saying it’s a move we would make, as we’d be giving up a good deal of term and risking the chemistry our team has developed, but it’s about the only sort of deal for Kreider that follows the organizational principle of only making trades that benefit us both now and going forward.
I mentioned the idea in another thread about Kreider and was told by one Rangers fan that he thought you would rather take futures or at least a younger established player for Kreider, which I certainly understand. So if we decided that Kreider was somebody we wanted to pursue and that we were willing to give up Gourde to get him, perhaps getting another team involved to take Gourde and send futures your way could work. But barring that I just don’t see a deal for Kreider that would work for both sides, as we need the same sort of pieces to extend our window that you want for your rebuild.