Bleackey and Wood will never become as good as Boedker is respectively. Now together, Wood could develop into something decent and Bleackley could still be a solid bottom 6er, but both are far from being absolute things. Bleackley, though has improved, but not a big amount from when he was a 16 year old (which is why Avs were never going to sign him), while Wood could become Colby Cohen 2.0 due to skating issues (which both absolute have).
Confirmed with Link: [COL/ARI] Mikkel Boedker for Alex Tanguay, Conner Bleackley, and Kyle Wood
- Thread starter RoyIsALegend
- Start date
- Status
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
There's something wrong with punting basically an entire developmental class. But that's mostly independent of this deal, the Wood part could be what Arizona asked for, but the philosophy was established outside of it. So no, it's not fair to draw grand conclusions based on this one deal but I do feel like there are indications of something larger (I already went on about in another thread, I'll spare everyone).
If they can manage some way to keep Boedker then sure the outlook and result of this move changes my perception. Or they could have signed him as a FA, who knows. Being here already helps our cause though, I can see that.
Too me, the loss of Wood was a bit of a sour spot but in the end, I think if we manage to sign Boedker to a decent contract then I believe we'll have come out with the better part of the deal. Tangs was doing terrible for us and Bleackley just didn't have a future with this team unfortunately. I've been a fan of Boedker since he was drafted and am really happy seeing him here but the success of this trade rests on him resigning at a decent term and cap hit. If we end up losing him to FA or signing him to some cap hit over 6.0 AAV, then Arizona smacked us.
IndustryLeech
Registered User
Absolutely unsustainable. I love Tangs, but he's out of gas. The trade flipped his motorcycle to the reserve tank, but there's no gas station in his future.
I think people are arguing two different things. On one side you have people that didn't want to trade assets for rentals. On the other side you have people who see the benefits of putting a good team on the ice now and gaining the experience. How good each of the players are and which side received better players in this trade is really irrelevant to the argument. I think it was a good trade value wise, it's the underlying philosophy behind the trade that is debatable.
Last edited:
InjuredChoker
Registered User
pretty much though he's actually reportedly been surprisingly solid for them. don't care how he does for them, we saw how he did here all season until the trade. and it wasn't pretty.
- Jul 25, 2006
- 31,664
- 22,238
I agree, Boedker in a long run is absolutely the better option just not sure if Avs will be able to resign him
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
I know, I see AZ fans want to sign him. Good luck. I guess he could be refreshed and rejuvenated. But he just simply doesn't have it anymore physically.
- Apr 25, 2006
- 49,841
- 53,196
I think that Tangs can buy one more season by playing a different system in a different team. He was no longer able to keep up with "rushing the play" like we do here (was constantly offside), but that doesn't mean that he can't play in a "keep the puck" based system.
Cousin Eddie
You Serious Clark?
- Nov 3, 2006
- 40,157
- 37,351
How is trading 2 of 6 punting an entire draft class? I get that they were the top 2 picks. But we still have the rest of them, do we not? I know only Nantel has signed an ELC, but we have time for the others...two more years for Lindholm and Pajpach. I expect Pepin to be signed...but I have no evidence to back that up, has there been any real indication either way?
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
Some of us fall in the middle. I didn't mind moving minor pieces for rentals; i.e. I was for the Matthias trade. But moving one of our top-4 prospects + a 2nd wasn't moving minor pieces.
I think the divide is mainly due to Sakic saying Boedker is a rental, as well as how each person values the prospects. Some people see Wood as a B+ prospect, others see him as a C prospect. Same goes with Bleakley.
Personally, I liked the trade when it happened, and I really like it now. It's so refreshing seeing a top 6 that isn't burdened by over-the-hill vets or bottom 6 grinders. Boedker has helped us with the playoffs push immensely, and I think it really helps going into this offseason. Boedker seems to really like the Avs, and while he won't give a huge discount, I can see him willing to leave a tiny bit on the table to stay with the Avs if we go that direction.
Yeah? It was a low second and I'm not sure Wood was a top 4 prospect.... but either way no one on either side should have to eat crow depending on the success of the new players. The argument is whether or not you think they should have traded assets for rentals at this point in time. Some do some don't. I understand both sides but definitely fall on the side of liking the moves.
The hyperbole that get thrown around is the aggravating part, but I guess that is the way of the internets.
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
This is pretty much all I've been trying to say since this thread got bumped last night. Boedker's play for these ~20 games isn't going to negate the reasons why those of us that didn't like this trade, didn't like it. Not trying to convert anyone, just trying to explain why there's no crow for us to eat.
I agree with most of what you're saying. Not happy with the price because I do rate Wood; but Boedker's playing as well as I had hoped. If he-who-shall-not-be-named decides to stay in the KHL and we can sign Boeds for ~soda money, I'd like him to stick around.
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
The fact that you are arguing for Lindholm, Pajpach and Pepin should say it all. Lindholm only has until this year I believe because he was older when he was drafted. Magyar is a no, the rest are late round picks and long shots to get signed at best. If I had to bet I'd lean no on Pepin getting signed too.
I agree neither side should eat crow. He's a good player, he's doing what he was brought here to do. I think he's a bit of a streaky player but when Boedker is on he's real good. We'll see what this all means for the future.
I just don't like it when people say we gave up nothing. Doesn't mean y'all can't like the trade or think it was worthwhile but it wasn't nothing.
Last edited:
dahrougem2
Registered User
No issues from me. I personally don't see an NHL future for Wood and Bleackley was clearly soured on by the organization.
For sure definitely not nothing. Losing Wood hurts, and short of at least two rounds in the playoffs, and/or a re-signing, it makes the deal a loss. IMO, YMMV.
But I read your post as we have nothing left of that year of the draft, when we have signed the longest shot from it, still may sign the big winger, and have a couple still in Europe. Not sure on how long for Lindholm...it is age, or years since draft? I read years, but that could be wrong.
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
Tommy Shelby
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2012
- 7,469
- 4,856
If the Avs had Boedker and were 80% sure they couldn't re-sign him but were in the same place regarding the playoff hunt,
would people have been happy if they traded him for #53+Wood+Tanguay (assuming his play was the same as it was for us pre-trade)?
would people have been happy if they traded him for #53+Wood+Tanguay (assuming his play was the same as it was for us pre-trade)?
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: WCSF: Game 4 - Edmonton Oilers vs Vancouver Canucks, 7:30pm, ESPN
- Latest: BIeucheeseWithWings
-
-
-
-
Post-Game Talk: WCSF GM 4 | Oilers def. Canucks 3-2 (Garland, Joshua) | Thaaaaaaat sucked.
- Latest: Michael Dal Swolle
