bucks_oil
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2005
- 8,665
- 5,017
The trade is worse combined then what it would be separate. It’s not so much a hockey trade as it is a way for Edmonton to escape bad contracts. If anything, no need for the Islanders to take back Turris/Koskinen/Barrie just because they keep getting pushed into contracts. An actual hockey trade would be something that improves the team, not goes 6 steps back to go 2 forward.
I'm referring specifically to TFHockey's proposed counter to you:
- To NYI: Bourgault, 1st and 30 games of Koskinen + Turris salary
- To EDM: Varlamov, Mayfield
Where are the "6 steps back"? You essentially lose one roster player and a backup goalie and gain a A-rated prospect, a 1st and >$5M in cap. All of that can help make you better next year and the years following.
Note: there are no teams that can trade for Varlamov without you taking salary back. So if you plan to harvest the value in that asset, now is the time and expiring salary is a great scenario for you, as it gives you freedom to spend this summer. If you plan to keep Varlamov for one more year as a backup, that's a perspective, but wouldn't it be better to gain a 1st and spend his $5M elsewhere?