It was a desperate move. Not sure if anyone would say different.
The point is that everyone recognized the Devils were in a desperate place. Fitz knew he was dealing from weakness but didn't let that stop him. He still got the best deal he could.
The obvious desperation is one of the reasons many observers were thinking the Devils would have to trade #10OA. Ottawa is looking for a goalie. Detroit would like a goalie. Toronto wants a goalie. Maybe Colorado too. Fitz moved early - maybe he paid a bit too much, but he made sure he filled the need and certainly didn't wildly overpay.
Overall, I agree with Cory's assessment. The move has risks. But, it had to be done, and Fitz deserves credit for bringing the deal home.
(That said, I think everyone is under-rating Bahl's upside. He's 6'6". Thompson didn't start to break out until his age 24 season. Chara didn't have 20+ points until his age 24 season. Big guys can take a while. Not saying Bahl is going to be a superstar, just that he's not a finished product yet.)
I think the entire process of needing a goalie was desperate, but not this move specifically, if you know what I mean.
I still don't think that they overpaid at all. I mentioned it in the other thread days ago that Kuemper getting a first a few years ago pretty much locked this in as a likely first round pick going back to me and that's just the way it was. To me, this was the most standard return in a trade package I could have thought of.
The move 100% has risks, and there is an absolutely reasonable chance that it's a big, huge bust of a move. It happens. Risks will be taken. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing or not putting any skin in the game also comes with risks.
I think not liking this move because you don't like the player we got (Markstrom) makes a lot of sense. Not liking what we gave up is sort of weird unless you're hyper focused on worst case scenario (giving up pick 11 in next years draft for example is not ideal) because otherwise neither piece is overly valuable.
Could you get better pieces back with a 25 first at some point? Absolutely. But there have been and will be far worse moves made for a first round pick in the past, present and moving into the future. Giving up a protected 25 first for a guy that could stabilize your net for 2 years is totally fine with me and I get it. Doesn't mean it's ultimately a great move....I understood a lot of Shero's moves too lol.
In general, I do agree that bigger guys like Bahl need to cook longer. But I also that you're still chasing the exception there more so than the rule, and I'm never going to be that hard on not doing that. And given that his overall upside I still think is pretty capped (If his career as a grade A trajectory, I think he's "just" a 4). If he turns eventually turns into a lesser Oleksiak, am I super bummed about losing that 3 years before it happens? Not really.
