People keep saying we paid to dump Korpisalo and I just don't see the evidence from Boston's perspective. We had Forsberg, so if the Bruins were willing to facilitate the trade by taking on a little cap in return AND getting a backup goalie at the same time, it would have made a lot more sense for them to take Forsberg with 1 year to expiry vs. Korpisalo with 4 years. Korpisalo might not have had much trade value but some of you keep talking about this trade like the Bruins are abject morons instead of one of the best performing and best managed organizations of the last 15 years.
At the end of the day, we still offloaded a 1RP for a guy who could walk within a year. No? There were other avenues to get rid of Korpisalo, including a buyout or retaining a little bit more on him to pay a little less in draft currency. We're already retaining $4M of his $16M owed. A buyout would have cost $10.67M spread out over 8 years. The opportunity cost of that 1RP was around $6.7M, if we had pulled the trigger on a buyout this year.
By this logic, if Ullmark is a veteran, then what's Korpisalo? He's played in more games than Ullmark. Amadio is a 1:1 replacement for a guy with almost exactly the same career pedigree. Roughly the same amount of regular season and playoff GP, championship teams, etc.
Saying this deal was good for Ottawa isn’t the equivalent of saying Boston is stupid. I think if anyone’s going to get the most out of Korpisalo, it’s them. And I think if the value of the deal went up by taking him on, they likely decided to take 1st round pick with the confidence that they could turn him into a decent back up.
Doesn’t really matter though. We’re not the Bruins and we don’t have Jeremy Swayman. I can appreciate why they did it just as much as I can recognize it was essential for us to move on.
Let’s not pretend Korpisalo had any sort of positive value. The pick would be lower without him, it’s common sense that the Bruins were not sitting there begging us to include him in the deal.
We traded him for no money coming back. There's a big difference. So why did we do that? And how did it come to be that we even got to that position? This is a money out, money in league. So why are we trying to move the money out without taking any money back in? And wasting draft capital to do it? Isn't this exactly the kind of thing you guys complained about all the time with the last ownership group?
The previous ownership group would have traded Joseph and then not replaced him. We just spent his money elsewhere.
Obviously if Staios had a player he liked that could be moved for Joseph, he would have done that.
So you give up a lot to get the guy and the solution is to make a bad deal to get rid of him? How the f*** does that make sense?
Nope, but Chychrun came here and clearly wasn’t worth what we gave up for him. Now he’s a rental coming off a bad year. The fact that his value is low right now isn’t Staios’ fault.
We got a useful player out of it. It’s been made pretty clear by Dreger, Garrioch etc that we tried to get a 1st and 2nd round pick for him. We couldn’t, so I’m not sure why getting a solid RD which we’ve needed for years is a knock on Staios because Dorion paid a crazy price for him.
By this logic, if Ullmark is a veteran, then what's Korpisalo? He's played in more games than Ullmark. Amadio is a 1:1 replacement for a guy with almost exactly the same career pedigree. Roughly the same amount of regular season and playoff GP, championship teams, etc.
Jensen is definitely a veteran. Is he the right kind of fit, from an on-ice perspective? I guess we're gonna find out if he's going to keep up with the pace of the game or not. To be honest, I have him a lot closer to Hamonic, relatively speaking, than I do as a Top4 D solution. But I'm willing (more likely, praying) that he can get it done.
Ullmark seems a lot more vocal than Korpisalo and his leadership as a goalie was specifically brought up.
And Amadio played 16 games on Vegas’ cup run and put up 10 points. Joseph was a healthy scratch for most of Tampa’s run. Let’s not act like Staios didn’t consider personality, performance in important games etc in his acquisitions of what he was looking for from his vets.
Ok, feel free to be skeptical about Jensen’s quality of play. He’s still a vet.
This is where we differ. I don't want 2 more years of "let's see how these moves work out". You know how I know some of these moves aren't that good? Because you can already start asking the hard questions. Is Jensen washed? Will Amadio be good enough to justify that contract? Will Perron provide full value for his contract as a 36 year old? Is Ullmark going to be a 1 and done? Will Green be a good head coach or will his results look like the ones he had in Vancouver? From my perspective, we added a whole lot of question marks to this roster and we need almost every single one of these transactions to go right for us to have any hope of success. What's the odds on that parlay bet if you were going to place it?
I can play this game with any team in the league. Did Toronto give Domi too much term? Is Tanev going to regress at his age with all the hard miles? Did Nashville commit too long to Brady Skeij? Was Stamkos benefiting largely from Kucherov last season? Will Dubois suck in Washington like he sucked in LA? What about Chychrun? Will Lindholm play in Boston like he played in the playoffs or regular season? Did Zadorov’s playoff performance lead to an overpayment?
This is just silly, no one is getting players without question marks in free agency.
The point is at least there seems to be logic applied to the moves made. Every player acquired actually fits a need we had in some capacity. How it all works out remains to be seen.
www.silversevensens.com
