FiLe
Mr. Know-It-Nothing
- Oct 9, 2009
- 7,045
- 1,438
One thing that speaks for Tolvanen is that even if he might be an overall worse player than the other names that could still become available to us, he's a different kind of player than most of them. When utilized in a specific way, Tolvanen could essentially be a poor man's Laine, which might make him a better complementary piece than, say, Lundell.Tolvanen is better than Innala. If he arrives to the tournament early, so he's part of the first 12 registered forwards, then Innala has to go eat pop corn (if Innala is his place holder or #12 in forward hierarchy). That part is very clear.
Next we know that Tolvanen is much much worse than Barkov, TT, Aho, Haula, Hintz, Lundell to mention a few. We don't want to use one of our valuable slots that could be used for Barkov on Tolvanen. That's all what I'm saying here.
This being said, I'd still have any other name in the quoted post over Tolvanen save perhaps Lundell. I'm not so sold on how easily Lundell would slip into wing, and while he's better as a center than Filppula, Björninen and Lammikko, I'm not sure he's so massive an upgrade over them all that he'd be worth using a "bonus slot".
Of course, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves, as right now we don't have even one NHL center. If MiG says no thanks, and Florida bows out and Barkov says the same, but Lundell would be willing to come, having an unit built around Lundell and Tolvanen would still be an upgrade over anything we have right now.