Would YOU move Carlo for Landeskog?

[BruinLVGA]

Besides the fact how good Carlo has been at age 19, the saga of us trying to acquire young talented D via trade in the recent past (= ZERO SUCCESS) should be enough to make anyone reject the idea of trading away one that we lucked out in getting (not many would expect a 2nd round D to have such an IMMEDIATE and positive impact).

Furthermore, Landeskog still gives me a little doubt here and there, due to his decline in points in the past 4 seasons. If we were to trade Carlo and return in D hell for that, in exchange for a tough, but only 50 points winger, it would be a defeat.

So NO to trading Carlo, here.

 

[Mione134]

Nope. Not a chance.

And I love Landeskog. I wished he was a Bruin during the draft and beyond. I love his game. But Carlo is off the table. So is McAvoy.

 

[missingchicklet]

Of course Carlo is not a proven entity but there are not too many guys his age in recent years who have looked as good as he has on the top pairing drawing the toughest assignments. A team with a lack of talent on the top two pairings would be stupid to make such a trade. In order to fill the hole losing Carlo would create the Bs would have to spend a lot of money signing a FA or else trade a really good player, which would create another hole. Makes no sense.

 

[4ORRBRUIN]

How can you people say it's a easy no?
If it is a straight up Carlo for Landy, I don't think 1 NHL GM would say no.

Thats why I voted yes. I assumed the question was one for one. And yes 1 GM would say no, the one that works for Colorado

 

[northeastern]

Maybe on a stocked team but the bruins need all the D help they can get. They have absolutely no replacement if they move him...

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

Maybe on a stocked team but the bruins need all the D help they can get. They have absolutely no replacement if they move him...

That's exactly what ran through my mind when I first read the OP

 

[Sevren]

Thats why I voted yes. I assumed the question was one for one. And yes 1 GM would say no, the one that works for Colorado

I take it you haven't read the latest articles because Colorado is specifically asking for Carlo. And Sweeney is saying no.

 

[bearcountry17]

I'd love to have Landeskog but not as much as I would hate seeing Kmiller and Mcquaid as the top 2 RHD.

 

[amazingcrwns]

This would be more difficult to answer if I looked at this as a 1 for 1 transaction in a vacuum, but I haven't seen enough of Landeskog to be able to look at it that way.

I wouldn't trade Carlo for Landeskog right now because I think it would create too large a hole on defense. If I take a minute to consider the salary cap ramifications it becomes even more clear. I'll be thrilled if Landeskog ends up in the spoked B, but not at the cost of Carlo.

 

[JRull86]

The team finally has a young RHD who looks like he can play top pairing minutes, and people want to trade him for essentially Nathan Horton with a bit more snarl? No way.

I think Landeskog would fit this team very well, and I like the player a lot, but not at the cost of a Carlo or a McAvoy. Not a chance.

 

[Lost Horizons]

no. Keep the young d and move Spooner

 

[BMC]

Not just no but hell no.

 

[TheBigBadB]

Trade a 19/20yr old top paring defender? Havent we learned our lesson yet? Never in a million years would I trade him now. This kid already proved he can be at least a good top 4 defensemen. To me, as of right now he is part of the new Core until proven otherwise.

 

[LouJersey]

I would say no in this deal but I wouldn't be opposed to trading him for the right player. It is possible if Chiller keeps learning and progressing and McAvoy is all he appears to be that Carlo could be your third best RHD.

I'm not a huge fan of trading defenders or centers for wingers. Strength down the middle is what wins in this league IMO.

 

[LouJersey]

I voted 'no', but would've voted a "I'd be tempted if it was more than a 1-for-1 swap, and depending on the total trade''.

But with that said:

Is it not a bit premature to call Carlo a "proven stud D"? It's been half a season; think of how many other blue liners looked like world-beaters as rookies, only to fall back to earth pretty quickly thereafter.
I'm not saying that Carlo will do that, but I am saying that I'm keeping superlatives of that level in my pocket for now.

Perfect, that's what I've been thinking as well summed up perfectly by you.

 

[finchster]

Depends on how you value Carlo. I think he will be a defensive top four guy with limited offensive potential. Landeskog might be a better player than Carlo. However, that would just create another hole in defence for the Bruins to fill, we would just trade one problem for another.

 

[CLIFFY HOCKEY]

I trade a prospect for an established player 9 times out of 10, I love Carlo, shows great poise and maturity for a 19 year old, to me his ceiling isnt that high. I like Landeskogs game and I like his contract, I make this deal in a second.

 

[Absurdity]

If you are a team that is re-tooling or semi-rebuilding, you don't move your best prospects. Carlo is playing on our top pair at the age of 20. I don't think he'll become a first pairing defenseman, more of a #3/4D, but unless you're packaging him for a #1D or a very young center around his age that is/will become a top 6 C, I would stand pat.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

If I got stinky drunk and was told I would be given a cool million I still wouldn't make this trade.

 

[VanIsle]

Straight up 100% I would.

 

[Coach Parker]

I would do it, but voted no...

Only because I'm assuming Sweeney doesn't have a replacement in mind.

Now, if you told me:

- Carlo for Landeskog
- McAvoy is turning pro
- Trouba or Shattenkirk is a second trade coming in.

...then I would do it. Suddenly, you moved out Carlo but brought in Trouba/Shattenkirk AND McAvoy while adding a top six LW.

 

[Gordoff]

NO!

 

[Fossy21]

Landeskog seems somewhat underrated here. But D is a bigger issue, and even if I see Carlo regressing somewhat especially in the short term, I'd take my chances with him. Not an easy decision, but what makes it easier is that Carlo alone would not get it done.

So it's at a point where Carlo doesn't have as much value as we assign him, and Landeskog has more value than we assign him (must of us, at least, in both cases, and I admit to probably overvaluing Carlo as well).

 

[sarge88]

I would do it, but voted no...

Only because I'm assuming Sweeney doesn't have a replacement in mind.

Now, if you told me:

- Carlo for Landeskog
- McAvoy is turning pro
- Trouba or Shattenkirk is a second trade coming in.

...then I would do it. Suddenly, you moved out Carlo but brought in Trouba/Shattenkirk AND McAvoy while adding a top six LW.

I agree entirely. This trade wouldn't necessarily be for this year alone.

If the end result was that the 2017-2018 opening night lineup included McEvoy, Trouba/Shattenkirk and Landeskog, I'd rather that, than one that includes Carlo, McEvoy and no significant upgrade at forward.

 

[Fossy21]

I would do it, but voted no...

Only because I'm assuming Sweeney doesn't have a replacement in mind.

Now, if you told me:

- Carlo for Landeskog
- McAvoy is turning pro
- Trouba or Shattenkirk is a second trade coming in.

...then I would do it. Suddenly, you moved out Carlo but brought in Trouba/Shattenkirk AND McAvoy while adding a top six LW.

We'd have to give something big up for that, or completely empty our pipeline, because you'd have to keep adding more and more prospects with diminishing returns (at least that's how something like how it works in my mind). Not sure it's worth it, if fair value is given up in both trades.