BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:I think what you are missing is most people think they are taking less talented players or specifically asking for in trades because they are dmen.
It flips the argument around.
Also remember that we need cheap entry level forwards for the next 4 years so why wouldn't we just draft those since PMD's trade value takes so long to develop.
I get you point by when people bring up Kunitz and Neal they are bringing up established payers we traded. 5 and 7 years after we drafted them.
Point being it doesn't add up with other arguments and filling our needs. We need players now or over the next 3 years. By our previous trade history we are 4 years away from making this happen in to grab enough players.
I don't understand the first part,so maybe you can elaborate a little?
The Penguins will need some cheap forwards moving into the years ahead. That said, those forwards will play third and fourth line roles, predominantly, given that the top two lines appear to be set with Kunitz-Crosby-Dupuis and Bennett-Malkin-Neal (or some combination containing those six). Cheap fourth liners are a dime-a-dozen and can be had every year via free agency, trade, and waivers. Good third liners can get a bit more pricey, but not so much so that they're unobtainable.
Defense is important on many levels. One, Martin's contract will be done in two years and a replacement will be needed. Two, with Niskanen playing a role in the top-four, it's easy to see that defensemen can be just as expensive, if not more expensive, than forwards in many cases. Breeding internal defensemen will allow the team to fill out their back end with the precise talent they want, while also having tradebale assets to help improve the offense.
Lastly, as for Kunitz and Neal, I'll agree in one instance -- Whitney for Kunitz -- the Penguins acquired an older, established player. But in the Goligoski for Neal trade, the obtained an experienced winger who was on an upward trend. And, let's remember, these aren't cookie-cutter trades. Who is to say that, if Shero wants a young winger, he couldn't trade a rookie Maatta, for example, for a rookie Hertl, for example. Two guys of similar age, similar upside, similar pay, and different positions. These trades don't have to happen five or six years down the line -- they just have in the past because that was when they needed to happen.
Best player available is the way to go. I;d much rather take an A+ defensemen with a real good chance of playing in the NHL than take an A forward with a good chance of playing in the NHL. I want best value for the pick -- even if at a position that is saturated. You've got to look at draft picks as assets. You wouldn't take four one dollar bills because you have too many fives, would you? You'd take the five, because it has more value. If you don't need that five later on, you can exchange it. Drafting 18-year-olds is an inexact science, especially once you get out of the top-10 picks. Take the guys with the best chances to succeed, then figure the rest out when the time comes.
