Yes lets get a player with the same poor defensive lapses and the same points as galchenyuk and add two other assets to do it. We upgraded for a few faceoffs though
27, SFB, and a 1st to Colorado?
I was just under the impression that when people talk about Colorado they are referring to MacKinnon.
Agreed. For Mackinnon i do it.If Nathan MacKinnon is coming back sure. But pending FA (and regressing) Duchene better not be the centre-piece in a trade that big. Colorado sucks for a reason, and I think MD and his contract is a big part of that.
Partly correct, in this case. I wrote "Colorado", leaving it open ended, on purpose.
My bad.Partly correct, in this case. I wrote "Colorado", leaving it open ended, on purpose.
More a handshake agreement than a clause.There were several teams after him so he likely has a no-AHL clause.
There is also sakic saying mackinnon, jost and rantanen are untouchable but everything else is available.I have no idea why a rebuilding team would trade Nathan MacKinnon (still only 21) for our underachieving prospects and a late 1st.
I have no idea why a rebuilding team would trade Nathan MacKinnon (still only 21) for our underachieving prospects and a late 1st.
There is also sakic saying mackinnon, jost and rantanen are untouchable but everything else is available.
Is the Swede (name escapes) any good?
Also: not fixated on Colorado.
Also 2: only consider 27 if he's deemed to be a winger.
All these names are top 3 picks --- proof that when you tank is of upmost importance.
I still think Galchenyuk for Dubois with a pick coming back would be a good deal.
I don't want anything to do with Dubois. Just my gut feeling is that he will be a big time bust