Edited May 8, 2019 at 3:34 p.m.
Quoting: TheJoeMan
In a heartbeat? You're talking about trading away a former 1st round pick, two former second round picks (one of whom is playing more like a first rounder) and the 39th overall pick in this year's draft for a d-man who is a career -143. Yes he puts up a lot of points and he's actually on a pretty good contract but that's mortgaging a huge chunk of our future for a player we don't need THAT badly. I'm in favor of a move to get someone like Zaitsev because the apparent cost is minimal. This team isn't a d-man away from contending. We're at least two years away from contending again (i.e. when Getzlaf and Perry have moved on and we've hopefully drafted well enough to replace them). We could have a legitimate star in Comtois and I'm not eager to trade him for anybody at this point, not while we're still rebuilding/retooling/re-whatever-the-hell-we're-doing.
Sunk-cost fallacy at its finest. If you're going to use draft position to value players, I'll raise you Nic Kerdiles/Logan Macmillan/ Peter Holland/Etem/DSP (and the list goes on); those guys ended up all being great NHL players, right? Larsson has not lived up his draft pedigree as a first round pick and is very likely to be a bottom pairing guy. Morand has been solid, but still hasn't improved significantly on his point totals in the Q. I think he'll be a NHL player, but certainly won't be anything spectacular. He's likely a middle 6 winger, as he isn't good enough in the dot or defensively to play C at the next level. I'm a fan of Comtois, but it's also reasonable to wonder what his ceiling is. I'm a big fan of Corey Pronman, and he didn't even have him ranked in his mid-season prospect rankings.While it certainly isn't the end-all-be-all for prospects, it's fair to wonder how productive he'll be. I believe he'll be a 50-55 point guy, but that could be his upside.
I'll trade all three of these guys (and a pick) for Ristolainen in a heartbeat, as it is a minimal price to pay. Plus/minus is an antiquated stat that doesn't come close to showing the full picture, so I'm not sure how you're valuing him here. I'm also not sure how this is even close to "mortgaging a chunk of the future" when it keeps 4/5 of the Duck's top prospects (Terry, Steel, Lundestrom, and whoever goes at 9) in the pipeline (not to mention that other than whoever goes at 9, no one projects to be an elite player in the NHL). At a certain point, there will be more mouths to feed than food available. Might as well get a return for a couple of the kids while their value is high.
Quoting: zvice
do you know much about Buffalo? The majority of Buffalo fans hate Ristolainen with a passion because he sucks defensively, the dude can put up points but can defend to save his life. This is a massive overpay, you don't know much about trade values it appears. I'm not giving up a pure goal scorer in Comtois. Why would I give 3 players that will most likely be solid NHL'ers for a defender who can't defend with a medium cap hit. Also another draft pick like wtf. San Jose didn't even have to give up super top prospects for ****in Erik Karlsson lol. Thank god you are not a GM.
2 sentences deep and I can already tell you know minimal about hockey. I'm sure a player's trade value is directly correlated with how his fans perceived him, and has nothing to do with his play on the ice, so you're definitely right that Buffalo would dump Ristolainen at below face value. With respect to Buffalo, Ristolainen has had an assortment of traffic cones serving as d-partners since coming into the league. He has decent advanced metrics for someone who gets >50% DFS and is a lock for 40+ points. With how bad the power play has been the past 2/3 years, he provided an immeadiate upgrade. His cap hit is also very manageable, considering what the market value is for right-shot PP guys (Kevin Shattenkirk says hello). Risto is also still 24 and hasn't hit his ceiling, yet.
Using a Pierre Dorion deal as a litmus test is also asinine, considering 1) Karlsson was on an expiring deal 2) Prior to this past deadline, Ottawa consistently got below market value in trades (Duchene, Mika Z for Brassard, trading for a declining Alex Burrows, etc.). Having a bunch of guys that will be "solid NHL'ers" doesn't win you cups, just ask Minnesota. The Ducks will have to make moves at some point to return to contending status, and Ristolainen provides a great opportunity to add a guy to the core for the foreseeable future.
I'm genuinely curious as to how much Ducks hockey you know; I'm going out on a limb here because you don't seem to be overly familiar with the team, but there's a guy named Lubomir Visnovsky who was a defensive sieve but was great on the power-play for the Ducks (and has had the most point for a d-man post Pronger/Niedermayer). Ristolainen is a younger and better version of him. If I would make a bad GM, I couldn't even begin to imagine what that would make you.
Quoting: OldNYIfan
Shore, Larsson and Morand are adequate compensation for Ristolainen. Trading Maxime Comtois is an extremely bad idea, as Martin Erat would tell you.
Botterill laughs and hangs up immediately at this. I'm not sure if comparing 31-year-old Erat to 24-year-old Ristolainen (not to mention they play two different positions) or comparing Comtois to Forsberg is a worse comparison, but they are both horrendous. Take off your orange-tinted glasses and try again.