Quoting: jonh514
I did not imply anyone was stupid. You are putting words in my mouth there. I implied Laine is a High Risk High Reward asset. If Davidson decides to hold him, so be it. This is mostly a repost of above but since you responded to an earlier part of the thread, here goes.
Here is a list of ways it could "go poorly":
1) Laine could relapse
2) Laine could have a terrible attitude and damage the harmony of a locker room that is all pulling in the same direction
3) Laine could continue to get injured every year and only play 50-55 games
4) Laine could do none of the above and continue to under-perform at his 8.7M salary which would make him the highest paid player on the Habs
Consider for a second that the new GM of the CBJ could also think about all of these points and decide "the juice isn't worth the squeeze". It may happen, it may not, but to pretend it's not possible is a bit silly.
Yes we can win a lot if we end up with an 80+ pts player. But there is RISK. You seem to only value Laine's upside. That's like me expecting a 1st round pick for Josh Anderson.
I understand all that, but you're still ignoring CBJ's perspective and roster needs for the trade, which is true of every "buy low on Laine" post on here, which are all exceedingly similar.
It boils down to this: we frankly don't care what Montreal, or any acquiring team, needs. What we're giving up is a high-risk, high-reward player that fills a massive need
to us. What we'd be getting back is a load of redundant pieces and mediocre draft picks that don't fill any Columbus need. It makes more sense to keep the player and take the risk ourselves, since his trade value is already at nearly the lowest it should go.
If you based a trade around conditional picks that upgrade significantly if he stays healthy (60+ games played?) or performs well (25+ goals scored) to give us insurance against him bouncing back with another team, sure, we'd be a little interested. Or if you sent back a legitimate young player that fills a need, like a top-6 option to replace him (Roy) or a defensive defenseman (Reinbacher), sure, we'd be interested; for Reinbacker, we'd add, obviously.
But no, you (and every MTL fan on here) based a trade around a late first in a weak draft, a 3rd in a weak draft, a bottom-6 center who's redundant to Kuraly, Danforth, Olivier, Texier, Luca Del Bel Belluz, and Voronkov while being more expensive and worse, and an undersized two-way bottom-pair right-shot defenseman who plays suspect defense that is directly redundant to Boqvist, who's already frequently scratched because he's not better than Jiricek, Severson, Gudbranson, or anyone on the left side.
We're not good trade partners. We both need top-end talent. We both have similar weaknesses. We both want to compete in the next 2-3 years. Would you trade Caulfield or Slafkovsky or Suzuki for a bunch of futures and depth options? No, of course not, you've got plenty of that. You need top-6 talent and we do too.
It's not the "well your new GM could decide to trade Laine" that's condescending, it's the fact that you (and many others on here) think we'd move him for a package that does absolutely nothing for our organization and then insist that it's "actually good because he might not bounce back". We know. We've been over it a hundred times.