Dynasty Hockey League

Evolution: Chicago Blackhawks

I have traded Claude Giroux. I have traded Phil Kessel. Why would I trade the superstars on my team? I traded Phil Kessel because he is too fat and lazy. I traded Claude Giroux because I felt it was time to start revamping the roster for another run in two to three seasons. Some pundits, and there are plenty in DHL, may believe that I have made some premature moves. I understand this opinion, and quite frankly I agree with it. Trading Claude Giroux and Phil Kessel were premature moves. I am most certain that I could have stuck it out with those two for at least four or more seasons to fight for another chance at Stanley Cup glory. The problem with the option of holding on to those two super-stars is that the eventual return on assets would dwindle to almost nothing by the time another three to four seasons transitioned into the DHL history books.

I can almost feel what you are thinking at this point in this piece. What does it matter what return you get on those players if you won the cup with those players? This question is a fantastic one, and one that I have thought about plenty. Winning the Stanley Cup in DHL is really the only reason we all do this right? If I were to have won the Cup with Claude Giroux, and Phil Kessel that would have been excellent, but the cost of that Cup win would be putting the Chicago Blackhawks in a vulnerable position for future competitiveness due to declining market values of the players at that point in time. Perhaps that is a cost of doing business that I haven’t been able to accept, because Claude Giroux and Phil Kessel in their early 30s will not be worth what they are right now, and for the sake of continuity — they had to go.

The astute GM will point out that I could have afforded to gamble on holding on to the superstars if I had an adequate prospect pipeline to mitigate the impact of the residual value I would get in return for Giroux and Kessel. Somehow I have successfully drained my prospect pool of any talent, and I recently have been trading more picks than I should be, and that is exactly how my hand was essentially forced when it came to trading Giroux and Kessel. I recognized that if I waited too much longer, I wouldn’t have been able to  acquire younger, but also proven players to keep a legitimate core intact. Due to the very fact that depreciation occurs in sports, I traded Claude Giroux, some funds, and a pick for Mark Scheifele, Dmitrij Jaskin, and Rocco Grimaldi. I traded Phil Kessel for Rasmus Ristolainen and Nikita Zadorov. I then flipped Rasmus Ristolainen for Marko Dano (a move prompted  by personal FHL preference/theory). I feel that all of these players will contribute to another Cup run in a few seasons, and then another cup run after that. It’s my GMing style that I prefer to rejuvenate the core rather than for holding on so long that I no longer have a choice but to force a Cup-run and hope it works out — that’s just too risky for my liking, especially without a talented prospect pool. Forcing a Cup-run is the bold move, and it would more than likely receive a positive reception, but if it went wrong there would be some disastrous implications. The number one implication would be a roster in the mold of the Montreal Canadiens under the tenure of Pasi.

I couldn’t legitimately end this synopsis without one Pasi jab, so there it was.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply