I do know Byfuglien was a forward and I also know Burns has been a forward. How is the fact that these two players can play forward as well as defense not a positive thing? That makes them worse? Less value in a trade because of that?
You’re not taking everything into consideration and I think Burns for Karlsson would actually be a steal for Ottawa considering Karlsson’s contract is up at the end of this season and Burns still has multiple years. “The final years of
his contract will be an albatross” because he’ll be an old man but again, that’s something to worry about in 5 years.
You still haven’t made it clear who wins the trade between Winnipeg and Washington and Carlson is not comparable to Hainsey because in addition to being a 1st overall pick, he also led the entire league among defensemen in scoring. He’s not great defensively? Well, wasn’t the hypothetical trade for Byfuglien who was originally a forward?
When Sergachev does well, it’s because Tampa Bay has an elite team to boost his points. When Subban has the most elite defensive core to play with and good players around him, it seems his success is in spite of those players and people assume he would make an iota of a difference on a Habs team that has no one. On Montréal, Subban would have had to carry the load to an enormous extent and that’s where both his positives and negatives get amplified.
You attribute his success to better coaching. I attribute it to being on a more balanced team than Subban had when he was here and so he doesn’t have to do as much on his own.
All in all the point is to say that it does not suck to watch the better defenseman on Nashville because we do have Weber. It only sucks to watch him when Weber is not active. When Subban gets hurt and Weber is healthy, the opposite happens because Weber is a quality player. This was the case early last year.