Belated Hannan-Fleishman thoughts
| 06 Dec 2010
Yeah, the Hannan-Flesihman trade happened last week, but I was in meetings that went late in the day all last week and didn't really have much time to really comprehend the situation.
For a pretty good analysis on how it affects the Avs this season, The Copper and Blue (and Edmonton Oilers blog) has a very nice analysis of it.
In a vacuum the trade makes a lot of sense. Washington has a plethora of forwards, and needed a steady positional defenseman, and the Avs have a logjam on the backend and, with Stewart breaking his hand, were desperate for someone who could score points on the left wing. Both players also drove their fanbases crazy at times.
But trades don't happen in a vacuum because nature abhors them (and they suck). In previous weeks The Avs traded away prospects Colby Cohen and Michael Bournival for D-Matt Henwick and D-Ryan O'Byrne. Both those trades were a bit bizarre at the time, but I think they could be justified in that the Avs wanted to add defensive depth for the season. (especially since the Avs have had to deal with some injuries.) But the Hannan trade just makes little sense to me. On defense the Avs have essentially traded 2 promising prospects for Scott Hannan and Jonas Holøs (since he's been the odd man out because of the new bodies on defense). I'm not so sure that's an upgrade on defense.
Of course, the Avs didn't just deal in defense, and the Avs got Tomas Fleishmann in return too. So maybe trading Hannan wasn't in the plans, and the injuries at Left Wing forced the Avs hand a little and they had to trade an asset away in order to shore up a gaping hole in their lineup (Kevin Porter is a nice player, but when he's playing on the top line you know it's getting thin). Maybe the explination really is just that simple.