Nolan wrote:Pitkanen to the Canes for Erik Cole and Torres to the Jackets for Brule. Not sure how I feel about either one of these deals. Cole can be a good player when healthy and Brule has potential.
My only question is what is Lowe doing? These two deals are very contradicting; he trades a young D-man with lots of upside in Pitkanen for a vet then he trades a proven player for a project in Brule, I don't get it.
I suppose if you're looking for an ethos, look elsewhere. But there is a common factor in both deals. The main reasons these trades were executed were not because of the players coming back to the Oilers, or an abject desire for any particular quality (youth, experience, speed), but rather, the players leaving and how management views them (and their salaries).
Pitkanen was the result of a contract dispute, one in which management felt no compromise could be reached while still benefitting the Oilers organization. The deal has less to do with Cole than it does with the expendability of a player who management felt was no longer a necessity for moving forwards, and therefore, would likely be more valuable to another organization than their own. With the Visnovsky trade, this expendability became even more apparent, to the point to which Pitkanen was no longer just expendable, but redundant. Essentially, they traded from a position of relative strength to gain scoring and depth at the forward position. Whether or not the talent exchange was equal, or beneficial to the Oilers is certainly debatable, but the reasoning comes mostly from a desire to get rid of Pitkanen, a move that was likely at least in part championed as a cost-cutting measure (Cole will make $4 million next year, Pitkanen will likely receive a multi-year deal for well over $5 million, assuming he avoids arbitration).
The Torres deal revolves even more so around the idea of making a trade just to get rid of a player. Torres has an inflated contract, and provided little in the way of offensive production, to the point where management clearly feels the team might just be better off giving his roster spot to someone else. Whether or not Brule pans out is secondary; the fact that he still has potential is nice, but the reason for this trade is to get rid of Torres and to save money (which can also be considered the two main reasons for the Pitkanen deal as well).
Possibly the best reasoning that can be given for these two trades is also the simplest: the players involved were both exceedingly expendable, and in Torres' case, practically liable. It is then only a contradiction if you view the trades in terms of the potential of the players involved, rather than by what the Oilers organization is looking to gain from them.
