The Canucks might have a bigger need for a #3 calibre defenseman than they do for a 2nd line Center

[Jeremy Hronek]

The Canucks look destined to make the playoffs for the third time since 2015.  

 

With the recently re-united "Lotto Line", many hockey pundits have suggested that the Canucks acquire a 2nd line center to increase the likelihood of a deep playoff push.  

 

While such an idea obviously has merit, perhaps a stronger argument can be made for the Canucks pursuing a #3 calibre defenseman; someone that could really be the "alpha" of a potential 2nd pairing while also ensuring that the Canucks maintain an elite top pairing in case one of Hughes or Hronek went down with injury.  Here is how I see our calibre of current defensemen.

 

#1 - Quinn Hughes 

#2 - Filip Hronek

#3 - ????

#4 - Soucy, Zadorov

#5 - Cole, Myers

#6B/7 - Juulsen

#7 - Friedman, Wolanin, Hirose, etc.

 

So based on the above, a strong argument can certainly be made that while the Canucks have contingency options for their 2nd and 3rd pairings in case of injury, they may not be adequately prepared for a top pairing injury to Hughes or Hronek. 

 

If one of Hughes or Hronek were to get injured, you'd have guys like Zadorov, Soucy, or even Cole being forced to inappropriately play on a top pairing. While a guy like Hughes could arguably carry whomever he's playing with, as he did with Luke Schenn last season, such a pairing would no longer be considered 'elite', ultimately resulting in a loss of a massive strength for this team.  Let's pretend that Hronek were to get injured.  Here is what our resulting defense might look like:

 

Hughes-Soucy

Zadorov-Myers

Cole-Juulsen

 

To me, that above defense, while not bad, would take us away from being elite.  

 

Now lets have a look at our forward group:

 

Pettersson-Miller-Boeser

Mikheyev-???-Hoglander [for illustrative purposes, I'm pretending that Kuzmenko has been included as part of a 'packaged deal' to acquire a piece]

Joshua-Bluegar-Garland

Aman-Suter-Lafferty

 

PDG

 

The reason why I'm not entirely sold on the idea of acquiring a 2nd line center is due to the following:

 

1. We currently have multiple lines scoring despite our 2nd line weakness. The re-united Lotto line, the Garland line, and our 4th line have continuously produced offence despite our struggling 2nd line. So as the saying goes, "if the wheel ain't broke, why fix it?"

 

2. If there was an injury to Miller or Pettersson, the Canucks could still find a way to try and stack a line (i.e. Pettersson-Miller-Kuzmenko, Mikheyev-Pettersson-Boeser, Mikheyev/Kuzmenko-Miller-Boeser, etc.).  While none of these line combinations would be an ideal 1st line for an elite team, the consistent production that we've been getting from the Garland line and the 4th line would make this far more palpable than if we were to lose one of Hughes or Hronek.

 

3. Given that the Canucks have re-united the lotto line, even the presence of a good 2nd line Center might not be enough to turn that line into a significant scoring threat.  For illustrative purposes, let's assume that the Canucks made a trade involving Kuzmenko++ for Calgary's Lindholm. Here would be some of potential line combinations:  

 

Suter-Lindholm-Mikheyev 

Hoglander-Lindholm-Mikheyev

Hoglander-Lindholm-Suter

 

With any of the above 2nd line combinations, the needle wouldn't move much in terms of providing consistent secondary offence (which the Garland line is doing anyways).  Additionally, guys like Raty, Bains, and Podkolzin have been performing quite well in the AHL, and could also possibly be playoff options to fill in any potential secondary scoring voids.  

 

Upper-depth on defense is paramount.  Look no further than the Boston Bruins. Despite the losses of Bergeron and Krejici and the resulting questionable forward depth this season, the Bruins have continued to be an elite team due to their upper-depth prowess on defense.  The presence of McAvoy, Lindholm, Carlo, and Grzelcyk have given the Bruins a significant advantage. Carlo right now is out with injury but the Bruins are still quite top heavy on defense, and are still winning games as a result.  

 

In summary, I would suggest that the Canucks look at packaging Tyler Myers++ to find a #3 calibre defenseman instead of moving Kuzmenko++ to bring in a 2nd line Center.

 

Pettersson-Miller-Boeser

Mikheyev-Suter-Kuzmenko

Joshua-Bluegar-Garland

Hoglander-Aman-Lafferty

 

PDG

 

Hughes-Hronek

Soucy-NEW GUY

Cole-Zadorov

 

Juulsen

 

Demko

DeSmith

[IBatch]

Think the teams just going to have to live with what they have and we are going to have and to trust that it's enough.    Worried about injuries too.    That's going to be part of this now.    The same way it was with the Sedin era and one of the Sedins, Kesler, or Luongo, or during the WCE era with Naslund or Bertuzzi.   Keith and Moore scuttled those season's.   So get the concern.    

 

Vegas was completely dismantled with injuries then won a cup.    Let's start with playoffs.   Not terribly concerned about the D...so many number 5's now they can figure it out.    Protecting QHs is paramount.   I'd rather we did something to bring a Coleman or Bolland in, over a big name that's going to cost us the farm.  

 

The Lotto Line could be temporary.  Or stick.   We should have a better idea by the TDL. 

[Grandmaster]

I disagree. Our defence is good. the 3/4 and 5/6 work well with who we have. Juulsen is the perfect spare. We are literally a top 3 defensive team in the NHL at 110 goals against. 
 

What we need is a second line centre to carry that line and play a role in PP2 (which is absolutely useless right now).

The Lotto line can become more of a permanent fixture if that second line has a high level centre.

[IBatch]

2 minutes ago, Grandmaster said:

I disagree. Our defence is good. the 3/4 and 5/6 work well with who we have. Juulsen is the perfect spare. We are literally a top 3 defensive team in the NHL at 110 goals against. 
 

What we need is a second line centre to carry that line and play a role in PP2 (which is absolutely useless right now).

The Lotto line can become more of a permanent fixture if that second line has a high level centre.

Think the OP is thinking if we lose one of Hronek or QHs to injury.    Nice thing is, that doesn't mean Stetcher has to step up ... or Deb Zotto, or Hutton or whomever.    Soucy, Myers, Cole and Zadarov are upgrades on those guys, especially come playoff time.   And come playoff time having some beef in our corner is going to help. 

[HKSR]

I think we're ok.  If Hughes goes down, we're fucked regardless of what defenceman we pickup for a 3 D role.

 

If Hronek goes down, Hughes can carry the pair.  We've seen him do it with Schenn, with Bear, with Juulsen, etc.  Juulsen is the guy I'd put next to Hughes TBH.

 

Then the 2nd and 3rd pairs remain intact.

 

What I don't like is us walking into the playoffs with Suter in the 2C position.  It weakens our depth.  Let's be honest, our 2nd line is  the weakest line right now.  Mik, Suter, and Kuz are not showing much chemistry at all.  Even our 4th line looks more cohesive.

 

I'd really like to see Suter back down in the 4C role.  It gives us a lot more depth.

[elvis15]

At this point I'm not worried about making the playoffs, but if Hughes was injured in the postseason it would be the most significant issue we could face. One of Pettersson, Miller or Hronek would be bad but we likely could work around that with the depth we have. Hughes has always shown he can elevate a D partner so we wound be weaker of it was Hronek but doable.

 

And that's not a slight on Hronek, as he also makes his partner better (and is a very good D in all areas), just not to the extent of Hughes.

 

But then the question remains, could we bring in a #3 D that would adequately help if Hughes went down? And would it cost so much it robs from elsewhere in our lineup to make a different injury more of a problem? I still think if there's room to improve its top 6/9 help that can be counted on in the playoffs. That might be had a little cheaper as well since it doesn't need to be quite so high end.

[Ballisticsports]

16 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I think we're ok.  If Hughes goes down, we're fucked regardless of what defenceman we pickup for a 3 D role.

 

If Hronek goes down, Hughes can carry the pair.  We've seen him do it with Schenn, with Bear, with Juulsen, etc.  Juulsen is the guy I'd put next to Hughes TBH.

 

Then the 2nd and 3rd pairs remain intact.

 

What I don't like is us walking into the playoffs with Suter in the 2C position.  It weakens our depth.  Let's be honest, our 2nd line is  the weakest line right now.  Mik, Suter, and Kuz are not showing much chemistry at all.  Even our 4th line looks more cohesive.

 

I'd really like to see Suter back down in the 4C role.  It gives us a lot more depth.

I think if we hit a rough patch with them not producing , that the lotto line will be broken up and strengthen 2 lines and later be reunited near playoffs to have them re= motivated? I really believe in this management team and believe they are always looking out of ways to improve this team and when to make that move without over paying, but finding the right fit

[DixonWard]

7 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Think the OP is thinking if we lose one of Hronek or QHs to injury.    Nice thing is, that doesn't mean Stetcher has to step up ... or Deb Zotto, or Hutton or whomever.    Soucy, Myers, Cole and Zadarov are upgrades on those guys, especially come playoff time.   And come playoff time having some beef in our corner is going to help. 

If we add at the deadline, great, but this is the best team we have had in a long time and we have guys in Abby champing at the bit.  Bains, Podz, Irwin, Karlsson, Woo, Wolanin could all play in the NHL.  We have 4 players in the top 20 scorers.  2 of the top 6 scoring dmen.  Even Tyler Myers is tied with Cam Fowler at 18 pts and is top 10 amongst dmen at +15.  Dakota Joshua has 1 more point in the same number of games as Matty Beniers.  Sam Lafferty is tied with Jesperi Kotkaniemi. In points per game, Teddy Bluegar is .61, Joel Eriksson Ek is .68, and Sean Monahan is .59 (two players we are rumoured to want as 2nd line center).  

 

As a team we have scored the most goals in the league.  We have allowed the 4th lowest.  

 

Since training camp we have added DeSmith, Lafferty, Zadorov, Friedman.  We have also dumped the salaries of Beauvilier and Pearson without giving up significant draft capital.  In the summer we added Soucy, Cole, Bluegar, Suter, and, essentially, Hronek.

 

I am having so much fun as a Canuck fan watching the games, I don't care if they do anything at the deadline at this point, I think the depth, quality, and attitude of the players we got will be fun to watch in the playoffs without selling off our future for 1 more forward or d.  I do trust the current administration to know what they are doing, however.

[Jester13]

11 minutes ago, DixonWard said:

If we add at the deadline, great, but this is the best team we have had in a long time and we have guys in Abby champing at the bit.  Bains, Podz, Irwin, Karlsson, Woo, Wolanin could all play in the NHL.  We have 4 players in the top 20 scorers.  2 of the top 6 scoring dmen.  Even Tyler Myers is tied with Cam Fowler at 18 pts and is top 10 amongst dmen at +15.  Dakota Joshua has 1 more point in the same number of games as Matty Beniers.  Sam Lafferty is tied with Jesperi Kotkaniemi. In points per game, Teddy Bluegar is .61, Joel Eriksson Ek is .68, and Sean Monahan is .59 (two players we are rumoured to want as 2nd line center).  

 

As a team we have scored the most goals in the league.  We have allowed the 4th lowest.  

 

Since training camp we have added DeSmith, Lafferty, Zadorov, Friedman.  We have also dumped the salaries of Beauvilier and Pearson without giving up significant draft capital.  In the summer we added Soucy, Cole, Bluegar, Suter, and, essentially, Hronek.

 

I am having so much fun as a Canuck fan watching the games, I don't care if they do anything at the deadline at this point, I think the depth, quality, and attitude of the players we got will be fun to watch in the playoffs without selling off our future for 1 more forward or d.  I do trust the current administration to know what they are doing, however.

Petey on pace for ~110pts, Miller 100+, Hughes 100pts, Hronek 70pts, Brock 50 goals, huge dmen to round out the back end, defensive-mined depth, Demkohhhh...

This season is on pace for a historic Canucks team. Shoring up the 2C position could very well put us over the top to win our first cup, and with uncertainties of signing so many UFAs and how wide open the league is right now, we gotta do something to give it a try! (Great use of champing, btw)

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

From watching the playoffs year after year...the same sentiment is you can never have enough centerman or defencemen. 

 

I do think the immediate need is for a top six center should the Coaching staff choose to keep the lotto line together. But you need balance at all positions. But if the Canucks can acquire another top 4  guy to continue to offset minutes from Quinn and Filip, do it. Its all about preserving and load managing the players. Don't want our guys running on fumes going into the postseason. If you can find ways to offload repsonsibility and a few minutes here and there by acquiring either, do it.

[bertuzzi44fan]

Dunno about this,someone mentioned they womp at faceoffs. Need another Manny Malholtra,lol.

[HKSR]

I think 2C is still the weakest link on the roster now.  Playing a 3C/4C in Suter on the 2nd line is a glaring weakness in our depth.

 

Defence on the other hand is very solid.  Any of these guys could play solid minutes, and even if we lost Hronek to an injury we'd be ok.  Losing Hughes is game over though.

 

Hughes

Hronek

Myers

Zadorov

Cole

Soucy

Juulsen

Friedman

Wolanin

Hirose

McWard

Irwin

[LillStrimma]

48 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I think we're ok.  If Hughes goes down, we're fucked regardless of what defenceman we pickup for a 3 D role.

 

If Hronek goes down, Hughes can carry the pair.  We've seen him do it with Schenn, with Bear, with Juulsen, etc.  Juulsen is the guy I'd put next to Hughes TBH.

 

Then the 2nd and 3rd pairs remain intact.

 

What I don't like is us walking into the playoffs with Suter in the 2C position.  It weakens our depth.  Let's be honest, our 2nd line is  the weakest line right now.  Mik, Suter, and Kuz are not showing much chemistry at all.  Even our 4th line looks more cohesive.

 

I'd really like to see Suter back down in the 4C role.  It gives us a lot more depth.

We can handle a Hughes injury.

If both Petey and Hughes are injured we at least give the other team a chans to win.

 

For now Tocchet is teaching Kuz to play his style better. 
So the Lotto line now can part ways and reunite if the need comes again.

 

Since the great start of the season Tocchet has tested different players in different positions and with different players to see what’s possible.

The same thing he had to do when he took over asap from Bruce.

When he took over there I said the goal is playoff this season and contender the next.

It seems as we are contenders at once…

[Miss Korea]

I know what you're getting at, but it's funny to see you put two #4 defencemen and two #5 defencemen.  I don’t think that's how it works!

[Grandmaster]

Tanev and Lindholm would address both positions.

 

2024 1st, Kuzy and Pods and they take a bit of salary retention in both incoming players so we fit under the Cap.

 

That would be the deepest lineup in Canuck history. Even more so than 2011. 

[MikeyD]

I agree only on the basis that defensemen tend to get injured in the playoffs far more often and that it'd push us over the edge more.

 

With that said I think both are about equal but a defenseman would be the cheaper option. Also disagree that Cole is a #5. He is clearly a good shutdown defender and is easily a top 4. 

[Jeremy Hronek]

1 hour ago, Grandmaster said:

Tanev and Lindholm would address both positions.

 

2024 1st, Kuzy and Pods and they take a bit of salary retention in both incoming players so we fit under the Cap.

 

That would be the deepest lineup in Canuck history. Even more so than 2011. 

I think Myers would need to be included in that to make it work from a cap perspective.

 

In terms of getting that #3 calibre defenseman, Tanev would definitely fit the bill for that.

 

Lindholm also would be a good 2nd line center, and could fill in on the Lotto line if somebody got injured.  
 

For that new second line, I’d do it as follows:

 

Mikheyev-Suter-Lindholm, OR

Suter-Lindholm-Mikheyev.   
 

Either/or.  Keep Hoglander on the 4th line where he can continue to thrive and develop (he’s already playing very well down there with Aman and Lafferty).

 

Getting back to my Lindholm line, the “identity” and role I’d give that line would be as a match-up line. An ultra defensive shut down line that can possibly chip in some goals. 
 

if this newly formed

Mikheyev-Suter-Lindholm like could be a top match up like that help free up the Lotto line for more offensive deployment, then that could be a massive win for us.

[Jeremy Hronek]

4 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I agree only on the basis that defensemen tend to get injured in the playoffs far more often and that it'd push us over the edge more.

 

With that said I think both are about equal but a defenseman would be the cheaper option. Also disagree that Cole is a #5. He is clearly a good shutdown defender and is easily a top 4. 

Agree that Cole might not be a #5, but he’s a #4 at best.  On a good team, he’s not going to be your best defenseman on a 2nd pairing (a #3), and he shouldn’t be anywhere near the top pairing (#2).  The ultimate point that I’m making, with regards to our defense, is that there’s too big of a talent gap between Hronek and our 3rd best d-man………to the point where no one outside of Hughes and Hronek would be worthy of being on our top pairing while keeping that top pairing at an elite level.

[Coconuts]

I disagree, if only because I don't believe teams can't be over the top prepared for injuries to key players. Injuries happen, sometimes it's top players who get banged up and it sucks. But on some level it is what it is, injuries are part of the game. 

 

Canucks D depth is solid despite offense from the D being top heavy (Hughes and Hronek), but our forward group is also top heavy and I view that as being more of a problem imo. The Canucks have gotten good showings from depth players this season but our second line is undeniably left wanting. Folks like to poke fun at the Oilers for their top heavy forward group, but if we're stacking Miller, Pettersson, and Boeser more often than not that also gives the opponents one big line to try and shut down. 

 

The Canucks would be much better equipped having more top six talent in their top six, two effective top six lines are much better than one. One could argue that our depth makes up for it, but the reality is that most teams who get further into the playoffs will also have some pretty solid depth themselves. 

 

Building a team with top notch depth at all positions just likely isn't doable more often than not under the constraints of a salary cap. 

 

At the end of the day if Hughes goes down that cripples us regardless of who else we have on the back end, losing any of Boeser, Pettersson, and Miller would hurt a lot too but not as much as losing Hughes. If Demko goes down we'd be in a tough spot as well, regardless of how well DeSmith has performed as a backup. 

Edited January 12 by Coconuts

[Jeremy Hronek]

42 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I disagree, if only because I don't believe teams can't be over the top prepared for injuries to key players. Injuries happen, sometimes it's top players who get banged up and it sucks. But on some level it is what it is, injuries are part of the game. 

 

Canucks D depth is solid despite offense from the D being top heavy (Hughes and Hronek), but our forward group is also top heavy and I view that as being more of a problem imo. The Canucks have gotten good showings from depth players this season but our second line is undeniably left wanting. Folks like to poke fun at the Oilers for their top heavy forward group, but if we're stacking Miller, Pettersson, and Boeser more often than not that also gives the opponents one big line to try and shut down. 

 

The Canucks would be much better equipped having more top six talent in their top six, two effective top six lines are much better than one. One could argue that our depth makes up for it, but the reality is that most teams who get further into the playoffs will also have some pretty solid depth themselves. 

 

Building a team with top notch depth at all positions just likely isn't doable more often than not under the constraints of a salary cap. 

 

At the end of the day if Hughes goes down that cripples us regardless of who else we have on the back end, losing any of Boeser, Pettersson, and Miller would hurt a lot too but not as much as losing Hughes. If Demko goes down we'd be in a tough spot as well, regardless of how well DeSmith has performed as a backup. 

All fair points but here is how I see things:

 

-Kuzmenko takes Boeser’s spot if Boeser gets injured.

-Even without Miller or Pettersson, Garland’s line has been playing well all season and could still produce on another line.

 

-As you allude to, we could be in very serious trouble without Hughes. However - if we have that #3 calibre defenseman (ie Chris Tanev), then perhaps you could help mitigate things to a very large degree if one of Hughes or Hronek went down with injury.  
 

My concern with investing in a 2nd line center (assuming that we keep the Lotto line in tact), is that the new 2nd line C (assuming Kuzmenko is moved) would still only have Hoglander, Suter, or Mikheyev as linemates.  In other words, that 2nd line still likely won’t produce much even if you have Lindholm, Ryan O’Reilly, Tomas Hertl, etc. there.  
 

If the Canucks truly are looking for a scoring 2nd line C, then you’d probably have to move Hoglander++ for said piece (Suter moves to the 4th line to play with Aman and Lafferty), and hope that the new 2nd line center can help get Kuzmenko going again.

 

Pettersson-Miller-Boeser

Mikheyev-NEWGUY-Kuzmenko

Joshua-Bluegar-Garland

Aman-Suter-Lafferty

 

Given this, I think I might be starting to understand @Elias Pettersson’s thought process with regards to moving Hoglander for Alex Wennberg .

[Coconuts]

13 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

All fair points but here is how I see things:

 

-Kuzmenko takes Boeser’s spot if Boeser gets injured.

-Even without Miller or Pettersson, Garland’s line has been playing well all season and could still produce on another line.

 

-As you allude to, we could be in very serious trouble without Hughes. However - if we have that #3 calibre defenseman (ie Chris Tanev), then perhaps you could help mitigate things to a very large degree if one of Hughes or Hronek went down with injury.  
 

My concern with investing in a 2nd line center (assuming that we keep the Lotto line in tact), is that the new 2nd line C (assuming Kuzmenko is moved) would still only have Hoglander, Suter, or Mikheyev as linemates.  In other words, that 2nd line still likely won’t produce much even if you have Lindholm, Ryan O’Reilly, Tomas Hertl, etc. there.  
 

If the Canucks truly are looking for a scoring 2nd line C, then you’d probably have to move Hoglander++ for said piece (Suter moves to the 4th line to play with Aman and Lafferty), and hope that the new 2nd line center can help get Kuzmenko going again.

 

Pettersson-Miller-Boeser

Mikheyev-NEWGUY-Kuzmenko

Joshua-Bluegar-Garland

Aman-Suter-Lafferty

 

Given this, I think I might be starting to understand @Elias Pettersson’s thought process with regards to moving Hoglander for Alex Wennberg .

 

Maybe, but I think this year's Kuzmenko is closer to the real Kuzmenko than last season's Kuzmenko. He was always due for regression based on an inflated shooting percentage, the same way Boeser likely is this year. But the biggest difference between the two is that Boeser shoots a helluva lot more, his overall game is also better than Kuzmenko's imo. 

 

Boeser has 27 goals on 116 shots through 42, which amounts to a 23.3 shooting percentage.

Kuzmenko has 8 goals on 55 shots through 36 games, which amounts to a 14.5 shooting percentage. 

Brock has more than doubled Kuzmenko's shots which works in his favour, even if he regresses he's more likely to maintain a higher scoring pace if only because he shoots more. Kuzmenko just hasn't looked as effective under Tochett and his taking Boeser's spot doesn't exactly encourage me. 

 

The problem with bumping Garland up is that hurts the third line, and our overall depth. He's been an engine on that line. The Canucks attack is undeniably very top heavy, their defense is as well but it arguably features better depth than our forward group.

 

What the Canucks would have to give up for a 2C is anyone's guess, but my guess is Kuzmenko would probably be part of said trade. The wingers would change a bit, sure, but the whole point of acquiring a 2C who can produce is freeing up the top line, or being able to stack that top line so to speak. 

 

At the end of the day the Canucks are going to have to give up something good for a 2C or a 3D, gotta give to get, I simply believe they'd be better suited addressing their top heavy offense. 

[CanucksJay]

If a team targets Hughes and does something to take him out of the series, I would 100 percent be ok if we did the same to 2-3 of their most valuable players because that's what Hughes is worth to us. 

But yes, I would love an upgrade at 3D

After Hughes and Hronek, I would rank the defense

Soucy

Cole

Zadorov 

Myers

Juulsen

 

That's still pretty darn good

Can't believe how well management transformed this group

Edited January 13 by CanucksJay

[HKSR]

2 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

If a team targets Hughes and does something to take him out of the series, I would 100 percent be ok if we did the same to 2-3 of their most valuable players because that's what Hughes is worth to us. 

But yes, I would love an upgrade at 3D

After Hughes and Hronek, I would rank the defense

Soucy

Cole

Zadorov 

Myers

Juulsen

 

That's still pretty darn good

Can't believe how well management transformed this group

Don't wanna jinx it, but fortunately Hughes is very hard to hit.  His skating gets him out of trouble.  Makes him very elusive on the ice.

[Coconuts]

30 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Don't wanna jinx it, but fortunately Hughes is very hard to hit.  His skating gets him out of trouble.  Makes him very elusive on the ice.

 

[The Duke]

I’ve been saying that for awhile… need to find a way to turn one of our bottom 4 D into a true #3.  Ideally another guy with decent size, too, so we aren’t losing that element. Like a Hanifin or a Pesce for me.
 

That might be a “next year” upgrade, though.  With Myers, Cole and Zadorov all up I’d like us to chase that upgrade there.  As it stands, it’s tough not to love the meatiness of our bottom 4 in a 7 game series - not sure I’d want to mess with the chemistry by trading one of them this season. 
 

One final thought on D that contradicts what I just said, is that one of the biggest bonuses of the lotto line isn’t just Petey playing with Boeser and Miller.  It’s also that Tocchet has regularly been using Hughes-Hronek with the Miller line - so when you load up the Lotto line you also get the added bonus of Petey playing with our most skilled D men. Adding a piece like Hanifin (just a name - I know he’d cost an arm and a leg and might not even be available - think of comparably skilled (40 ish point) players if needed) would give another pair a much needed boost of skill. 
 

As for top 6 upgrades, guys like Monahan and Henrique are readily available and could be useful anywhere in the lineup whether we’re keeping the lotto line together or not. 
 

Or we can just chase a piece like Guentzel and break up the lotto line.  
 

Going Miller-Boeser and Petey-Guentzel would be awesome - but again, one of those lines is going to have to generate with a very meat and potatoes d pairing. 

Edited January 13 by The Duke