The Avalanche Roundtable returns from its dormant state this week as the BSN Avalanche staff had a few things to say about the active Colorado Avalanche trade deadline.

Trade deadline has come and gone and Colorado was one of the more active teams. Which of their moves, including the Shawn Matthias trade a week early, was the most surprising and why?

Cheryl: I’d have to go with the obvious answer in the Alex Tanguay deal, partially because Kyle Wood was included. Of course there’s the nostalgia aspect and wanting Tanguay to retire in an Avalanche uniform, but I’m also surprised that he Phoenix was on his short list of accepted teams in his limited No Trade Clause. Phoenix just didn’t seem like a destination he’d want. Also surprising was giving up Kyle Wood. He’s been showing promise, and I didn’t think the Avs were that unsure of him. I like the return, though, knowing now that the Avalanche had no intention of signing any of the three involved: Tanguay, Wood or Conner Bleackley.

J.D.: Actually, the Shawn Matthias trade really surprised me because it signaled the Avalanche were serious about getting into the postseason this year.  The other trades seemed to build on the same premise of needing to reach the playoffs and make a run, which I like. The level of play increases in the playoffs and it would be good for management to see who can rise to the elevated intensity of the games before deciding on contracts this summer and making draft picks. Some players do well in regular season and fade in the postseason.  It’s great for the future of the team to determine which players can rise to the challenge of playoff hockey THIS year.

Andi:  In some ways, all three were surprising in that they were even an option.  Usually, when you talk about being a “buyer” at the trade deadline, it implies a club willing to use top prospects and 1st/2nd round picks to upgrade their roster immediately.  They essentially mortgage part of their future for the present, and that’s not something the Avs can afford to do just yet.  Instead, Sakic traded what largely amount to spare parts in order to “buy” three potentially useful NHL assets.  Each made the current team better without hurting the club 2-3 years from now.

Basically, I’m just surprised there were three sneaky good deals available on a day known for extreme GM stupidity.

Individually now, let’s grade each of the big trades they made, starting with the acquisition of Mikkel Boedker.

Cheryl: B+, though this depends on what kind of contract he signs for next season. That pending UFA status can make or break that deal.

J.D.: For me, it’s a B+. Part of that is merely for the sentimental reason of seeing Tanguay leave. At the same time, this trade made it clear the front office will trade ANYONE in order to field a competitive team, which is not a bad message this time of year. Boedker is definitely an upgrade and should be able to keep up with any of the top two lines, which Tanguay could no longer do. Bleackley wasn’t going to make the team and the Avs DO have a lot of young defenseman in the pipeline so losing Wood doesn’t hurt too much. Also, I’m inclined to think Boedker might sign for less money on a team with a future.

Andi:  A-. From the sounds of it, Tanguay, Bleackley, and Wood weren’t going to be back with the club. Boedker is a UFA, so he might not be either, but getting a maybe for a set of nopes is an upgrade.  In the games until that point, Boedker should be able to play the role that Tanguay was no longer capable of, namely filling in as a Top 6 forward and taking on some power play responsibilities.  It is a bit of a bummer to lose Wood, the potential compensatory 2nd round pick Bleackley would turn into at the end of the year, and the concept of Tanguay playing for the Avs, but going after Boedker was still an asset savvy move for the team.

AJ: B. I’ve thought a lot about this deal and the price doesn’t bother me much (consider Nashville gave up a 1st round pick for a third pairing defenseman and bottom six forward last year) but the player makes me nervous. Boedker is a player with a flashy, exciting skill set but he’s an incomplete player and not great defensively. If he couldn’t shape up that part of his game playing under Dave Tippett for a number of years, no doubt he’s not going to be a game-changer in Denver. I am excited to see how he fits alongside players who are more suited to his game as Nathan MacKinnon and Gabriel Landeskog are likely to bring out more offense in him than the likes of Antoine Vermette and Tobias Rieder.

This grade has lots of movement underneath it, though, as it ultimately comes down to the contract he signs in the summer. If it’s not with Colorado, it changes to F. If it’s too long or too expensive (more than five years, more than $5 million per year, for example) it changes to F. If the Avs can get it more in the Matt Beleskey contract range, it’s a victory. In essence, there’s a lot more ways for this deal to fail than succeed long-term but I’ve always loved bold moves so good for the Avs front office in going for it without giving up too much.

Now move on and grade the Eric Gelinas Gelinas trade.

Cheryl: A, the Avalanche traded a third round pick in next season’s draft (presumably one in which the Avalanche will be picking further down on draft day) for a second round pick that has NHL experience. How can this pick be a bad thing? Sure, Gelinas might not pan out, but how often does a third rounder turn into a legit NHLer anyway?

J.D.: A!  Gelinas for a 3rd round pick in the 2017 draft looks like a steal. It helps offset the loss of Wood – who still needed a few years to develop as a defenseman – and we now have two new guys (with Boedker) who know how to score on the power play. If nothing else, it lightens the load on some of our other defenseman and raises the quality of the pool to draw from. Roy and Sakic seem to know how to re-build confidence in young players (as they did with Grigorenko) plus he’s signed through next year, so there’s hope this could be more than a short term solution, which is great.

Andi: A. Depending on what study you look at (here, here, or here), the chance of a third round pick even making the NHL is around 25-33%, not to mention the 3-5 year development time. Gelinas is a former 2nd round pick who has his development time mostly out of the way, provides a booming shot from the blueline, and is still young enough to potentially grow his game.  He needed a change of scenery and fits the Avs MO of reclaiming young defensemen.  Even if he doesn’t work out, the cost is low enough to take that chance.  Great move.

AJ: C+. I like the player, don’t mind the cost, and could like the fit down the line but right now Gelinas and Nick Holden are essentially redundant. I’ve liked Holden’s growth this year but not so much that the team needed to duplicate him. He’s a player I enjoyed watching in New Jersey and I like his potential, especially the likelihood that he provides a boost to the second power play unit, but at just 24 and with limited upside, I’m not sure where his long-term fit is and for the moment he mostly just adds another bottom-pairing body to the mix. Depending on what the team does about it’s logjam over the summer, this grade could fluctuate quite a bit.

Last but not least, what grade would you give the Avalanche for the Shawn Matthias deal?

Cheryl: B with reservations, I liked Colin Smith and felt he had the potential to make it to the lower lines of the Avalanche. So far, I like what I’ve seen in Matthias, but is this one of those surges that comes after a trade or are we seeing what we’re getting? If it’s the latter, then the B stands. If it’s the former—or he walks at the end of the season and doesn’t re-sign—, that grade drops to a C-.

J.D.: I give it a B+. I really like the upgrade on the Soderberg/Comeau line which has been struggling without Landeskog. The team does better with a high-performing third line and they needed someone at Soderberg’s and Comeau’s compete level. Having said that, the Avs did relinquish a quality prospect so that’s why it’s only a ‘B+’.   Since the organization seems to be moving away from Rick Pracey picks, Colin Smith may have been undersized to play center for the current Avalanche and might not have had much of a future with the team. Matthias could also be relatively easy to sign should he perform up to expectations, which could change this grade to an ‘A’.

Andi: A-. Unlike my colleagues, I didn’t put much stock in Colin Smith’s future with the Avs. When Roy came in and started talking about making the roster bigger, it meant 5’-10” Smith’s days were almost certainly numbered. I wish him luck in TOR and hope he finds his way into the NHL, but it wasn’t going to be here. Matthias is 6’-4” and appears to be a solid bottom 6 option for Patrick Roy. Just like with Boedker, it’s hard to argue with turning essentially a dead asset into a useful player.

AJ: A. This was my favorite of Colorado’s deadline deals. It’s probably the lowest impact but it’s also the cheapest deal they made. A fourth round pick isn’t nothing and I like Colin Smith as a prospect but both things the Avs could easily part with to essentially replace Andreas Martinsen, whose game had badly slipped beyond the point of acceptable. Matthias isn’t a transformative player but he’s reliable in his role and his style fits the Avalanche very nicely.

While you could make the argument he’s overpaid for the role he’s in, if he re-discovers the goal-scoring touch displayed earlier in his career then he provides a dangerous element to what has been an impotent bottom six.