A recent report speculated that an Anaheim Ducks star forward could be a good fit with Colorado. But is that accurate?
A recent Sportsnet podcast has stirred up speculation that an Anaheim Ducks young forward could be a solid fit with the Colorado Avalanche. Reporter Elliotte Friedman identified Ducks youngster Trevor Zegras as a player one NHL executive wanted to see the Avs acquire.
"(H)is idea was 'Go get Zegras,' Friedman said the executive told him. " 'Put him with MacKinnon, see what happens.' "
It's a tantalizing prospect for Avalanche fans, to be sure. The 23-year-old Zegras has showed flashes of greatness in his past two-and-a-half seasons with the Ducks, posting back-to-back 23-goal seasons, and at least 61 points in both those years. But injuries have taken a toll on Zegras, and last season, he had just six goals and 15 points in 31 games. And this year, Zegras has been limited by injury to 30 games, and he's generated only five goals and 14 points.
The problem with Zegras is his salary cap hit, which is a whopping $5.75 million for this season and next season. The Avs would be taking a major gamble on Zegras, and while it's true Zegras might be better by playing alongside MacKinnon, the same is true for every NHLer. And the downside to acquiring would be that he continues to struggle, and Colorado winds up squandering nearly $6-million in cap space.
Scroll to Continue
Recommended Articles
For that amount of money, there are other NHLers who'd be better risks for the Avs. Someone like Islanders veteran Brock Nelson, or Florida's Sam Bennett are both more proven commodities. And the Avs wouldn't necessarily have to commit long-term to them if things didn't go well.
For that reason, we're of the opinion the Avalanche should let Zegras go to another team. They don't have any pressure to spend such a large amount on a player who isn't a guaranteed help for them, and MacKinnon doesn't need any more pressure to prop up a teammate than he would if the Avs acquired Zegras.
File this one under, "fun idea, but let's leave it at that'.
