Eh, not necessarily. If it's Boyle for a couple years, maybe $7M each, that's not bad. Versus what you might have to pay for a top-four defenseman in his prime (free agent or trade acquisition). Or, we could get, say, Stralman (who I like), but that doesn't give us the point production and power play prowess we need from our top four, which Boyle would, in theory, give us.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of trading for a Keith Yandle, if we can. Just saying.
That's exactly my point. Trading for a guy like Yandle makes us significantly better, no matter the price. Signing a guy like Boyle makes us a little better (maybe) but not enough. Given how far we are from being a competitive team, a little better isn't enough. Let the kids get the experience if you're not going to be competitive either way. And IF you want to be competitive, you've got to do something more substantial than Dan Boyle.
When you've got an entire core of guys in their prime and playing well, getting a "little better" can be a big help. For example, the additions of Oduya and Handzus for Chicago. We don't have a core it their prime. We've got kids who aren't ready yet, and old guys who can't get it done anymore. We've got two options A) spend the assets it takes to get competitive again, whatever it takes (within reason), or B) wait three more years and hope a couple of your young guys turn out to be good enough to make up for the lose in quality you'll get as your stars decline. And even then it's probably a wash.
- e_prime likes this