Deal Brewin' Between Oilers & Rangers?

RUMOUR			2009/2010 NHL Statistics			2010 Cap Hit
To Edmonton	Position	Age	GP	Goals	Points	Years	Per Year
Brandon Dubinsky	Forward	23	18	3	10	2	$1.85 million
--------
To New York	Position	Age	GP	Goals	Points	Years	Per Year
Andrew Cogliano	Forward	22	29	3	8	1	$1.13 million

Now, this is by no means a complete rumour, but there were names going both ways, so I thought I would toy with the names posted on Hockeybuzz this morning. Hell, I got to use a pretty cool picture of Andrew Cogliano while I'm at it, so that's okay.

So, in theory it looks like this isn't too terribly far off from being a straight swap. The Oilers would get what was thought to be the perfect centre for Marian Gaborik in Brandon Dubinsky and the Rangers would get a speedster that could actually keep up to Gaborik in Cogliano.

The Oilers need offensive depth and Dubinsky can be great behind or ahead of Shawn Horcoff in the depth chart at centre, which means he could be slotted in with either Ales Hemsky or Sam Gagner, depending on how the coach feels that day. That has to be rather exciting.

Cogliano, as explained to me earlier today on Twitter, hasn't been able to slow down and be in more control for the Oilers, so he's not really fitting in. Well, what city in North America loves the flash & dash? You're right, it's the Big Apple. As mentioned before, Cogliano could find himself playing with Gaborik, who is considered one of the fastest skaters in the league... so it's a perfect match. Now, if Gaborik's scoring rubs off a bit too, the Rangers are in business.

Now, I think we can all agree that Dubinsky will come with a higher market value than Cogliano, so that would indicate that the Oilers may have to throw in a little more to get this deal done. Would the Rangers be so bold as to get another defenseman to keep around? Probably not, their top six is so good that they don't even keep a seventh around. Maybe there is another prospect in there that the Oilers can pick up and then maybe throw a deep pick in going back with Dubinsky to call it square?

I think this has some merit to it... what do you think?