Quote:
Originally Posted by trackercowe
Not a fan of this trade, but maybe that's all Iginla was worth and we were all overvaluing him, or perhaps he did force the trade? Either way it just seems that this ends up happening in all Flames trade deals. Have we actually won a trade since trading for Kiprusoff? And yes I am aware we were always going to "lose" this trade by dealing the better player, but the same can't honestly be said for the Morrow or Murray trades.
Maybe these college guys will turn out, but at least today they aren't near the top of Pittsburgh's top assets. During all all of our previous trade discussion I doubt one poster even mentioned the names Agostino and Hanowski. Heck you probably could have gone through ten Penguins prospects before you found these guys.
Realistically though I am all for any change, but it better not stop here. Trading Iginla alone might seem like a vast change for this team, but there are still 5-6 players on the roster who should me moved if the Flames want to shake things up going forward.
|
I believe that to be the case. The precedent for rentals is pretty well established and this is just another example. Teams simply don't trade top prospects for a few months of a player. They'll trade picks and sometimes lesser roster players, but I can't think of any recent examples of a very good already drafted prospect being traded for a rental.
It's not that Feaster screwed up or the Flames management are idiots; that's just the reality of the market, especially when you're bound by a NMC. Guys like Hossa and Kovalchuk could be auctioned off to anyone and even they mostly returned crap outside of the 1st round picks. And it's even tougher when you only have a maximum of 3 potential destinations.
It's become pretty clear that if you want to get maximum value for a player you have to trade them with some term left on their deal.