Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
That's fair. But does the possibility that Iginla MIGHT have entertained a trade at an earlier point in time absolve him of any role in the dimished value the Flames received in return? My point would be that he played a part, and that part should be factored into account and not held against management and ownership for some things over which they had limited control.
|
Hey, you take your lumps if that's the way the story is playing out. If Iginla is being obstructionist and limiting your ability to trade him, say so.
The offseason before he was traded, Iginla and camp made it clear to feaster and camp that he wasn't going to sign an extension during the season. Implicitly, that is an indication Iginla intends to test free agency.
He's stirring the silt in the trade waters.
On the one hand, No, I don't think Iginla doing what's best for Iginla should be held against him. If my employer was acting in such disregard for their own position I would take as much as I could get. That's been the Iginla approach during his tenure with Calgary and I don't fault it substantially. In all of this, he's the smart, rational one, looking out for numero uno.
I get accused of being an Iginla hater, but he gets full marks for this in my mind. He hung that management group with the rope that they gave him. It's not his fault, nor is it a detraction, to do what's best for yourself as your prime earning potential and chances for success are dwindling by, at that point, the hour.
It's 110% on management that they chose, repeatedly, not to insulate and protect themselves.