Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Sure, but not every expiring contract does—nor even should it—become a "silver bullet." Like I said, I get what you are saying, and I agree in principle. But what I take fundamental issue with is the urgency to trade Ramo. It IS NOT a critical decision, and for you to compare it to previous seasons' inactivity is laughable.
|
I'm not saying it's critical, I'm saying it's run of the mill, standard operating procedure for successful franchises that are not contending.
It's absolutely comparable to previous situations where the flames as an organization have foregone an opportunity to move a roster player out of their long term plans for an asset at the draft. You're advocating for just such a thing. Forego the return from dealing Ramo in exchange for assurances for a playoff push, regardless of whether he is with the team next year or not.
It's a definitive analogy for sacrificing the future for the sake of the present.
Quote:
|
I won't be surprised to see the Flames make a deal in the next couple of weeks, even in exchange for futures. But they are much, MUCH stronger up front than in goal, and dealing from a position of strength, by weighing all things equally (the value of a potential playoff push is pragmatically just as valuable as another third round pick), the Flames are better off swapping out forwards than their backup goalie.
|
But you don't have to do one or the other, and in this case, Ramo doesn't have a No-Trade like some of Calgary's expendable forward assets.
They will be much more difficult to move and their values potentially lessened as a result.
On the other hand, Calgary is 3 goalies deep and
need to open a spot for Ortio next year.
Calgary got Colborne and Russell for a 4th and 5th.