Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina
It's about the approach management has to getting the right return not about how one individual deal influences another.
Burke has said that one of the reasons Feaster wise fired was that he didn't get appropriate return on some deals.
Under Burke and Treliving the Flames seem to be more willing to hold the line on what they think is appropriate value instead of moving completely to accommodate the buyer.
So in the case of Berra, my understanding is when the Avs phoned, the Flames said they still liked Berra and if they were to move him the price would have to be a 2nd.
|
Still doesn't make sense to me. So, it's better to get nothing than take a pick for a guy? On principle? Because somehow this is going to send a message to other teams? To me, it's plain old bad asset management if you have an upcoming free agent and it's clear you're not going to make the playoffs and you get nothing for him. The only offers you're getting are 4th round picks? Ok, well it would appear that's all you're going to get, so take it. The alternative gets you nothing. Literally and with regards to your reputation around the league. It makes no difference and in fact is harmful to your organization to not maximize your returns.
The fact that you would take X pick for X guy now has zero impact on any future deals.