Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn
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.
|
It's kind of strange you don't get it when it's been explained over and over.
If you can't get value for an asset, giving it away for next to nothing (the odds of a 4th and beyond round pick playing in the NHL are slim) shows teams that all they need to do is wait you out and you'll cave.
That is really straight forward whether you agree with it or not. It was made crystal clear by Burke, and maybe you'd just toss assets out for 5th - 7th round picks and that's great. Sure glad you're not the GM.
This year, it's a whole different ballgame. If we don't get the value we're looking for for Glencross, we can keep him in hopes he'll help in a playoff push. Considering teams give away assets for playoff help, keeping Glencross instead of trading him helps with battling for the playoffs at no cost to us.
You can disagree, but to not understand seems obtuse.