Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
That is pretty awful logic and I hope it's not true. A bad signing is a bad signing, as evidenced by the fact they can't give many of these guys away. Let's not rationalize it away, saying management didn't think it would matter because they thought the team would be bad.
|
You don't seem to understand how much the situation of the team has changed since Treliving first took over. And that a decent signing in one situation can be bad in another. Context. You seem to be lacking it when evaluating the moves.
Imagine for a second that Gaudreau struggles to adapt to pro and is sent down to the minors for a lot of his rookie year. Imagine that Monahan has a sophomore slump. Our kids progressing at a fast rate was not a certainty to happen so don't pretend that it was.
Heck even I thought the Raymond signing might've been decent at the time. And now I'm probably one of the biggest haters of the move.
Circumstances have changed DRASTICALLY since those moves were first made. Yes, some of them look bad because of how the team progressed. But Treliving isn't a wizard, he didn't have a crystal ball that could've predicted Johnny and Monny's meteoric quick rise and Hudler's monster season.
Some of you are being unfair in your analysis of the moves, not acknowledging how much circumstances have changed.