View Single Post
Old 06-02-2017, 02:42 PM   #403
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe View Post
Not quite right. As Getback posted earlier, Pittsburgh will only deal Fleury if the return is at least equal to or higher than the player that Pittsburgh would then end up losing in the expansion draft in lieu of Fleury.
That makes no sense at all. What you are saying is that Pittsburgh will do one of two things:

(a) Trade Fleury, but only for such assets as will 100% compensate for any other player lost in the expansion draft;

(b) Lose Fleury in the expansion draft and do nothing about it.

Normally, in dealing with a projected loss of assets, you consider options other than total mitigation and no mitigation at all. It's better to cut your losses than just sit and take them, even if you can't cut your losses all the way to zero.

If the market dictates that you can't cut the losses to zero, logic dictates that you do the best you can. You appear to advocate that the Penguins should just take it on the chin if they can't find a perfect deal.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.

‘You see in Calgary, [Ryan] Huska is no joke. It’s good. He’s really set on a specific model defensively. If you can be reliable, you have the freedom to play offence.’
—Ethan Wyttenbach
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post: