Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
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.
|
What exactly isn't making sense?
It isn't mitigating a loss. A loss is to be had. Pittsburgh - like every single other NHL team - is going to lose exactly one player to the expansion draft. That player is already widely reported as going to be Fleury.
Now, let's say Pittsburgh ends up trading Fleury for pennies on the dollar. Pennies on the dollar is better than nothing, right? Well, let's go back to the fact that every team is going to lose exactly one player in the expansion draft.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Dumoulin is the next best player available on the Pens. So the best offer they get for Fleury is a 4th round pick.
Out:
Fleury - trade to 'X' team
Dumoulin - Vegas through the expansion draft
In:
4th round pick
Is this a preferable situation to just biting the bullet and letting Fleury get selected by Vegas? I don't think so.
That is how teams have to manage their assets.