Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
A team is only "asset rich" if they have considerably more at their disposal than the majority of their competition. The current situation is such that the franchise has merely pulled even with much of the field over the last 10 years when prior to that they were so far behind it wasn't even funny. Jankowski, Dube, Anderson, Kylington, Gillies, Parsons and Fox are not exactly blue chip prospects in any way shape or form. They're a group of good prospects that are all trending in the right direction for sure but are not going to get you anything significant when standing on their own.
Young players like this need to show they can progress to the next level (NHL) before they hold significant value. Do you really think a team is going to give up anything significant for one of these prospects without bundling them with picks and roster players? No, they wont, because just about every team in the league has a few F, D and G prospects that are in the exact same boat.
|
So what is "asset rich"? Prospects will be all stages of development, so if those prospects that can "show progress to the next level" (whatever that means) are the only ones that hold any real value, then no team can be asset rich.
I don't think that is correct. All teams have assets. Some are in a better position to use those assets for something tangible now. Some use tangible assets (NHL players) at the deadline for picks. Those are obviously assets as well, without showing any inclination they could make it to the NHL.