Quote:
Originally Posted by AC
The comments in all the clutter that stick out is Treliving saying "We take everything into consideration, both on and off the ice. I don't share a lot of things that players share with me."
Sure sounds like Dougie told Treliving he wanted a trade. If a player doesn't want to be on the team, I think it inherently will affect his compete level and desire to win with that team.
|
That's not how I took it. I took that as players wanting him out.
Either way, I see nothing wrong with speculation, but the certainty some people have with their conclusions is silly (you did not do that here. I'm speaking generally).
There's a few takes that seem patently ridiculous to me:
1) "So what if he's academic, that shouldn't matter to a GM". There's zero evidence that's why he's been traded twice. There's zero evidence any player dislikes a teammate because he's "academic". A person with only a high school education isn't really an "academic" anyways. Huge strawman.
2) "Dougie didn't want to win, or was not a good teammate". There's nothing but speculation on this. No teammate has said as much and Treliving didn't say it either. It may be true, but it's a pretty vague assertion backed up by only gut feelings, so no one should be so sure about this.
3) "Unless Dougie committed murder or some other heinous crime, his on ice play was good, so he shouldn't be traded". A GM has to keep his team a place where players want to play. If situations arise that have to be resolved, you cannot just let it be because on ice play is so important. I do not know if that's the case here, but neither do you. There isn't some vague on ice benefit to be had from a happy dressing room, but getting and keeping other players is important. These aren't machines we're dealing with.