Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper
It's all of the above and I would hope that the Flames management group does the same thing considering how many failed trades/acquisitions we've had in the last few years. I hope the team has hired some more critical thinkers.
Anybody can find a way to spin a trade or a player to make it sound like it sounds great, but for me, I'm looking at it from all angles here and my initial instinct upon reading that Lindholm wanted $5M+ was not a positive one.
I'm not even out right saying that he'll regress, I'm just saying, the possibility exists from what I'm seeing. I'm not just going to assume that because he's 23 and a 1st round pick that he's automatically just going to continue to improve. That isn't exactly valid either and with the limited amount of knowledge we all have of this particular player, I don't know how one could even back up anything with "good reasoning." It's all just opinion and conjecture at this point.
|
EVERY player might regress. It is a non-zero possibility across the board. However, unless a team wants to try and sign every player to one-year contracts (which would obviously be a disastrous and short-sighted strategy), they have to accept the risk that players might regress. It is part of the deal with player contracts.
However, you tried to make the case that
Lindholm was a concern with respect to regression. In order to bring this up for a
particular player, it implies that said player is
riskier than the base amount that must be accepted for all players.
And to support your assertion, you brought up Raymond and Brouwer.
Lindholm is not a risk for regression, relative to (moreso than) other players. He isn't. Period.