Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
See, in my mind, moving a 2nd round pick for Lazar should disqualify Treliving from a trade grade higher than 3.
That trade is WOEFUL.
Tre has had some good ones, but IMO he's also had some real stinkers.
IMO Treliving's best trades were a couple of years ago now, Hudler, Russell, Glencross, Sven.
Since the pressure has been on, he's looked worse in the trade department.
2nd, 3rd, 5th, 1st, 2nd, 2nd for Hamonic, Stone, Lazar is IMO, a very poor use of assets.
|
Sigh, I think you have unrealistic expectations if you expect him to never, ever lose a trade. I think Lazar for a 2nd round pick at the time it happened in his career is hardly "woeful". At worst, it's an overpayment for a bottom of the roster NHLer who was/is very young and had/has room to improve.
And I don't think those are bad trades of draft picks when the percentage chance of those players playing 100 NHL games is pretty low after the 1st round. Wheras we have been and will continue to get several prime years from Hamonic, Stone, and Lazar until we move on, and then we can still probably recoup a few of those picks when they're done.
You have a bias towards draft picks over veteran/established players (as evidenced by your valuation of the best trades being veterans for draft picks), and I understand that long term you need to draft and develop, but I don't have a problem trading picks for sure thing NHLers in their prime. That's what you would hope half of those picks would turn into once they developed, but that takes 2-5 years in some cases to even see a return on that investment.
As long as you're not ALWAYS trading away 1st and 2nd round picks to fill the roster, and you have a relatively strong prospect pool or roster of young core players, you should be fine long term.
I cannot fathom how anyone gives Treliving even a 3, which would be average. Compare to the ability to even make trades by other GMs and you can see that Brad has a unique skill among the GMs.