[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

People saying that Bergevin gained Montreal nothing are just... do you not understand a cost / benefit analysis?

Any chance of getting a player at a palatable cost is worth taking if the downside is non-existent. There is value to Montreal to getting Aho at 8.4AAV for five years in exchange for a first, second and third round pick. That deal constitutes an asset. Sure, maybe there was only a 5% chance that Carolina wouldn't match. Well, the value of a 5% chance of getting him at that cost is worth 5% of the asset's total value. It is, in other words, an asset in itself. Bergevin obtained that 5% asset for the Habs and paid absolutely nothing in return - the Canes matched, no loss to Montreal. It would be dumb not to do that if you have the chance.

In other words, let's say you're offered the chance to bet on the Ottawa Senators to win next year's Stanley Cup. "No way", you might say, "that is extremely unlikely to happen". But what if the bet was, if the Senators win the Stanley Cup, you get $1000, and if they don't, you lose nothing at all? Why wouldn't you take that bet?

So you're saying this time they only had to pay 5 cents to predict the outcome of the coin flip?