Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Right...no one shall question the great BT.
Got it.
And the reason i dont like the Lucic deal is because
a) he sucks...and sucks badly...and has sucked badly for 2 1/2 seasons now.
b) There was an out on the Neal deal that does not exist on the Lucic deal. (Albeit one that no one wants to use if necessary, but at least it was there)
I want this team to get meaner and tougher...this does not do that however because the player cant play...sort of a key part of things. 7 goals in 122 hockey games on a team with McDavid and Draisaitl on it. Neal scored that many in 63 last year.
I believe keeping Neal one more year to see if there was a bounce back is WAY more favorable than acquiring a guy that is terrible at the game.
But its pretty clear the vast majority want to spin it into a positive somehow and that Treliving should be immune from criticism for it even though he is the very guy that created it....i dont.
|
Ways to grade your GM:
1) team on paper
2) trades
3) signings
4) drafting
...
...
...
...
74) swapping an under performing, untradeable player who had a dozen tries to turn his play around with another bad contract with hopes of filling a hole and getting more out of a player
Maybe wait a hot minute to judge a trade. Bad trades involve mismanagement of assets. James Neal was not an asset.