Quote:
Originally Posted by Saqe
I mean, there's something to be said here about handing out bad contracts in the first place. Acquiring Hamilton, Neal, Brower etc. and then having to find out that "a square peg doesn't fit a round hole" isn't very convincing in my eyes. At some point these bad moves will catch up with Treliving.
|
If you broaden the search to other teams, you will see that there is no GM who has not brought on bad contracts. A good gm is not measured by whether or not he has made a bad deal or signed a bad contract but instead, it is how their team is either progressing or competing.
Tre has built a team that we all love and is one of the better gms in the league IMO as he is very calculated yet active.
The Hamilton acquisition hasn't turned out too bad... I would do it again.
Brouwer and Neal were gambles that didn't pay off but Tre has built the rest of the team in a way that allows for a bad contract to have little impact.
Imagine being a fan of other teams... Carolina lost Ferland after 1 season.
The Oilers traded Hall for Larsson
Columbus could have a competitive team with some serious prospects/draft picks had they not went all in on 2 guys that were leaving.
The Bruins could have Seguin
Point being, no gm is invincible to a bad deal or contract but how you have built the team as a whole will dictate just how bad your mistake was and Tre has sheltered himself and the team but making 5 smart moves to every bad move.
The Hawks received Saad for Panarin