Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdonkey
Being “all you could get” is not an excuse. It’s a reductive approach to evaluating trades, because obviously you take the best of what’s offered to you. BUT, part of the job of being GM is to negotiate with 30 other people trying to rip you off to benefit themselves. Again, I don’t lay this entirely at the feet of Treliving. I think Edwards is to blame here for tying his hands. It’s another “Ken King was on a plane” situation that has negatively impacted hockey operations, and that doesn’t sit well with me.
“It was the best offer available” doesn’t stop any of the Iginla, Bouwmeester, Regehr, and Phaneuf trades from being viewed as bad. They were bad when they happened, and they were bad with the power of hindsight.
The relative risk/reward balance favours the Oilers heavily. And rightly or not it will be seen as something to be held against Treliving when the time comes to evaluate whether he is the person to put together a winning team.
|
The Flames are allowed to spend to the cap every year. The owners aren't tying his hands. They're allowed to say not to a eight year buy out.
I'm sure Treliving talked to all 30 teams, he has that reputation.
His option wasn't to get better. It was to take the only deal he had or not. Those are the options.
The evaluation of Treliving in this case isn't this trade, it's signing Neal in the first place.
I don't see the Oilers heavily advantaged in risk reward. Neal does one thing; score goals. The age curve says he is less likely to do that through years 2-5 of this deal as he moves into his mid 30s. From what we saw last year he may never get back to those levels. He can't play any other role. His ceiling is higher in the short term, but his floor is much much lower.