Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead
Why does it have to be "only viable option"?
There are other players out there with bad contracts. Buyout was a better cap option. Neal clearly is considered the more likely team to rebound by both teams (hence the sweeteners going to Calgary.
The point being is, there was no gun to his head, and this was not the only option. He has assigned some on ice value to lucid in he trade for a period of 4 years....
|
I couldn't be any more transparent with my thoughts.
I've always called them assumptions not facts. So no I'm not saying it's the only option, but my assumption was that the owners didn't like the buy out (Haynes article quote below seems to back that up).
Quote:
|
The buyout-proof nature of Lucic’s signing-bonus-heavy contract has been another hot topic in social media since the trade was announced. But Treliving also shrugged off that worry. For one, he hints that’s probably two years down the road at the earliest. In general, he says buying out a contract and carrying it on the book for eight years (if buying out four years) or six years (if buying out three years) just isn’t palatable for teams — and in particular, owners.
|
Seems to at least support my assumption to some degree.
So the next assumption in my mind proves itself. Why would he take on Lucic and a light sweetner if there were better options out there? That doesn't make sense.
He could wait it out but clearly he thought this was it.