Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
Bill in New England seems to have no issue with it, and he does ok. It's a business. A business with a limited budget. If you want to use some of that budget on heartwarming stories, that's fine, but it limits your ability to acquire assets that actually produce. And, yes, I know there is the whole chemistry/psychology aspect to it, so you have to weigh all that as part of it. But, given that we have accomplished absolutely nothing here, I do not see the need for legacy contracts for nice guys like Backlund and Giordano. At least the Hawks and Kings handed theirs out after multiple championships (and we still criticized them).
|
I totally get that but the NHL has always lagged behind the NFL business model as it's still largely an old boys club full of dinosaurs and even a younger GM like Treliving still follows some of the outdated methodologies of trying to buy leadership and character as we have seen with some absolutely horrible free agency signings. This is after all the organization that botched the Iginla situation so I have little confidence the people in power could recognize that the right decision may be the one that doesn't result a fairytale ending. IMO the proper way to run an organization is to never have a list of players that are untradable. Unless you have the greatest player in the game a team every player on the roster should be available for a price as the team should always been looking improve their roster.