Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
The tangible asset in question (the 4th round pick) is a really really small positive (and nothing stops the coach from using the younger player if the younger player is in fact better anyways). Absent future knowledge I'd rather have the NHL depth. Hence why it being a "win" depends on Treliving effectively using the space he created. If he does that then it was a good move, if he doesn't then it wasn't.
I'm just not going to call it a good move until we see what he does with that space. If he get's Jason Zucker (at a reasonable price) then I'll say "#### YA! it was a good move!", if he sits on his hands I'll say it was a poor move, and if he uses the space to get us a Troy Brouwer redux then I'll say it was a ####ty move.
Then I guess it's a good thing that I don't care whether I have the minority opinion or not.
|
My trading brain again.
But when I buy an option with a small cost and a huge win payoff with a decent probability I call it a win without even cashing in the option.
The setup of the opportunity is already a win.
Without the move you have depth you don't need and almost zero chance of acquiring an impact player this season.