Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMatt18
I just think that for trades it should have been treated like an injury.
The deal said 21 goals, not 21 goals pro-rated over an 82 game season.
Neal could have been injured in game 72 and the Flames wouldn’t have gotten the 3rd.
|
Yes injuries are to be expected, and both players have equal risk of injury in that 82 game season.
The thing is, the goal totals they picked were based off an 82 game season with equal injury risk.
If they negotiated terms on a 70 game season with equal injury risk, the ratio of expected games played is less, and thus one can reason they would have negotiated lower goal totals in to the trade clause.
Honestly it’s the most fair way to do it. That’s not being a homer.