Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
This x100. Last time, pretty sure this is how the dialogue went for a few teams:
GM: "We might lose a good asset to Vegas!"
AGM: "Oh no! How will we keep that good asset!"
deliberative pause
GM: "I know! Let's give them two good assets instead!"
|
Yet many expects thought they had played that game very poorly in that they could have drafted even better players instead of getting so many draft picks.
Even posters on this board thought they could have done a better job.
I agree, lose a player and move on. If you gave decent players you can’t protect them all. And if you move a draft pick to protect a player, you can assume that Seattle believes that’s a better deal than picking that player.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk