Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
I hate how focused fans are in getting returns for their best players.
I’d rather keep them forever. Is that common? Are we way down on the list of assets accumulated from franchise players? Most stay and retire, or leave as a UFA late.
|
The obsession with "getting a return" for players is asinine and hilarious to me. Every player becomes a hot potato that you don't want to end up with, but somehow you have to bring yourself to ice a roster. I suppose it is inherently true that it is better to "sell high", but if you look at it from a reductionist point of view it becomes absurd. Like in retrospect Treliving ought to have traded most of the team away two years ago, including Giordano. Sutter should have traded Iginla in 2008. Cliff Fletcher should have traded Lanny McDonald in '83; by '86 at the very latest, anyway.
The most asinine thing about this entire thread is that the vast majority of posts are predicated on the foregone conclusion that Mark Giordano will be picked by Seattle tomorrow.
Ron Francis has to pick a team that'll fit within the cap, fit within the draft rules, and that works best for the Seattle Kraken moving forward. Mark Giordano is a useful player, but he's 38 years old, makes a lot of money, and only has one year left on his contract: the Kraken risk "losing him for nothing" after only one year, getting no "return" for him either. "They could flip him to another team for assets tomorrow!" some will say. Sure, it might happen, but the same sobering analysis applies: 38 years old, one year left, lots of money. Francis has to find an enthusiastic trade partner for such an asset, which honestly isn't as easy as people make it sound. I know it sounds heretical, but given his age and his contract there are plenty of teams in the NHL who would
never make room on the roster for Mark Giordano next season.
I won't be shocked if Seattle do pick Giordano, but I'll be at least as shocked if they don't pick someone else instead.