Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
The man who preaches against hyperbole resorts to hyperbole to defend his boy. 
Every situation is different. In the Flames situation Treliving has to be looking at the dearth of assets he has to work with and has to start thinking about the bigger picture. Wasting opportunities to recoup the assets we need to improve the team is what keeps the Flames in the endless cycle of mediocrity.
I think we'll have to disagree on this. If Treliving thought he was an important cog in the machine he would have prioritized Brodie's signing. He had the window to do so, and he elected not to. Instead there were other signings that took precedence. If both sides believed a deal would be there, Brodie would still be a Flame. I think the writing was on the wall and Brodie knew he was headed to greener pastures. Treliving should have moved him.
I held the same opinion when the name was Mike Cammalleri, so this shouldn't be any surprise. I firmly believe that when you have opportunity to move expiring contracts, and you do not have an extension in the bag, you must move the player and maintain your asset base, especially when you are asset poor. |
Well both sides said they were talking, but that Calgary had to lock down Markstrom first.
That pretty much confirms both sides had some intent.
It happens.
Add in that Calgary had a plan B lined up and his asset management was just fine in the end.
The window added Markstrom and Tanev and Brodie went out. That's a step up in assets, not backwards.