Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
It's not two wrongs is it?
It's one team or another making a "wrong"
But pointing out the stats is irrelevant. My point was the team that had him up close and personal wanted him back, suggesting that maybe his decline was harder to predict from a Calgary standpoint than we think.
|
I would agree, the steepness of the decline was certainly not expected.
And at the same time
- Vegas could have known the asset had some demand and was of more value under contract than lost for nothing. Basic asset management. They would take the player at a certain price and term
- We don’t actually know what the Vegas offer was, and how they valued the asset
- 5 x 5 was only a Calgary media report, and I only see secondhand reference to it. (Honestly, that should at least raise an eyebrow. Why only the Calgary Sun?)
- a decline should have been projected for sure based on statistics and probability
All that matters is how Tre valued the asset - term and $
Term didn’t look good at all, even at the time. That was the type of contract many people thought would look ugly at some point
I don’t see why you take issue with ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. The 1 goal in 17 to close the season? Maybe McPhee thought it was just a slump. Who knows? Clearly he thought Neal had value as an asset, but not as much as Brad.
Two guys valued Neal. The full benefit of hindsight shows us that those two guys were wrong. That’s your two wrongs. Now if Neal has value, there is a ‘right’. Turns out Neal sucks. Two guys were wrong but only the wrongest guy got to actually make the mistake. I don’t see evidence of any other GMs valuing Neal similarly. Logically, they most likely didn’t.