Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Not how I see it.
A guy that is very process driven is well aware of pressure points and timing when managing assets.
Every team has players walk. Every team locks up players.
So he passed the 5 team deadline, are you saying he was unaware of it? Wasn't sure what it meant? Didn't know that going by it meant less leverage?
I find all of those tough to see.
They let it go by for a reason, I think we can agree on that.
He either thinks a contract is coming, or decided himself or was told that it's worth the risk vs the team being poor this year.
So you think Coleman called Gaudreau, Gaudreau said "I don't know buddy" or "none of your business" or "I'm testing the market" and he signed anyway?
|
I'm saying it's bad asset management and not "ballsy" to let your best player walk and using that as a counter to people saying he doesn't have the gumption to pull the trigger on core deals is honestly just odd.
I mean what are you even talking about? Process driven? Well aware of pressure points? I feel like I'm in a meeting with a BA. Of course he's aware of the context of market and contract status. Being aware of things doesn't mean you have the capability to make the hard decisions about them. Clearly.
I'm not sure why Coleman is brought up. I didn't mention him, not sure why you'd insinuate a thought I had about a player not relevant to the discussion. If the implication is that he got Coleman to sign here based on him staying, well that's irrelevant. Players say things that end up not being true in hindsight all the time. He has no obligation to Coleman.
I think the reason they let it pass is that Gaudreau wants more than Treliving wants to give. I mean that's obvious and if it's the case you need to move the asset quickly. Not show everyone how stubborn you are by sticking to your guns and letting him walk.