Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
Gostisbehere was traded to Arizona on July 22nd. The Flames acquired Zadarov on July 28th and then didn’t sign him for a while - so yes the Flames had the space to take on Gostisbehere.
If the goal of the GM is to build a good team, which is usually done by acquiring good players (not bad ones), then the Flames would have been better off trading a 3rd for Gostisbehere - but they wouldn’t have even needed to as they could have taken advantage of Philly in the same way Arizona did and gotten paid a 2nd and 7th to take on Gostisbehere.
If anyone is arguing that the Flames should have paid a 3rd for Zadarov and then signed him for $3.75M at this stage I’m not really certain what to say. He’s a bad player and generally has been for some time. The point about impacting Kylington doesn’t track. You play the best 6 players. Kylington was one of the best 6 players, and he knocked Valimaki into the AHL - adding Gostisbehere wouldn’t have all of a sudden made the Flames suppress Kylington.
Hanifin - Andersson
Gostisbehere - Tanev
Kylington - Gudbranson
Or
Hanifin - Andersson
Kylington - Tanev
Gostisbehere - Gudbranson
+ 2nd rounder + 3rd rounder + 7th rounder
Is significantly better than:
Hanifin - Andersson
Kylington - Tanev
Zadarov - Gudbranson
|
Don’t think you really want to acknowledge that the Flames clearly wanted a physically imposing 3rd pair, or at least the option for it. I’ll side with the guy who has two cups and 35-ish years in the NHL as a player, assistant coach, coach, GM and executive. Add to that the years Treliving, and Maloney you’re looking at decades of professional hockey experience.
But I’m sure you have it figured, and they could learn a lot starting with ‘a good GM acquires good players.’