Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
The only veto we have heard reported was the owners vetoed a buyout of Neal (thankfully).
IF the owners vetoed three trades that Treliving brought forward, it makes you wonder:
Why would they keep him around if he keeps proposing bad deals?
Or why would he want to stay here if has no latitude?
My guess is that if the owners did veto deals he brought forward, it's because they created future salary obligations for the club. But it just doesn't seem plausible. Treliving would be gone by now if true, one way or the other.
|
I suspect most owners have a list of players they'd want to be consulted about.
If the deals - multiple at that - were bad, then it's really just an indication of market value.
I think simple loyalty/hope that Monahan will rebound/belief that he is the best option to 'win-now' would be the more likely explanations than $$.
Presumably the idea would be to shed cap...it's hard to think of too many plausible guys that would be seen as a financial concern...Johansen? Tarasenko? Voracek? OEL? Schmaltz?