Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Neither of these are an example of leverage, they’re examples of options. Or, as one of you put it, control of the asset (which is distinct from leverage).
Being able to trade Johnny for other assets doesn’t make him more or less likely to sign. Whether he has a NTC clause or not is leverage that can be used against the Flames in trade negotiations, but it has nothing to do with leverage in contract negotiations approaching UFA. At this rate, people are just throwing the word “leverage” around like it was the word of the day on dictionary.com. The Flames NEVER had all the leverage.
If Gaudreau is fine going UFA and truly desires playing closer to home, the Flames never had leverage. You could argue the 8th year is leverage, but that’s maybe it. Johnny holds all the power, always has.
And, as far as asset control goes, if you reasonably believe you can keep the asset but it comes with a risk of losing it for nothing, and the alternative is losing it for a significantly reduced value, choosing the first option isn’t a “colossal failure,” it’s riskier, but a lot smarter if it pays off.
|
I disagree. Being able to freely trade Johnny to every other team in the league is leverage, vs. Johnny being able to submit a list of 5 teams. I do agree with you on the distinction of leverage vs. asset management/maximization. In this case, the Flames had paths to achieve both and blew both opportunities and are left in purgatory, unable to move on with other business, hoping Johnny stays.