Quote:
Originally Posted by OptimalTates
It’s almost like they are completely different scenarios and knowing what Gaudreau would do at the draft mattered while an actual arbitrary deadline in summer doesn’t mean anything when you retain the rights of a player for one year regardless.
|
Not really. For one you wanted to set an arbitrary deadline to sign Gaudreau with the intend of trading him if he missed its, not even caring if you got peanuts for him, so you could “build through the draft” in one of the shakiest drafts in recent memory with all your moves to make in a couple of weeks leading up. These moves included presenting Tkachuk with the choice between 8 years or a trade with, again, the draft as a deadline,
In the second situation, you think it’s bad for the Flames to set a legitimate deadline for Tkachuk where chuck needs to decide between a long term deal (not necessarily 8) or his one year arbitration award and likely subsequent trade if he goes the latter route.
The situations might be different in detail but they’re similar enough in spirit that it’s inconsistent and makes little sense, unless your entire deal is just “waiting for something you can criticise Treliving for” like you said previously.
What the Flames have done is a significantly smarter version than what you have done, as they retain the deadline that puts pressure on the player but still have time to either negotiate a proper deal or negotiate a trade which could include draft picks for 2023 (a stronger draft) without being handcuffed into taking the best of what was available a week before the 2022 draft.
So it’s complete nonsense for you not to support it. It’s your approach done correctly.