Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
If Gaudreau was put on the table last summer, or even the year before, I have no doubt that teams around the league would have made some pretty decent players available. It's impossible to say. I wouldn't have been shocked if Philly would have paid a high price at that time as it was likely they thought they could sign him to an extension.
I get that having Gaudreau helped win the division and making the 2nd round of the playoffs is nice, and that has value. But it's not like Treliving would have got nothing for him. Gaudreau's value was not as low as some people seem to think IMO.
This is one thing that I don't understand about how people can call Treliving a wizard and put him above criticism, but then have absolutely no faith that he could have pulled off a great trade where the team would still be competitive without also losing a franchise player for nothing. When it comes to making trades, that is the one thing that I think Treliving does better than almost any other GM.
It really depends on what happens in the future. If having one good season (not even what I would call great in the big picture as the team was pummeled in the playoffs) means it is followed by several years of mediocrity for losing a franchise player for nothing, then I personally don't think it is worth it. Only time will tell.
|
FWIW, the Athletic had a piece at the end of the 2020 season in which they polled NHL execs, scouts, coaches on ‘realistic’ trade proposals. The deal for Gaudreau was Koneckny for Gaudreau and a 5th. Out of all the other deals, this was the only one that had universal approval.
On one hand you say Treliving deserves credit for making hood trades but what if there simply wasn’t a good trade to be made? Does he do it anyway because the player might leave in two years or a year or whatever? Bear in mind up until he left, Gaudreau stated publicly, on a number of occasions, he wanted to stay.