Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty81
I respectfully disagree... I think it was very poor judgement by Treliving not to take the 6 year option if true. I appreciate that he would have needed to make other moves but you build around your key pieces and move vets and secondary players as needed to keep them not the other way around. Calgary has a long history of star american players wanting to move on after they've done their time and there were many people here concerned about the bridge deal when he chose to sign it. Just from a simple asset value preservation perspective locking in your young star players is always the way to go in today's NHL
Treliving made a lot of decent moves but for me decision to bridge Tkachuk and his failure to accurately assess Gaudreau's intention/waiting until the last minute so he had no trade option were two catastrophic mistakes
|
I think it's an interesting discussion to be honest. I'm not sure which way I would have went, but I can understand the logic behind going for 3 and trying to main RFA control on the player.
Gaudreau got the 6 year deal.
Tkachuk got the 3 year deal.
Gaudreau walked at UFA leaving the Flames with nothing.
Tkachuk with the 3 year deal created a trigger point where Treliving still had control as an RFA and allowed him to make the deal when Tkachuk's intentions were clear.
If you don't like how Gaudreau's situation ended then I'm also not sure how to be against the Tkachuk deal. It created a push point to make sure Tkachuk's intentions were clear, and allowed them to move him at full value where a team could negotiate their own contract with him.