Quote:
Originally Posted by ST20
I don't get this line of thinking. This means that no trade in the history of trades are bad because the market at the time dictated the price. You can choose to hold out on trading someone until the market changes.
I also don't buy that Zadarov needed to be traded at this time because of the trade request causing Lockeroom issues. Yes, it probably annoyed guys in the room (as it should) but they are all professionals. Some of them have borderline trade requests of their own. There's never been any indication from players or anyone around the team that he is a bad teammate.
Conroy allowed circumstances around the request to force his hand which is reactionary in nature and typically not good business. I don't think the return is that bad but he definitely could have gotten more with patience.
|
I think almost everything stated here is simplistic.
A GM can set a price for an asset, but he will only get what the market will provide. This can go both ways sometimes they get more, if there are multiple teams interested and are competing with one another for said asset, sometimes it’s less. Sometimes it is less to the point the GM may decide to not move the asset at all, Mike Cammalleri being an example. Or Brock Boeser for a more recent example. Boeser reported to have asked for a trade last year and evidently the Canucks didn’t get what they would have wanted.
I also don’t see the correlation you’ve made that there are no bad trades if the market dictates the price. GM’s probably accept deals all the time that they, in retrospect, would like to have taken another package. Would the Flames have been better off had they taken Carolina’s Tkachuck offer? Who knows. There are far too many variables to link a successful trade to the market price at the time a trade is executed.
Zadorov didn’t ‘need’ to move but it’s clear the Flames wanted to free up cap space in order to provide them with flexibility to make internal moves as they see fit but also be able to accept salary coming back. Plus they moved the player without having to retain, which, once again, provides them with flexibility in how they deal with their other assets. Pretty easy to see this trade was about positioning them to be able to do a lot more than they could have if they decided to keep Zadorov to hopefully get a slightly better return three months down the road. The Zadorov deal isn’t the one to to get bent out of shape over.