Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Friedman is just connecting the dots, here. He does not know that the issue is the Flames's reluctance to retain money, but speculates this based on past history. Of course, you are going to leap to premature conclusions like you always do. But, given that ALL the information we have is that retention is a sticking point, and given that Conroy has gone on record to say that the Flames are open to retention, and given that two years of retention is a MASSIVE ask for ANY team, it seems at least as likely that this situation is a lot more nuanced than just "mUrRaY eDwArDs Is ChEaP!"
Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk
|
Hmmmm, never said Murray Edwards was cheap. EVER. A guy that allows a middling team to spend to the cap is not cheaping out on the team. But continue on with your fantasy fiction. The fact you think the issue of retention is just about spending money is adorable. Edwards has always been willing spend money if it is going to lead to value. That's the issue. Finding value that aligns with the expectations of the team and the ownership. Rule of thumb at any of Edwards' companies has been to spend a dollar to make two (or more). That's Cpnroy's challenge. If he's retaining, he has to extract that same level of value for dollars spent.