Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug
Hanifin and Brisson are doing nothing wrong in my opinion. A team interested in Hanifin can ask if he is interested in signing long term, and he either says, nope or provides the contractual framework (presumably 8x7-8ish).
A signed Hanifin is worth more than an unsigned Hanifin, sure, but they aren't tanking his value to spite the Flames, they are just telling those teams where they stand. The risk Hanifin takes is that if he is too restrictive, the Flames pivot to a rental deal for any team that isn't on his no-trade list. I think both sides are motivated to be reasonable and attain a win-win. May not happen, but I think the motivation is there, even if that motivation is primarily self interest.
|
It's not a question of right and wrong. They are acting in a way that is measurably bad for the Flames' ability to receive maximum value for their asset. It would be good for the Flames if agents and players did not act in this way in the future.
So, I think the goal here is two-fold: you do the best you can in maximizing what is now a distressed asset, and you show others around the league that you're not just going to roll over and acquiesce to a situation that is bad for your franchise. The hope is that the latter disincentivizes agents and players from trying this kind of thing with your team in the future.