Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Treliving got raked over the coals for making that trade, starting about five minutes after it happened.
|
Ok, I think you're really mixing up your arguments.
You said rentals don't generate significant returns.
Someone said Giroux for 1st and Tippett is significant.
You said Tippett is not a prospect of importance because he's 23, so not significant.
I said Tippett is worth quite a bit because he's young and can pop, therefore he has significant value.
You said Lazar was young and could pop, but he has no value.
I said Lazar got Ottawa a 2nd, which is significant value.
Now you're saying we overpaid for Lazar, so I think you agree that players like that can have significant value, even at the expense of other teams misjudging players.
So I think we are on the same page in terms of young former 1st rounders with potential to pop do hold significant value, even if they in fact do bust in the end.
So at the time of trade, Giroux returned quite a significant package based on value (of picks and of players).
Either way, I don't disagree with you that high end prospects don't usually get traded for rentals, so we'll leave it at that.
I do think based on returns for other rentals, we should have got more for Hanifin, by the fact that Hanifin is way better than other rentals.
Rentals don't return a lot every time, but most years players worse than Hanifin return more than what we got.