Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
I’m sure there’s a historian here amongst us but is this true? Did Burke really “set a precedent” and did he have trades after the Cammy situation that appeared to be greater than expected where we can draw a line to this strong stance? Because it felt more like losing an asset for nothing
|
I don't know if there is any way to prove this - I'm just going off of Burke's own logic after said trade deadline.
My own thoughts - Feaster was dummied on a couple of those big trades (Iggy, Bouwmeester) and
embarrassed by the O'Reilly fiasco where we almost lost a top-10 pick for nothing. So maybe at the time there was more reason for Burke to impose a hard-stance.
Just thought it was a decent anecdote, especially considering Conroy credits Burke for teaching him a lot while he was AGM.
EDIT: striked out O'Reilly portion, corrected by IAmNotKenKing page 1470