Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
The people who didn't like the signing were definitely in the minority (I think they were more people who said the trade was a bust IF Huberdeau wasn't signed long term).
I don't think Treliving is making a big mistake with Tanev. He's making a bet that Tanev won't be there for the whole term. Tanev will be worth the money for the first part of that deal, unlike Neal and Brouwer.
|
I was in the wait and see camp, but some of those long-term contracts were for players that hadn't proven anything within our own organization. No proven chemistry, no commitment. Some of these players just mailed it in well couldn't live up to the hype. The question isn't whether the fans agreed with it at the time or not; I think Treliving's approach to signing long-term contracts to players that didn't work out hurt the organization moving forward, especially being stuck with those contracts.You have Treliving bargained hard with our own guys, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sentiment there when new guys were brought in. For the record I think Kadri has been an excellent signing, I do like Conway's approach to short-term show me contracts, and maybe extending them if you like what you see.
For the comment someone made about Huberdeau not signing unless he got term. We could have signed "them" to show me deals with a good priced contract, there is nothing to indicate that that was even offered.
Conroy seems to recognize some of these failures and is taking steps to fix it. I'm not convinced Conroy would have taken the same approach as Treliving regarding Huberdeau, and even if he would have I don't think he would now.
About Tanev, I think Tre is still taking a risk, and even if the player decides not to retire there's going to be a drop off at some point. Tre's approach and some of the risks he was willing to take hurt the Flames organization. Whether or not some fans supported him at the time really isn't a good excuse.