Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Q for the masses.
Are you better off asking for 1 quality asset (1st) vs multiple lower quality assets (2nd + prospect)?
Do GMs think this way? I’ve never understood asking for 3-4 assets if it means watering down the quality to get a bunch of long shots that will never make the NHL. Just get the 1 higher quality asset, no?
Presumably GMs aren’t willing to even do that, but I have seen rumours in the past on various trades where a GM (not necessarily Conroy) will say I want X plus Y plus Z and I just don’t understand the thinking there. Maybe more magic beans is better than less but probability wise maybe Calgary was better off getting 1 higher quality asset for Iginla then beans and Hanowski, for example. A guy who never really was going to make it outside of a long shot chance.
|
Thing is, if you are not offered 1 high quality asset, you try to make it better by adding longer shots. There were two offers for Iginla, neither were good and he vetoed the slightly better one.
Teams that want Andersson as a rental don't have much to offer as far as high picks go. And neither do longer term options, frankly. The best bet is an Anaheim - a team that's trying to take a big step. And might roll the dice on an unsure extension.