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.
|
This is oversimplifying things but I think GMs operate in 2 modes:
1) Build the pipeline - Get quantity of assets and hope some of them pan out.
2) Finishing touches - The organization already has quantity and adding more quantity doesn't help, it is time to sacrifice quantity for quality.
With CP finishing round 34 of the prospect ranking and I think the voting could go to round 40(?), I think now is the time for the Flames to be focused on quality over quantity.
The goal should be to trade Andersson+ for a significant asset instead of receiving a package for Andersson.