Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Honesty I get the concern about what they may not do.
My assumption has always been that they will continue to do what they've done for the last two years and manage assets. To me that means assessing the high point in value and acting accordingly.
Andersson is a clear trade for asset management as he can walk.
The other two have to be assessed at today, the deadline, the summer and next deadline.
If they sit on one of the two even though they think the value will drop then I'd be puzzled.
But a comment as a throwaway from a Toronto based media guy on a Vancouver radio show without much support or actual factual evidence isn't going to get me upset and panicking over the whole thing.
|
My worry a bit is how they assess the value of these things.
I don't think they assess the value purely as what the best trade return is.
I think they assess the value of the delta of the trade return minus the value of what it means to have them on the roster.
So I think they are willing to take a little bit less trade return, if it means keeping these players on the roster longer.
Which is a fine equation to have and something they should consider - but I also think they put way too much value on the benefit of keeping these players on the roster, so it throws that value equation off.