Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Because it was, or the deal would have been different.
Once again ... do you think he didn't ask? Do you think he didn't try? Did Holland say how about a first and Treliving said "no that's too much!, how about a third instead?"
Short of these assumptions the answer is the answer. That's all he could get. So if 29 teams have zero interest, and one team has interest but only if you get a toxic asset back and they throw in a conditional third it pretty much tells you the league doesn't look at Neal as a "20+ goal scorer"
Right?
|
Being “all you could get” is not an excuse. It’s a reductive approach to evaluating trades, because obviously you take the best of what’s offered to you. BUT, part of the job of being GM is to negotiate with 30 other people trying to rip you off to benefit themselves. Again, I don’t lay this entirely at the feet of Treliving. I think Edwards is to blame here for tying his hands. It’s another “Ken King was on a plane” situation that has negatively impacted hockey operations, and that doesn’t sit well with me.
“It was the best offer available” doesn’t stop any of the Iginla, Bouwmeester, Regehr, and Phaneuf trades from being viewed as bad. They were bad when they happened, and they were bad with the power of hindsight.
The relative risk/reward balance favours the Oilers heavily. And rightly or not it will be seen as something to be held against Treliving when the time comes to evaluate whether he is the person to put together a winning team.