Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Yeah I don't have a clue.
But that's the beautiful thing about assumptions, right? If I'm right this was their only course of action.
So are the assumptions extreme or wrong?
1. Wanting Neal gone seems like a safe one, but I don't have the inside knowledge of the room. However there are two scenarios here. One, is the guy is poison and had to go. The less extreme reason for wanting him gone is knowing you won't be giving him the top six minutes needed to turn it around. Either way you want him out.
2. The ownership was against a long term buy out. Don't know this one either, but Treliving's comments to Haynes that he summarized sure points to this as likely. If true, it's easier to move the player for a player harder to buy out since you're not giving up the option if you never planned on using it anyway.
So from there I'm guessing neither guy could find a deal (Holland/Treliving) that didn't come with getting an ugly asset back. But once again an assumption.
|
All that is pretty fair and not going to argue with. And maybe it came down to who would blink first.
You could make all those same assumptions with Holland and Lucic that you’re making about the Flames.
But man if Neal was really that much poison, Flames need to look at things like that in signing veteran UFA’s. Versatility and handling a lesser role just seems like basic stuff to assess.