Since this is spreading between threads:
I stand by the source of where this came from.
I think it's pointless for us to debate the possibility of whether it is "utter BullS**" or not.
None of us know what things Yzerman did or didn't have on the go. His timelines and agenda are his own, as are the conditions he was under for forming his decisions.
He's certainly not going to come out and give much in the way of transparency as to how the deal did or didn't materialize, especially when the return he did get would be considered less than ideal.
Of course, we always take EVERYTHING GM's say in the media as 100% truth... right?
I can make a case for how plausible it is on either side.
Either way, presumably the source has no reason to feed me misinformation.
It was his answer as to why there may have been delays in the signing of a new contract.
Less so the details or merits of the "non-trade".
As is common for any "insider" info that comes up on this site... it's an expectation that it will get torn to shreds. That's why I have been sitting on it for a few weeks.
Believe the info or not... it will not hurt my internet feelings.
Regardless, it makes for discussion, and after all that's what we all come here to do.
|