Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan in Exile
I didn't read the whole article but people are absurdly defensive of Treliving. Whether viewed in isolation or part of a pattern, Treliving merits criticism for gifting Kulak to the Canadiens. It was another wasted asset.
As Flash points out, these mid-round picks and wasted salary on contracts for guys with limited roles with little upside accumulate to drag the team down and deplete the prospect pool. We have wasted a significant amount of cap and picks for guys we then paid not to play, or who held down roster spots when cheaper, younger better options could have been playing.
And his response to the Valimaki injury is to double down and do more of the same. Please give me some examples of his veteran depth moves that have been good value for the team. I think the only veteran signings he's made that have been good fits have been Frolik and Hamonic. And even on those, the cost is debatable, and Frolik now looks like he will be moved at below value.
|
I’m in this camp. I think Treliving has done some good work and some bad work. I think this falls into the bad work bucket.
I recall thinking Treliving was making an example of Kulak by putting him on waivers in advance of the arb meeting. Why did he do that? It certainly ensured Kulak would never return much in a trade. I think Treliving went hard on this relationship and in the end did not maximize asset value.
I also agree that in terms of the current roster this move was meh and not relevant.