SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Lari

Member Since
Jun. 17, 2015
Forum Posts
208
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 4, 2015 at 6:15 p.m.
Thread: The last trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NickC1988</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>smitty1647</b></div><div><i>Why not just trade the rights too Kruger instead of signing him then trading?</i></div></div>

What's the difference?</i></div></div>
Not letting the Senators negotiate the terms?

Also, if I was Kruger and thought I was giving the Hawks a hometown discount so I could keep playing there (and avoid the hassle of moving to another city), I'd feel betrayed if I got traded away right after. If you had the trade already planned, NHLPA could claim it's "negotiating in bad faith".

Obviously it's not such a relevant thing when making fantasy rosters. Basically, if this trade was to happen, it'd be for Kruger's rights for that 1st rounder. And the end result would be identical.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 3, 2015 at 8:03 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 2, 2015 at 8:14 p.m.
Thread: Hawks15-16
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>graderman</b></div><div><i>And then what?</i></div></div>
Doesn't matter. You play to win. Teams would sacrifice 29 years of mediocrity for 1 cup, because that's how the odds work in a 30 team league.

The time will come when you have to start thinking about rebuilding, and that should be around the time when Toews/Kane are past their primes and Keith/Seabrook/Hossa are already retired. Before that, it's okay to sacrifice prospects and picks for another cup run.

The alternative is to keep a good-but-not-great team, go into the playoffs and lose early every year like the Capitals. Sacrificing key players like Seabrook will mean you do get assets, and those assets will keep you in that same limbo for a lot of years. No cup runs, but a slightly better team for a few more years.