Thread: Value of: Phil Kessel for Corey Perry?
View Single Post
Old
03-03-2013, 12:22 PM
  #178
DougGilmour93
Registered User
 
DougGilmour93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
what seems quite ridiculous to me is that there are still fans out there that can't understand the goal of a GM and ownership in the league is not to accumulate assets and make sure you get something in return for all your assets, but to win the Cup.

It's ridiculous because such fans ignore the *overwhelming* data available to us from what teams do ALL THE TIME and figure that they know best. NO TEAM deals players like Perry even if he's going to bolt as a FA when they are in a good position to contend for the Cup. Again, I repeat as it seems to fall on deaf ears here - NO TEAM HAS DONE THIS, NO TEAM DOES THIS AND IT STANDS TO REASON THAT NO TEAM WILL DO THIS. And this is a constant reality that has spread over many years and multiple CBAs.

Maybe Leafs fans just don't understand this concept since it's been a long time since they've been in a position to contend. But it's just ridiculous that people who actually follow the league can't see what's in front of their face! It's no less ridiculous than suggesting that a team deal their superstar player locked up for multiple years because he may face an injury down the road or may regress as a player. Teams don't make such moves, and they don't deal star players off playoff rosters just because of the risk of losing them.

Maybe some people here follow a different league than the NHL, because there's plenty of evidence in the NHL of how teams handle their upcoming UFAs. If you're out of the playoffs, then there's all the chance in the world that you deal such assets, as it happens all the time. When you're in a playoff position, it never happens - and that's ignoring the fact that we're not just talking about any playoff team here, we're talking about the team with the 2nd best record in the entire league.

I don't know how many more times I have to mention this, but no one - NOT A SINGLE FAN that has proposed that the Ducks should trade Perry - has been able to provide any evidence that this is how any team has ever reacted to such a situation. Not ONE! Shouldn't that tell us something? I mean, even if ONE TEAM in such a position had dealt their star rental maybe we could see that teams could operate this way, but they don't!

In fact we've seen the opposite many times over. If the Ducks didn't have Perry and he was on a non-playoff team, chances are that they'd be interested in acquiring him for the type of return that people are suggesting they give up Perry for. That is how much playoff revenue and possible contention for the Cup is worth to teams.

I just find this entire way of thinking so ridiculous. Even though there is overwhelming evidence how teams handle such situations with such players, it seems that fans just refuse to believe in reality and try and dream about possible ways that it could benefit their team despite such situations never happening.

You'd think that people here would be diehard fans that would follow the league and understand how teams operate, but maybe people just have blinders on and just hope that their hockey world would be different to benefit their team most?



This is a perfect example of the ridculous assumptions that you and other Leafs fans have made.

If "any GM would love to deal a couple months of their star player..." then why has it NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE when that player is on a contending team?

You'd think if it's so obvious that ANY GM would love to do this, why does this not happen?

From the NHL that I've followed it seems more realistic to suggest that ANY GM would love to keep their star player even if it's only for a couple months, if that player can help them contend for the Cup. We can also say, given the evidence available to us, that ANY GM would love to give up a bunch of future assets to acquire a star player that is only a couple months from FA, and with no guarantee to sign longer, if that player can help them contend for the Cup.

All that, we have PLENTY of evidence for, as it happens all the time (teams keeping their star rentals and also teams giving up quality futures for star rentals). What we never see happening is what your assuming - that any GM would love to deal their star player they only have for a couple months, even if that player can help them contend. I don't know how much clearer I can make this - IT NEVER HAPPENS!! Yet you assume that GMs would somehow "love" to operate this way???
All I have to say is...moron...glad your not our GM or any for that matter.

DougGilmour93 is offline   Reply With Quote