sidenote: you would think that with Lombardi's lackluster production, they would've sucked it up and benched him to keep the pick. That pick has to be worth more than benching him for three games.
I thought this was bizarre too. Not to mention they're out of the playoffs. Benching him would help them give up one less pick and maybe fall spots in the standings, making their picks better. Just weird on their part.
I think the conditions were that if he played at least 60 games this year and next we'd get the pick. So benching him the rest of the season wouldn't really do any good, unless they plan on not playing him next year.
Im pretty sure healthy scrtaches would have counted for this deal.
and he had two years to play the total of 60 so it wasnt just another 3 games..
edit:I see this was covered...
I would really like to bring the original thread back up and see all the hyperventilation that ensued when the deal forst went down and then again when lombardi was cleared to play....
doesnt seem like such a bad deal now, does it??
Lombardi was never the issue.
Leafs fans say they wouldn't trade Franson for a 1st now.
Franson could have been a good piece in a deal . And honestly, he'd be better that some of the dmen we are icing right now. But sure, if Lombari was playing 1st line minutes and producing, it would have looked much worse.
IIRC wasn't all the hyperventilating done over Franson being part of the deal?? He of 5 G, 16 A in 55 games played??
that was the initial hyperventilation... folllowed by massive flagellation once it became clear that lombardi would play, making some folks think we had traded a #1 or 2 center and Franson and a 4th for Lebda and Slaney