You're taking that specific quote out of context. He was claiming that they know better than we do, specifically when it comes to salary arbitration estimates. Yet, we have proven examples of the Capitals in the past either improperly estimating salary arbitrations, or minimally using their upper-bound estimations as public justifications for their moves when talking to the media. I suspect (or at least hope) it's more of the latter. But it leads to an erosion of trust in the Capitals statements when it comes to NHL salary arbitrations, and it's sad to see some fans just buy the lines from the organization without applying any critical thought to them. We have other contracts to compare them to, and we have the eventual signed contracts in two of these cases to compare them to.
Fair enough, but you can't carp about a lack of critical thinking while simultaneously ignoring the very simple reasons a team wouldn't want to trade for a guy they have a good chance of getting off the open market in a couple days.
How much critical thinking does it take to cite the trades of Matt Murray in a discussion about a 25-year-old draft bust who wrecks motorbikes, huffs COVID, and still plays a fundamentally unsound game? Murray has, you know, proven himself a worthwhile NHL starter. Samsonov's biggest accomplishment in the league so far is getting off the bus without falling down.
You keep focusing on their "fear" or arbitration, completely skipping over the fact that Samsonov's camp pretty much had them over a barrel. By the time arbitration is over, the teams most in need of keepers will have made their moves. And in the meantime, no team would or should want him badly enough to trade for him with so many other options on the open market.
During the season, yes, it seemed like maybe there was a chance to trade him, but our GM did what most would have done with a puncher's chance in the playoffs -- keep your goaltender depth in case you need it, even if it's just insurance, and pass up the probably-not-very-good trade offer.
His value in free agency is completely different. And again, any GM -- even those playing checkers instead of chess -- could see that the Caps wouldn't be able to move a guy with a brutal NHL pedigree and would much rather gamble on the better-than-decent chance he'd end up UFA than give up any meaningful assets for a guy that played for a good team and went sub-90% and 3.00+ in his first season carrying a load. You can get a UFA at league minimum to match that performance.
And you keep bringing up Gustavsson, a trade that was clearly, obviously a cap move. That's not a critical thought, either. Maybe he's not as good, but Samsonov could end up costing three times as much. Is Samsonov three times better? No. Twice as good? Nope. You don't find it odd that you're decrying poor asset management while simultaneously suggesting that Minnesota would be smart to manage their assets poorly?
You make some good points about Mac's history with arbitration, no question. But that has very little bearing, if any, on this situation. Assuming that Samsonov has meaningful trade value is not the best foundation for a good hockey discussion. We know he has talent, but all that matters now -- be it in contract negotiations, trade proposals, or free agency -- is that he has sucked out loud in the NHL.
