YouGotAStuGoing
Registered User
A lot of this would've been accepted much more readily had the communication from the club been consistent with the approach. It wasn't. Hard to blame people for perceiving a move through the lens the team told 'em to use at the time of acquisition.The problem is that some people still perceive some good moves as bad moves.
Everyone was fixated on asset management when the priority was risk management with these hole plug / veteran acquisitions (Gudbranson, Stepan, Hainsey, Ennis, etc).
The priorities in order of importance when acquiring these vets were:
1. Low term (1yr left on contract, maaaybe 2 tops).
2. Good pro in the locker room
3. Not so good that they take development time away from the kids
4. Assets used to acquire said player
5. Lower AAV
6. Good enough to be a depth player
The result of this approach directly led to us having the great summer we just had. We had almost no issues fitting all these new shiny contracts under the cap. We have literally only one "bad" contract (Zaitsev) left on the team.
These moves directly led to the summer of Pierre