That doesn't mean you use this approach with EVERY player on the roster.
In this case, it made sense with Shaw given that he's not irreplaceable..same with Paul Byron who IMO, will get moved at some point in the next 12 months.
Again. No clear direction...
A bit of this a bit of that. No commitment.
This is market fluctuation...a player's value isn't static.
I don't see what's particularly noteworthy in this.
Bottom line, we sold him for less than we bought him, that's not a peaked value. Stop trying to spin it.
And neither do you...
Did you think Max Domi would score 28 goals and have 72 points last year?
So i'm sorry, you don't know that nobody can come in and score 20 goals and 50 points.
Oh..great...what an argument. You're really going into the ''let me claim something and then tell people they can't prove me wrong!''?? I expect that from HF trolls..it's like their favorite line of arguing.
Burden of proof is on you, not me. You claimed his contributions could be replaced internally, not me.
We have no prospect as of today who would be expected to come in at perform/contribute as much as Shaw did last year.
Might as well just say Domi will score 100pts. I can't prove you wrong on that either. I also can't prove every time I blink, Donald Trump farts. So how about sticking to what we actually know?
As I said, right now, nobody is set to produce as Shaw did.
The plan once again is to get younger, faster and to build through the draft.
You can argue the return on the trade or the trade itself...but it falls in line with what he set as a goal 2yrs ago.
I mean, where was this love for Andrew Shaw when he was a Hab? How did he become indispensable the moment he was traded???
I don't care about Shaw. If his objective was to get younger and draft better talent, then I want a lot more than just Shaw traded. I'd also be pretty disappointed that we moved Subban, Patches, Galch and we couldn't even grab an extra 1st round pick.
Also, Bergevin's objective is also to make the Playoffs, moving Shaw doesn't help us reach that objective. Conflicting.