Irie
Registered User
I disagree with this philosophy. You can still strike out even if you don't take any swings. And Adams has struck out. There are no walks in this analogy for Adams to try to fall back on by not taking any swings.
I think Adams is giving Milbury a run for his money. Eichel, Reinhart, Ullmark and Montour is an impressive group of players to trade away or otherwise lose. And these players have already had more immediate success than the big names that Milbury traded away like Chara, Spezza or Luongo.
The Islanders even made the playoffs in Milbury's 4th, 5th and 6th seasons as full time GM.
So you are telling me that you would rather have a GM come in and Milbury this roster than stay on the present course? That seems like desperation talking. This roster is not that bad. It is coached poorly and absolutely built wrong for a Ruff game plan, but it is also the youngest team in the league and there are a lot of paths forward that I believe can still lead to a very competitive roster without a complete overhaul.
But back to the philosophy in question, which is that bad trades are worse than no trades. If a trade is better than a no-trade, then isn't it a good trade just by definition alone? A bad trade by nature is always worse than a no-trade, so there shouldn't be any real world scenario where a bad trade is good.
Bad value trades may happen for team needs and they can still be good trades that improve a team. 40 goal scorer and former first overall pick Owen Nolan for Sandis Ozolinsh was a terrible value trade, but all in all, a good trade for Colorado.