Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum
IMO (and that's all it is, so feel free to just tell me to deal with it), but Hartford shouldn't get an easy out like this. If they have stockpiled players and need to drop them, then that's what they should be doing, not a trade like this. Chicago can still likely get tons of players from FA, including the ones we vets will soon be releasing ourselves, to fill out their system, and keep Standford Jones.
Chicago is obviously suffering a bit from absentee ownership, and probably some of the other new owners' teams as well, but maybe we need to work out a workaround for that instead of allowing a deal that would benefit one team (Hartford) at essentially the cost of nothing.
|
Hmm..I totally understand your sentiment. I really do.
But at the same time, I prefer a scenario like the one they worked out. Any team could do it. I like new owners digging in and using their cap room to work out a situation however they want.
Do I think Hartford could've been in a pickle had this deal not occurred and would've had to release a bunch of guys? Yup. Will it someday happen as more teams spend and the salary cap doesn't go up? Yup.
At the end of the day, this is a participation league and the off-season is the key part of it. I don't think anyone gets screwed here, except for maybe those of us who didn't get some of those prime rib players from Hartford Triple-A. I know I smacked my forehead when I saw the deal. It was a pretty good masterstroke of using assets that he had to pull a deal, despite a lack of payroll flexibility.
I don't really see it as a bad thing or even a sign of impending league doom.
But that's just my opinion.