|
|
Post by Juju Erving on Apr 28, 2012 12:41:08 GMT -5
I guess you all got a rise out of me after all. Oh well
|
|
|
|
Post by Haberino on Apr 28, 2012 12:45:17 GMT -5
he tried keeping nate without maxing. that's bad gming, not luck So I offered his max starting salary which was (guessing here) a good 4 mil more than what you could have offered, as well as the 7 years. I just skimped out a little on the 12.5 so I could have a pretty contract that could be traded. No interest in looking up #s atm but I'm 100% sure that is a hell of a lot more than what he signed for. So many old vets have been signed in that exact fashion but true, that has nothing to do with luck. Only bad GMs lose their players  Didn't I defend you in this thread? I made the same mistake with Clyde when I had a contender. I can say you made a bad move without saying you're a bad GM. But I think the move was needless risk aversion. You probably wouldn't have kept Nate for years 4-7, and I'll take a contender for 2-3 seasons followed by a rebuild over being caught in between for however long it takes you to build back up without rebuilding. I'm not saying that's a choice you made, but that offer to Nate obviously tips the scales in that direction. And even if you'd signed him and had to deal him for HC reasons, he had plenty of value. |
|
|
|
Post by Juju Erving on Apr 28, 2012 12:57:33 GMT -5
So I offered his max starting salary which was (guessing here) a good 4 mil more than what you could have offered, as well as the 7 years. I just skimped out a little on the 12.5 so I could have a pretty contract that could be traded. No interest in looking up #s atm but I'm 100% sure that is a hell of a lot more than what he signed for. So many old vets have been signed in that exact fashion but true, that has nothing to do with luck. Only bad GMs lose their players Didn't I defend you in this thread? I made the same mistake with Clyde when I had a contender. I can say you made a bad move without saying you're a bad GM. But I think the move was needless risk aversion. You probably wouldn't have kept Nate for years 4-7, and I'll take a contender for 2-3 seasons followed by a rebuild over being caught in between for however long it takes you to build back up without rebuilding. I'm not saying that's a choice you made, but that offer to Nate obviously tips the scales in that direction. And even if you'd signed him and had to deal him for HC reasons, he had plenty of value. True post. I'm just so used to that same offer signing my star vets. Needless to say I've learned my lesson And I wasn't trying to come at you in my post in any way, especially after you defended me. For some reason I was hot from the Skillz post thats all |
|
|
|
Post by greeme on Apr 28, 2012 13:19:49 GMT -5
who wants to be interviewed?
|
|
|
|
Post by styro on Apr 28, 2012 17:08:40 GMT -5
damn. deebz came in hard at skillz. and with the truth.
|
|
