You cannot make the claim that each player still had trade value aside from relying on the trades that were executed to confirm that value. It's a circular argument. Do you know of any other teams that made offers for Granlund/Baertschi/Pouliot at the time?
I have made a case that Waivers was a concern for Granlund (Treliving audio, linked in reply to one of your posts already. Do a search.).
Pouliot was referred to as the Pens' "8th Dman". That's fringe. (Source:
Penguins trade Derrick Pouliot to Vancouver for D Andrey Pedan, 4th round pick)
As for Baertschi, here's an excerpt from Flame for Thought (one of their blog sites (referenced by theCanuckWay:
Vancouver Canucks: Reflecting on Granlund, Baertschi trades)):
Now, I have made my case again and again with you hiding behind reversing the question. Let's see your homework to the contrary (for once). Do you have anything that refutes that these players were not fringe NHL assets at the time of trade? Or, are you arguing to argue (as per usual)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the fallacy in stating that Benning traded for Granlund, Baertschi and Pouliot before they could hit waivers? Do you know what fallacy means?
You have categorized my belief that Benning can do better on trades as an "unwarranted assumption". Meaning, either you think he cannot improve his trading acumen. Or, that he is a master trader and no other GM could have done better in his place, given the same circumstances. That is such an amusing statement made by you that I'm going to take a minute and reflect on its absurdity and humour. Well done! You've made me laugh. Thanks.