cobra427
Registered User
- May 6, 2012
- 9,342
- 3,379
Yeah, absolutely hoping the boss-men sees this. Trading Strome now means they would get bust-price or near bust-price for him. It would be absolutely stupid.
I know what a sunk cost is, and that you should ignore it.
But not in this case.
He has upside. The team trading for him wouldn't admit it, but they would partly do it based on that upside. Keep the upside here. He still might be a super player. If he won't be, the payment we get for him won't be anywhere near what a third overall should be worth anyway. Seing him blossom into a top player on another team would be a big negative psycological cost.
Very annoyed to see so many teams competing in being awful. The proxy of using last years standing for which teams deserves the highest picks are flawed when they lose on purpose. Really should remove the last two or three dozens of games from that formula.
If we trade Strome now, I think we would get a 20th or later 1st or a third line player. I doubt we could get a 3C for him unless the 3C was over 32 years old and past his prime. Agreed, Strome still has upside but not the upside somebody is willing to pay for since he has proven so far he isn't an NHL player. Top 10 picks are all in the NHL as regulars from his draft year.
The time to trade him was last summer if we were going to do it, that is where our cost got sunk now. I would rather risk the late 1st we could get for him now turning into a second round pick in a year, and hope he improves and makes an impact next year for us rather then somebody else.