That's like blaming your parents for the type of person you become. His decisions now are his fault, plain and simple.
If Mitch wanted the biggest piece of the pie, he shouldn't have shown up after it's been sliced and all served.
And let's face it. Playing with Tavares blew up his numbers
I honestly don't know what to think, nor do I have all of the answers.
Not that it matters for this discussion, but who you are is heavily influenced by your parents. That is a well known fact. That's an aside, and doesn't have a lot to with this discussion. But, I wouldn't have used that analogy.
More relevant would be wondering about management's role in this. They needed to try to project the future and possible outcomes (salaries, impact of free agent acquisitions, etc.). That's called risk management and you have to consider less than ideal scenarios when doing risk management.
Its human nature to want to get paid what you feel your worth relative to your peers. Whether its right or wrong to wait, its still something that I think management needs to consider. Especially when you parachute a guy in from the outside and pay him $11 m/year.
And, you can't say Marner was the first to think of a short term contract. That precedent was already set by the other 2/3rds of the big three.
I would pose the question, would losing one of the big three not be a relatively expected future outcome given that our big three would need new contracts within a short timeframe? Was this outcome considered by our management? Would that not be even more likely after signing Tavares to $11 m contract? Is this just a cap reality?
Maybe Dubas & company did think of this for all we know. But, if true, did he anticipate it would be Marner that would need to be subtracted? Again, its all part of the risk management process that you hope management goes through. Its fair to ask these kind of questions you'd think.
