Better than losing an asset to waivers. If there was a better trade on the table it would have been taken. Highmore isn't a big return, but he is useful.
Player Discussion Matthew Highmore (he who does not sage crystals)
- Thread starter F A N
- Start date
Better than losing an asset to waivers. If there was a better trade on the table it would have been taken. Highmore isn't a big return, but he is useful.
Honestly, I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or agreeing here. Gaudette could clearly return an asset in a trade. A player like Highmore can be acquired without giving up an asset, IMO. Therefore, it's not necessary to give up Gaudette to acquire a useful player like Highmore.
I'd rather have a Highmore and a lottery ticket than just a Highmore. Probably an insignificant difference in the end, but I'm still gonna make the point, lol.
What makes it so clear that Gaudette could return a something more valuable than Highmore? That's just a baseless assumption on your part.
If there was a better offer available, it would have been taken. Gaudette was then waived by the acquiring team, and was claimed. So if the options are waive and lose Gaudette, or take the best offer available--Highmore, which do you prefer?
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Highmore had a two year contract left when he was first acquired by the Canucks. Of the two waiver type players, easier to unload the contract like Gaudette (since all you had to do is not give him a QO and/or let his one year deal expire). Frees up a contract slot for a prospect signing.
But I'd rather focus on the fact we actually could have a *CHEAP* entire 4th line that doesn't stink up the joint & actually is ok. Jim Benning couldn't do that after *SEVEN* years.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
GAME 3 - Drummondville Voltigeurs @ Victoriaville Tigres - Drummondville Voltigeurs leads series 2-0Wagers: 2Staked: $80.00Event closes- Updated:
-
