SkateSave
Registered User
- Dec 15, 2009
- 224
- 1
There are three ways for us to get burned with Franson, and two ways for us to get good value.
Burned:
1) He walks for nothing
2) We trade him because we don't think his recent play is sustainable, and then he sustains it
3) We sign him because we think his recent play is sustainable, and then he falls back down to being a bottom-pairing PP specialist
Good Value:
1) We trade him because we don't think his recent play is sustainable, and then falls back down to former value
2) We sign him because we think his recent play is sustainable, and he actually sustains it
Whether or not you're a supporter or against the guy, there's evidence on both sides of the equation. This year he really is playing head and shoulders above previous years defensively, but it's hard to ignore previous years of larger sample sizes too.
I think management has a big decision to make between keeping him vs Gardiner. I can't really see us keeping both in a cap world.
Trading Franson and having him succeed after the fact does not mean the leafs get 'burned'. What matters is what the return of Franson is. Trading isn't necessarily a zero sum game where your trading partner has to get screwed in order for you to succeed. Hopefully, a team who takes Franson will believe his play to be sustainable, and thus will trade value accordingly.
Trading for fair value might be necessary to obviate the risk of losing Franson for nothing or paying him more than he's worth.
So, the leafs get burned if they trade Franson and don't get a valuable return on him relative to his future success.