Eric Sachs
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2007
- 18,643
- 1
The thing is, you're not choosing between any asset and no asset. That's not how it works. You're choosing to continue the negotiation or not.
If a team comes to Shero and offers a 4th, he's not going to say no and never talk to them again.. just accepting no assets. He's going to say no and try to use his leverage to get a better offer from them. Maybe it works and we walk away with a 2nd. Maybe it doesn't and we walk away with nothing (or, more realistically, the original offer). It's a game of chicken and given the team acquiring Kovalchuk is the one with more to lose as they are theoretically contending now if they are even thinking of Kovalchuk making sense.. I like Shero's chances.
The choice is between accepting a sub-par asset or risking getting nothing by asking for more. It's not something vs. nothing.
If a team comes to Shero and offers a 4th, he's not going to say no and never talk to them again.. just accepting no assets. He's going to say no and try to use his leverage to get a better offer from them. Maybe it works and we walk away with a 2nd. Maybe it doesn't and we walk away with nothing (or, more realistically, the original offer). It's a game of chicken and given the team acquiring Kovalchuk is the one with more to lose as they are theoretically contending now if they are even thinking of Kovalchuk making sense.. I like Shero's chances.
The choice is between accepting a sub-par asset or risking getting nothing by asking for more. It's not something vs. nothing.