Agreed that was exactly my point. That’s why I’m saying he has to be signed now because there were 3 options. Sign him, trade him or let him walk and letting him walk is by far the worst option.
Then I went on to say letting him walk is the worst option because of the return Faulk got and I didn’t understand the whole “let krug be our rental” crowd.
Then all of a sudden I had this dude asking me if we should trade Bergeron because he will never be more valuable. Which had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about at all.
You’re still advocating that the worst option for the Bruins is to go into the playoffs with Torey Krug on their roster because he won’t be on the team next year and that’s a waste of an asset...right?
Correct me if I’m reading wrong, but it seems like you’re more focused on getting value from assets than icing the best possible team in 2019-20. Is that not the case? If so, I’d love to understand how Torey Krug for a prospect that isn’t ready and a Joel Edmunston type D man gives the Bruins a better chance at a cup this year.
If you ARE advocating that the Bruins should focus on getting value from their assets rather than icing the best possible team they can in 2019-20, then there are other questions that need to be asked. What do you do with Chara? What do you do with Krejci? Coyle? Do you explore trading a 34 year old Bergeron? What pieces do you think will be the core do you believe will be part of the next cup run? How do you best build around them? What does your timeline look like? Etc. etc.
Personally, I think this team has it. I’m not really interested in being a seller. In fact, I’d love to see them add another rental, particularly a forward on the right side. If they’re sitting 7th in February then for sure, go for it.
EDIT: I’d love to sign him but just don’t think we can afford him :/