Around the NHL

[Mike]

I'd probably do Dano for Ladd straight up.

[sweep the leg]

23 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

       

 

Glad the Pens got rid of him. Getting an actual NHL calibre player in return was just a bonus.

[sweep the leg]

On 2016-02-16 at 8:40 PM, The Unknown Poster said:

Yeah uh huh if you don't know why there is no reason to explain. Sorry it went over your head. 

The nhl needs to mandate NMC out of contracts in the final year. The argument a player wants to do the best for the team is a lie. And that's what makes him classless. There I explained it. 

This is clearly nonsense. 

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

This is clearly nonsense. 

Thats a heck of an explanation. 

[Rich]

17 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Thats a heck of an explanation. 

TB didn't have to give him a NM clause.  They did.  Stamkos is well within his right to exercise it.  Having the NHL mandate NMC out of the final year is silly.  It doesn't affect the whole league like the front loaded or 15 year contracts were, so it makes no sense for a league wide ban.  GM's and teams have to be accountable for their own decisions and actions.  You shouldn't need league wide rules to prevent you from being stupid.  Being stupid should get you fired and not re-hired somewhere else.

As for Stamkos being classless, I don't agree.  He negotiated that clause into his contract in good faith.  We have no idea what or if he conceded anything to get it.  The way contract negotiations go, I'm going to assume he did, because that is typically how they work.   You give, they give.  So I don't begrudge him to exercise what he negotiated to get.

With the draft, restricted free agency, arbitration, the decision on how and who gets traded, and all of that, teams hold much more power in the life of an NHL player then the player themselves.   In this case the player holds the power.  That is rare.

Maybe this is a negotiation ploy to get more money from Tampa Bay to sign there.  In which case, good on him.

Maybe he has already made up his mind that he is going to be leaving Tampa Bay, in which case Tampa Bay will become an opposition team next year.  Why would he want to do anything to help strengthen an opponent next year?  Once a team decides they are moving on from a player, they don't give him a bonus for a job well done.  He is cut / traded / or not re-signed.

Professional sports is a cut throat business. Players get can get left out in the cold mercilessly.  No one calls the team classless when this happens.  They are applauded because a player was replaced with someone younger or better.  This is a rare case where the player holds more power then the team.  

Would I hate it if a player did this to the Jets?   Yes.  Would I think and call him classless?  No.  It is really just business and it would be the fault of the GM who gave him the contract.  Not the player.

There I explained it.

[Ducky]

I agree. The contracts are guaranteed so when a player stops playing well, he still gets his full pay. Like Rich said, it's pro sports, it's a business. I think he has as much chance at re-signing as not.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Rather not trade Ladd to Chi, I mean, do we want to help them get another Cup? Oduya helped them get 2.

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

UPDATE: @NHLFlames announce G Karri Ramo has torn ACL/meniscus damage and is out for the season.

They be tanking too!

 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 hour ago, Rich said:

TB didn't have to give him a NM clause.  They did.  Stamkos is well within his right to exercise it.  Having the NHL mandate NMC out of the final year is silly.  It doesn't affect the whole league like the front loaded or 15 year contracts were, so it makes no sense for a league wide ban.  GM's and teams have to be accountable for their own decisions and actions.  You shouldn't need league wide rules to prevent you from being stupid.  Being stupid should get you fired and not re-hired somewhere else.

As for Stamkos being classless, I don't agree.  He negotiated that clause into his contract in good faith.  We have no idea what or if he conceded anything to get it.  The way contract negotiations go, I'm going to assume he did, because that is typically how they work.   You give, they give.  So I don't begrudge him to exercise what he negotiated to get.

With the draft, restricted free agency, arbitration, the decision on how and who gets traded, and all of that, teams hold much more power in the life of an NHL player then the player themselves.   In this case the player holds the power.  That is rare.

Maybe this is a negotiation ploy to get more money from Tampa Bay to sign there.  In which case, good on him.

Maybe he has already made up his mind that he is going to be leaving Tampa Bay, in which case Tampa Bay will become an opposition team next year.  Why would he want to do anything to help strengthen an opponent next year?  Once a team decides they are moving on from a player, they don't give him a bonus for a job well done.  He is cut / traded / or not re-signed.

Professional sports is a cut throat business. Players get can get left out in the cold mercilessly.  No one calls the team classless when this happens.  They are applauded because a player was replaced with someone younger or better.  This is a rare case where the player holds more power then the team.  

Would I hate it if a player did this to the Jets?   Yes.  Would I think and call him classless?  No.  It is really just business and it would be the fault of the GM who gave him the contract.  Not the player.

There I explained it.

You're looking at it from one perspective.  Does the player have a moral responsibility to the team?  Sure he does.  You're saying well the player lived up to his obligation to the team.  What about what the team did for the player?  Guess what?  If the player gets hurt, he gets paid.  If a player sucks, he gets paid.  Guaranteed. 

Just because you CAN do something doesnt mean you SHOULD and it doesnt make it right.  NMC's exist because players have leverage.  In a perfect world all the GM's would have a wink wink promise to each other to never give them out or never give them out in the final year of the deal.  That's called collusion.  I suggest the league mandating them out because it prevents GM's from being stupid and/or going rogue to the detriment of the other teams.  Not to mention you could have a scenario where on GM signs a deal, gets fired and now the new GM is handcuffed.

Its 100% classless of a player to say "I just want to help this team so I will not waive my NMC" and then leave two months later.  It's a lie.  Its disingenuous and its selfish. 

Yes, Tampa signed the deal.  But if Stamkos knows he wants to leave, he's a jerk for not letting Tampa trade him.  If Tampa and Stamkos know they will sign a new deal, it's a moot point.  But we've seen this before.  And yes, it makes the player a jerk.  Oh but he's legally allowed to be a jerk.  Doesnt change the fact he's a jerk.

Oh and its wrong to say its the fault of the GM not the player.  The player has a choice.  Its both their faults.

Explanation enough?

Edited February 17, 2016 by The Unknown Poster

[The Unknown Poster]

29 minutes ago, Ducky said:

I agree. The contracts are guaranteed so when a player stops playing well, he still gets his full pay. Like Rich said, it's pro sports, it's a business. I think he has as much chance at re-signing as not.

There could be an agreement behind the scenes.  But logically, if he was going to sign with Tampa, he would have already. 

When the Jets signed Buff, they made sure his NTC turned into a modified one in the later years so as to protect them from a player that says he wants to help the team but really doesnt.  In hindsight, Tampa should have done the same.  They didnt so they have to live with it.  None of which changes the fact that Stamkos is not bound by the NMC as his GM is.  His GM has no choice.  The player does.  The player chooses to not let his team get anything for him.  The player is a jerk.  Plain and simple.

[The Unknown Poster]

Hey Calgary, we have a goalie you can have.  Cheap.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

I think Calgary knows there not going anywhere this year and will join the Jets in the big tank.

[Ducky]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

There could be an agreement behind the scenes.  But logically, if he was going to sign with Tampa, he would have already. 

When the Jets signed Buff, they made sure his NTC turned into a modified one in the later years so as to protect them from a player that says he wants to help the team but really doesnt.  In hindsight, Tampa should have done the same.  They didnt so they have to live with it.  None of which changes the fact that Stamkos is not bound by the NMC as his GM is.  His GM has no choice.  The player does.  The player chooses to not let his team get anything for him.  The player is a jerk.  Plain and simple.

So, the team wants to break the agreement and Stamkos should pull up stakes and move for 3 months and give the team that won't give him what he deserves what they want? pffttttt. Like the bolded says, live with the contract you signed.

Stamkos hasn't said he wants out of TB and is being a pro about the whole thing. Same as Ladd, Ladd ahs been a pro through the media as well. Imagine if this were Kaner in that position?

[Ducky]

9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Hey Calgary, we have a goalie you can have.  Cheap.

Pavs for Wotherspoon or Kylington.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Ducky

[Rich]

6 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You're looking at it from one perspective.  Does the player have a moral responsibility to the team?  Sure he does.  You're saying well the player lived up to his obligation to the team.  What about what the team did for the player?  Guess what?  If the player gets hurt, he gets paid.  If a player sucks, he gets paid.  Guaranteed. 

Just because you CAN do something doesnt mean you SHOULD and it doesnt make it right.  NMC's exist because players have leverage.  In a perfect world all the GM's would have a wink wink promise to each other to never give them out or never give them out in the final year of the deal.  That's called collusion.  I suggest the league mandating them out because it prevents GM's from being stupid and/or going rogue to the detriment of the other teams.  Not to mention you could have a scenario where on GM signs a deal, gets fired and now the new GM is handcuffed.

Its 100% classless of a player to say "I just want to help this team so I will not waive my NMC" and then leave two months later.  It's a lie.  Its disingenuous and its selfish. 

Yes, Tampa signed the deal.  But if Stamkos knows he wants to leave, he's a jerk for not letting Tampa trade him.  If Tampa and Stamkos know they will sign a new deal, it's a moot point.  But we've seen this before.  And yes, it makes the player a jerk.  Oh but he's legally allowed to be a jerk.  Doesnt change the fact he's a jerk.

Oh and its wrong to say its the fault of the GM not the player.  The player has a choice.  Its both their faults.

Explanation enough?

Disagree completely on him being a jerk.  Tampa is a legit contender this year.  It isn't like they are cellar dwellers.   Maybe he wants one last shot to win it with current teammates  

As for the rest.  I believe it to be pretty ignorant to pass judgement on someone's character without walking in his shoes or really knowing the situation.  You May be right. Maybe he really wants to be vindictive for no reason. Maybe they've screwed with him or disrespected him in ways where he feels justified in what he is doing. 

You would never take a legal opportunity to mess with an employer who has wronged you in the past?  I don't know why but you strike me as the vindictive type when someone wrongs you. 

I've never heard of any character issues with him in the past  and I don't find it right to slap the jerk label on him for this one incident when we have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors.  

Pretty easy to judge and stand on a pedestal when you are this far away from the situation without really knowing what has gone on.  

 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Ducky said:

So, the team wants to break the agreement and Stamkos should pull up stakes and move for 3 months and give the team that won't give him what he deserves what they want? pffttttt. Like the bolded says, live with the contract you signed.

Stamkos hasn't said he wants out of TB and is being a pro about the whole thing. Same as Ladd, Ladd ahs been a pro through the media as well. Imagine if this were Kaner in that position?

Ladd has no choice.  Stamkos does.  Again, this is all moot if there is an agreement behind the scenes.  But assume its like Sundin, Mr Leafs who just wanted to help his team...by refusing to be traded and walking away in the off season.

Im not saying he doesnt have the right.  Im saying he's a liar if he says he wants to help the team and wont waive his NMC.  The player is not bound by the clause.  Its not like "oh I have a NMC, I cant accept a trade".  Ofcourse he can accept a trade. 

You draft a player, you develop the player, you pay the player a TON of money.  The player tells you he'd rather go to free agency and probably sign somewhere else.  You ask him, would you please do us a favour and let us trade you at the deadline?  No.  Well, then screw you.  That's classless.  Its not skin off a player's butt to be traded for six weeks when he already knows he's playing somewhere else.  This isnt Shane Doan spending his entire career with one team and saying he'd retire rather then leave.

Is it legal?  Sure.  Is it the team's fault?  Somewhat.  is it classless?  Absolutely.  And if Andrew Ladd, who I love, had a NMC and said screw this, I aint being traded for six weeks, I'd call him classless too.  If you come out and say "look, I have a NMC and quite frankly, I dont feel like moving in March, so I am going to stay and I dont give a rat's ass that it hurts the team and by the way Im out of here for more money at the end of the season then hey, at least he'd not be lying.  And if he said that, you'd all say wow, what a classless jerk.  But because he LIES, it's a great guy who is just doing business?  Not a chance. 

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Rich said:

Disagree completely on him being a jerk.  Tampa is a legit contender this year.  It isn't like they are cellar dwellers.   Maybe he wants one last shot to win it with current teammates  

As for the rest.  I believe it to be pretty ignorant to pass judgement on someone's character without walking in his shoes or really knowing the situation.  You May be right. Maybe he really wants to be vindictive for no reason. Maybe they've screwed with him or disrespected him in ways where he feels justified in what he is doing. 

You would never take a legal opportunity to mess with an employer who has wronged you in the past?  I don't know why but you strike me as the vindictive type when someone wrongs you. 

I've never heard of any character issues with him in the past  and I don't find it right to slap the jerk label on him for this one incident when we have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors.  

Pretty easy to judge and stand on a pedestal when you are this far away from the situation without really knowing what has gone on.  

 

So you think I am judging him without knowing him and then you immediately judge me without knowing me?  lol  "Rich" is right ;-)

Im not remotely vindictive.  In my business I've been wronged many many times and I always extend the olive branch later.  Its who I am.

But if our team paid a guy millions of dollars, he said he wasnt resigning here and then wouldnt let us trade him, it would certainly reflect on his character.  if he has a dying mother in Tampa Bay or a sick child in Tampa Bay, okay, I'd reconsider.  But there are very few things that will keep a guy from being traded between March 1 and April 5th (or whenever the season ends) that suddenly are totally fine to move on after that.

its a player saying nah, I'd rather stay here for another month and set the team back then let the team that drafted me, developed me, and paid me, recoup some of their investment.  The choice is Stamkos', not the GM.

[Ducky]

Ya, that team hasn't got much from Stamkos in return, have they?

I still think he re-signs.

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, Ducky said:

Ya, that team hasn't got much from Stamkos in return, have they?

I still think he re-signs.

That's a weak argument because it implies Stamkos did more for the team than the team did for Stamkos.  And regardless, doesnt change the basis of my point. 

"All I want to do is help this team." 

"Will you waive your NMC so we can recoup something for you if you're just going to leave anyway?" 

"No." 

[Rich]

36 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So you think I am judging him without knowing him and then you immediately judge me without knowing me?  lol  "Rich" is right ;-)

Im not remotely vindictive.  In my business I've been wronged many many times and I always extend the olive branch later.  Its who I am.

But if our team paid a guy millions of dollars, he said he wasnt resigning here and then wouldnt let us trade him, it would certainly reflect on his character.  if he has a dying mother in Tampa Bay or a sick child in Tampa Bay, okay, I'd reconsider.  But there are very few things that will keep a guy from being traded between March 1 and April 5th (or whenever the season ends) that suddenly are totally fine to move on after that.

its a player saying nah, I'd rather stay here for another month and set the team back then let the team that drafted me, developed me, and paid me, recoup some of their investment.  The choice is Stamkos', not the GM.

Just in case it flew over your head, yes I tried to "judge" you in that post in the exact same way you are doing to Stamkos to illustrate the point of it.

Didn't feel very good.  Did it?

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Rich said:

Just in case it flew over your head, yes I tried to "judge" you in that post in the exact same way you are doing to Stamkos to illustrate the point of it.

Didn't feel very good.  Did it?

Ah i see, you meant to do it.  Doesnt really feel anything really.  Since you dont know me.  My thought was that it was hypocritical of you and odd for a moderator.  So it spoke to me about you, not about me.  I also never judged Stamkos per se, since the end result hasnt come to pass.  I am speculating about him and conditional on certain facts which we arent privy to. 

But you'd feel Stamkos is a wonderful person if he knows right now that he has no intention of remaining in Tampa but wont waive his NMC just because he doesnt feel like it?  I think that would speak to his character.  You can disagree.  Thats the cool thing about opinions.  We both have them. 

[Rich]

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Ah i see, you meant to do it.  Doesnt really feel anything really.  Since you dont know me.  My thought was that it was hypocritical of you and odd for a moderator.  So it spoke to me about you, not about me.  I also never judged Stamkos per se, since the end result hasnt come to pass.  I am speculating about him and conditional on certain facts which we arent privy to. 

But you'd feel Stamkos is a wonderful person if he knows right now that he has no intention of remaining in Tampa but wont waive his NMC just because he doesnt feel like it?  I think that would speak to his character.  You can disagree.  Thats the cool thing about opinions.  We both have them. 

I never said he was a wonderful person either.  I've never met him.  I really don't know one way or the other.  Though I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are wonderful people until proven otherwise.

There are some athletes who are always in the media for the wrong reasons and you get the feeling that you can somewhat judge their character over repeated patterns.

I've never seen or heard any of that with Stamkos.  I would think if there were character issues there, they would have come out at some point before for an athlete of his stature and the spotlight he gets put under.

So when something like this comes up, it seems like a more likely scenario to me that something has transpired behind the scenes between both parties that has soured the relationship.  And without knowing what that is, I'm not quite so quick to put the 'jerk' tag on him.  

Maybe more information will come into light down the road on other things he has done or why their relationship has come to this point.  But until then, in my opinion calling him a jerk isn't warranted.

[The Unknown Poster]

5 minutes ago, Rich said:

I never said he was a wonderful person either.  I've never met him.  I really don't know one way or the other.  Though I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are wonderful people until proven otherwise.

There are some athletes who are always in the media for the wrong reasons and you get the feeling that you can somewhat judge their character over repeated patterns.

I've never seen or heard any of that with Stamkos.  I would think if there were character issues there, they would have come out at some point before for an athlete of his stature and the spotlight he gets put under.

So when something like this comes up, it seems like a more likely scenario to me that something has transpired behind the scenes between both parties that has soured the relationship.  And without knowing what that is, I'm not quite so quick to put the 'jerk' tag on him.  

Maybe more information will come into light down the road on other things he has done or why their relationship has come to this point.  But until then, in my opinion calling him a jerk isn't warranted.

Rich my point was conditional on fact we dont yet know.  It was "if" Stamkos knows he's leaving and wont waive his no trade clause, then yes he's a jerk.  Maybe the GM slept with his gf so Stamkos is right to be sour.  Who knows.  But on the surface, based on what we know, when a player says they want to help the team but wont entertain the idea of waiving their NMC, then they are lying.  Perhaps to themselves too.

[Goalie]

This whole Stamkos debate is silly. It basically really does come down to his no move clause which he negotiated in to his contract. It would be nice if these no move clauses didn't exist or if these guys weren't guaranteed their money, but... they do and they are. 

 

I guess, you can see this 2 ways, 1... Yzerman did shop him around but didn't like the return or 2. He didn't shop him around cuz he has inside info that Stamkos will be signing a new deal with Tampa.

The Toronto media can pump up these guys and pretend they all want to come home and play for the leafs but reality with a place like Tampa since it's in Florida and perhaps this is what people may not understand... Lets just pretend Leafs did make stamkos an offer, let's just call it 10 million a year, well, with taxes, it's less than 10 million a year. Way less actually. In Florida because there are no taxes like that, 10 million is 10 million. 

[Rich]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Rich my point was conditional on fact we dont yet know.  It was "if" Stamkos knows he's leaving and wont waive his no trade clause, then yes he's a jerk.  Maybe the GM slept with his gf so Stamkos is right to be sour.  Who knows.  But on the surface, based on what we know, when a player says they want to help the team but wont entertain the idea of waiving their NMC, then they are lying.  Perhaps to themselves too.

Maybe I'm jaded but I don't put any faith into anything a public person says to the media.  

You keep getting hung up on this "I want to help the team" quote and using that as the foundation of why you think he is in the wrong here.  And to me, that is just such a small part of the whole thing.  Maybe it was a poor choice of words to say instead of blurting out whatever is really going on there.  

But to me, that is just keeping what is private and behind closed doors out of the media, which it should be.