Quote:
Originally Posted by Dfence033
If you are letting him walk, you don't insult him by offering him the worst contract possible, slaughtering him through the media because of a personal vendetta, then "listen" to offers only if they are insanely disproportional to what is being offered.
|
Really? He got slaughtered in the media? In what way? Through public comments that they wanted him back in a top 4 role to play with Pitkanen? I don't know how that wound will ever heal.
He was criticized for not knowing how the RFA system works and during that time his play was never slaughtered as you contend. Nice assumption too about the offers being made. Then again, when you use McCabe as a contract comparison and Weber's playoff struggles as a point of reference, it doesn't seem relevance has a high priority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imayagainknowanton
End result: Rutherford loses, Babchuk wins.
|
You are looking very short-term as did Babchuk. The Canes still own his rights and if Babchuk wants to play in the NHL, which he contends, how as he won? He is a now a two-time defector who also refused a demotion, with flaws in his game, and the perception of having character issues. So if the Canes trade him at diminished value, he'll be starting over either in a bottom pairing and/or PP specialist role.
If his objective was to get a long-term contract in the NHL, he was better off playing his way to arbitration in a situation where his gaffes would be partially covered by being paired with Pitkanen. But no, he felt his 25-game hot streak = 3 year deal. To suggest some anti-Russian or anti-Euro bias is silly and you also conveniently forget Rutherford used the same RFA leverage with Cole, who was an inconsistent but promising player at the time as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caner Soze
Sometimes I wonder if some guys are Canes fans or Babchuk fans. LOL
|
Best comment of the thread. People seem to think it's two camps: Babchuk loyalists vs. organizational loyalists. That's a bit too simplistic and there is a third category: fans who analyze a situation on its relative merit instead of a conclusion-first presentation of selective information.