View Single Post
01-13-2012, 11:45 AM
Grave Before Shave
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,197
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
If Huet starts for Chicago in the 2010 playoffs, they don't win the Cup. That's why he rode the pine. There's a reason why he never played another game for the Blackhawks after 2010, even though he was still under contract. Hint: it's because the organization believed he wasn't doing his part to earn what they paid him.

If you're paying a goaltender $5M per season, he's not earning that contract sitting on the bench during the playoffs.

Your response above regarding Shelley, even if tongue in cheek, pretty much sums up how out of touch you are with how a player measures up to earning his contract.
All I can say is the same thing I have been saying which people refuse to acknowledge. You change something on that team and it is not a guarantee they win the Cup. No Huet to start the season means a different goalie is their starter. That can change the entire season. For better or worse. If they sign someone different and he starts and plays well, Niemi doesn't play in the playoffs and maybe they lose in the first round. I have said this from the beginning, when you have results like winning a Cup, you can't look back and say well if they did this or that they would have been better off. Concrete results are always concrete and valid. Hypotheticals (mine and yours) are never, ever, anywhere, for any reason, more valid that actual results. They won they Cup. He contributed. He earned his contract and was worth it. He didn't hurt his team, in fact he won half of their games en route to a championships. How is he not worth it?

Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
I just want to ask, where do you draw the line between being worthy of a contract or not? if a team win the stanley cup....

as my example above, if a player score 3 goals per game in his own net, but a team still manage to win the cup.. does he worth his contract. (assuming he did nothing good to compensate the 3 goal he put in his own net!, his impact on ice was clearly negative).

Alternatively, can i player worth his contract if his teams doesnt win the cup?
A player can earn his contract in a number of ways. Winning a Cup isn't the only way, but it is certainly one way. He can earn it with stats and leadership and all those other good things as well. In short a player is worth his contract if he does his job (winning a Cup, putting up good stats, etc). He doesn't have to do all of them. I really didn't think this was a difficult concept. Apparently many of you are not familiar with the saying that there is "more than one way to skin a cat."

In your example no, a player who is out there scoring three goals in his own net is not worth his contract regardless of a Cup. If they are deflections going in off of him, that is a different story, but if he is out here deliberately hurting his team, then no he is not worth it. I think I addressed that in the last thread as well. However, if the player was doing that and they won the Cup, I don't think too many people would be complaining. I know I wouldn't.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline