Mike Comrie HNIC interview
View Single Post
11-10-2003, 03:39 PM
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Waterloo, ON
Originally Posted by
By not signing anything he can in some form hold a veto over where Lowe can trade him.
By not signing anything he avoids having to repeat this whole fiasco next year when Lowe says you're mine till 31.
By saying he'll sign for less elsewhere he is making 2 statements:
1. I'm better than you think I am, I'll prove it elsewhere and they will pay me for my performance.
2. I want out of this asylum.
So why do you think he should just sign with Lowe? What advantage does this give Comrie?
Or maybe you think he should sign and the immediately hold out?
Note I didn't say he should sign. (I do think he *ought* to, but it's pretty obvious MC doesn't hold the same ideas I do about right and wrong.) I've already said what I *think* he should do. It's pretty obvious he's not gonna do that either.
I think MC would have helped his situation a lot more than what he's currently doing by signing on the condition that Lowe seriously investigate trading him. He's doing NOTHING for himself by practising with the Golden Bears and squawking on HNIC. He'd probably have to take less from other teams after this; other GMs won't want an obvious headcase.
He can't hold any veto over where Lowe trades him; his rights are owned by the Oilers. He signs an offer sheet elsewhere, the Oilers can match. In $CDN, no less. He says "I won't play there if you trade me there", Lowe says "ok, fine, you won't play then, cos now I'll have to find another trade partner". (And then if Lowe wants, he can say publicly "Well, I tried, I had a deal with xxx and Comrie said he wouldn't play there," although he seems too astute to use playground tactics.)
So we know what you think Comrie thinks he's gaining, but my question still stands.
View Public Profile
Visit kraigus's homepage!
Find More Posts by kraigus