View Single Post
Old
10-17-2012, 05:35 PM
  #87
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
 
Vipers31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bergisch Gladbach
Country: Germany
Posts: 13,497
vCash: 500
Non-Ranger fan coming in peace. I was interested in hearing reactions on the proposal from here, and I thought some points were deserving of being addressed, so I hope me getting involved won't bother anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Its a TWO WAY MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

Redden didnt uphold his end of it.
This post received some rave reviews, which I can sort of understand due to the negative emotions connected to Redden. But at its core, the statement is purely false. If Redden was not upholding his end, he wouldn't be entitled to a salary in the first place. He obviously is. His end of the agreement was to play hockey for the Rangers organisation. It's not a part of his agreement to play up to the standard that the Rangers coaching staff and front office have in mind for him. He's without any sort of questioning from the Rangers upholding his end of the agreement, which is the reason he's still employed in the organisation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
If you seriously think that new rules would prevent GMs from spending like that clearly you've been asleep since the last lockout. The evidence is all out there. Teams still spent like crazy.
Indeed they did. For that reason, the next CBA will unquestionably include some instruments that will limit that. Pointing to the fact that it didn't last time doesn't really help, as what has happened is a huge part of the reason for what and how is being done now.


I can understand the generally negative feelings for this proposal as it does favour other organisations a lot more than the Rangers, but I am a little surprised to see a strengthened front office accountability so harshly refused.

Vipers31 is offline   Reply With Quote