Proposed "Redden" rule
View Single Post
10-17-2012, 06:16 PM
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bergisch Gladbach
Originally Posted by
Why should your boss be forced to keep you if they suddenly feel you're not useful to the business?
I would actually defend Jonathan on that (although I'm sure it wouldn't be required). It's not really a comparable situation to that extent. It was always a possibility for Redden to get moved to one of the Rangers' affiliates, as that's part of his contract. So he did agree to that, and there's no obligation for the Rangers to play him on their NHL team - and this part in return is unquestioned by Redden.
Obviously, in effect this rule would likely move Redden back on the Rangers roster, from all I know. But while it's called the "Redden" rule here, it's not really a rule designed for the Redden scenario only. It doesn't intend to guarantee players roster spots. If a player is actually and actively detrimental to a team's success, they can find a way to absorb the cap hit and play the better players. But it installs an instrument to keep GMs more accountable, which I feel is a tool that would be welcomed on many markets, looking beyond the NHL, and maybe even beyond sports.
I'm not saying this refers to Redden, as I simply don't know enough about his level of play these days, but if there's a player that's clearly NHL caliber, but has been awarded with an outrageous contract by a club that could easily afford it without having to think twice, that guy would be forced to the AHL without any wrong on his side. Asking front offices working with blank cheques to not just gamble away with these contracts knowing that they can safely be storaged in the AHL if things fall through seems to be a rather universally agreeable idea to me.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Vipers31