View Single Post
10-27-2012, 02:12 PM
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,546
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Maybe some of them did.

Devellano said there was an unwritten rule about offer sheets.

For anyone who calls out Suter for complaining, are they prepared to call out Leipold? He's orchestrating a lockout to demand rollbacks (a rose by any other name), lowered share, contract limits, and a change in UFA age. (Suter and ZP would have needed to wait one more year. )

There indeed was a rush to circumvent the intent and cap of the last CBA.
Offer sheets are a different beast. They are technically owned assets, for all intents and purposes. That unwritten rule is more in place due to hostile relations and comes with a significant cost if the team opts not to match. This differs greatly from thirty owners agreeing to low-ball a free agent.

Partially, perhaps however even that I question. The CBA is itself, a contract, one the players are readily aware may deviate upon expiration. In order for Minnesota to maximize their profit and garner fan interest, they need to be aggressive, yes? How do you purpose they do this devoid of spending money? That does not mean the league's profit line is under preferable value nor that the owners wish to accommodate player's refusal to assume any of the risks.

So I ask, had Leipold come out and said to Suter this contract was liable to be reduced subsequent a new CBA. Would that have effected Suter's decision, especially seeing every own would essentially have said the same?

Bourne Endeavor is offline