What If? Eric Lindros had stayed in Quebec
View Single Post
11-04-2012, 04:12 PM
Join Date: Oct 2007
Originally Posted by
Lindros wasn't member of the union when he refused to sign with Quebec, so what does it matter?
Lindros didn't negotiate and wasn't even a member of the union when the negotiations took place. And he actually was above (many) of his future fellow union members: the NHL wanted him at any cost. Does that make him likeable? Hardly. Does he deserve be condemned? Not at all.
that's exactly what i mean by "bad faith." no, lindros was not a member of the PA at the time. but the logical end point of his actions would be to join that union as soon as he got the result he wanted.
if we condemn today's NHL for negotiating individual player contracts in bad faith, because they were just going to turn around and try to roll back those salaries the next time the labour agreement was up (in some cases-- like parise + suter-- months later), then wouldn't we also want to judge lindros by the same standard?
obviously they are not symmetrical situations, but think of it this way: you say that lindros didn't participate and wasn't a member of the PA when the previous labour agreement was negotiated. well yes. but it seems he wants the benefits of that labour agreement (the guaranteed contracts, RFA rights, salary arbitration rights, etc.) but not the downsides (decreased mobility to start his career). in the working world, when you join a union you don't get to pick and choose what applies to you because you weren't around when the labour agreement was voted on/negotiated.
View Public Profile
vadim sharifijanov's albums
Find More Posts by vadim sharifijanov