View Single Post
01-16-2013, 04:54 PM
Registered Loser
MortUWary's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 1,232
vCash: 587
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Then the players had every right not to report and seek a contract else where.

This is not a matter of the team wanting the player to stay home and not allowing them out of their deals.

This is a matter of the team protecting it's rights under the CBA to ensure that the targeted buyout doesn't get hurt preventing the buyout.

This is not a matter of the team looking to horde away a player so that no one else got them.

if the player were concerned about future earnings and atrophy setting in on their already diminished skill set, then walk awy from the current deal and sign where you want for how much you want.

Where's the problem?
The problem is that you don't understand how unions work. Allowing a player to not report and run the risk of the team getting out if the contract sets a horrible precedent for union membership, who would never allow that to happen. This is not the NFL: these contracts are guaranteed so you're bound by the terms in the contract. If you don't want the player then buy him out, which is the only legal way to get out of the contract if the player doesn't violate the terms.

Banishing to the AHL was a convenient loophole the new CBA closed. This was necessary for the NHL and NHLPA to allow before the offseason for the betterment of these two players. Regardless of how bad they played for us and how bad their contracts are, this was the correct course of action for all parties involved, especially the union and union membership.

MortUWary is offline   Reply With Quote