View Single Post
01-30-2013, 11:04 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 2,350
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Goulet17 View Post
I don't disagree, but considering their hardline stance, I have a hard understanding how the owners agreed to this clause (if true).
because in order to save the season they decided not to persue antitrust court which would challeneg a whole lot of what goes on in big sports. the owners dont really consider foreign leagues a threat.

Originally Posted by Petes2424 View Post
But how do you track what has or hasnt been offered. Im all for the competition but let's say, O'Reilly doesnt wanna play for the Avs anymore. He signs a two year deal in Switzerland for a million over his qualifying offer. Comes back and he's a UFA in two years.

How does anyone know the Avs didnt offer him $500k over that Swiss deal???

Personally I dont think a team should lose a player (Schultz) because he refused to sign with the team. Or better yet, if another team comes along and agrees to terms, that team should have a set price to pay.

If Im the Isles I dont draft a Russian player anywhere near the first round.
what theyre saying is so long as youve completed your elc youve completed your imdemniture (sp?) to the junior league you were drafted from. the "right" of an nhl team to its player is only so far as that player wants to play in the nhl.

say your cooters agent. hes been playing limited minutes and philly offers him the 10% qualifier. the gm over at avangard omsk however thinks hes a 1st line stud and offers 10 mil for two years. philly cant match that and fit under the cap. meanwhile couturier cant get any offers at 5 mil from an nhl team because they dont want to give philly the draft picks. why should you as an agent or him as a player honor a collusion between billionares to push down labor costs? this clause insures that each team as the leagues representitive is making the best offer possible from the nhl.

captainpaxil is offline   Reply With Quote