HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Schultz talk pt. 2

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-27-2012, 02:38 PM
  #26
Tony O
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 80
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosh View Post
The reaction for calling Schultz a dick because he allegedly went back on his word is ridiculous.

People are acting like it's the first time someone's gone back on their word or that a college kid pulled this move.
Two wrongs donít make a one right.

Quote:
RJ Umberger was working out a deal, said he fully intends to turn pro with the Canucks, left Ohio State early etc etc. Then Kesler undercuts him and he's pissed, sits out a year, Canucks knew he wouldn't sign and traded him for rentals. RJ then signs with Philly instead of the Rangers who had traded for him.

Wayne Gretzky was on the verge of signing with the Canucks as a free agent, he told people it was a done deal, just had to sign. Had a verbal agreement and everything was in place. Canucks ownership at the time, felt that even tho they had Gretzky's word they wanted him to sign that night, calls were made late in the night to Gretzky and his agent. Both ended up super pissed by the late phone call, Gretzky signs with New York the next day.
You seem to making a case that Umberger and Gretzky were wrong for going back on their word, but then you say thatís it is okay for Schultz too. Beside, all the cases you point to are completely different then the Schultz case. The ducks have not undercut Schultz, in fact Schultz walked away from a signing bonus.

Quote:
It's not the first time stuff like this has happened, it won't be the last time either, Justin doesn't want to play for the Ducks it seems, he's making a choice that benefits him, yes, that benefits HIM not the fans. And I say, good for him.
The donít fans benefit? The team he ends up with will benefit and thatís why many here are defending what Schultz is doing.

Tony O is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 02:40 PM
  #27
TheLeastOfTheBunch
Registered User
 
TheLeastOfTheBunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,064
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jax00 View Post
We love Beauch. Don't get me wrong.

But the Ducks could have just re-signed him instead of losing Gardiner to re-acquire him. Now they might lose Schultz to Toronto, just adding insult to injury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gliff View Post
I am happy we got Beauchemin back, just a little upset that we may lose BOTH Schultz and Gardiner. If we didnt have Schultz then i wouldnt have wanted to trade Gardiner for Beauch.
Sucks to lose out on Schultz, but I think it's irrational to say Murray would rather lose Schultz for nothing than trade his rights to Toronto for some asset(s). The Lupul trade was pretty much viewed as a salary dump type deal at the time and Brian helped Murray out from that point of view. And they have made a number of trades since then so it's not like Murray despises Burke because of the Lupul trade..

TheLeastOfTheBunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 02:41 PM
  #28
jax00
DangleSnipe&Celly
 
jax00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Anaslime
Country: United States
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosh View Post
No, you should just not be so naive. I mean christ, they did a movie about this too, it was called Jerry Mcguire. "My word is my bond and it's stronger than oak" oh I signed with your rival while you were showing Cuba Gooding Jr around sorry.

You should take things being said with a grain of salt, it's never at face value. I mean, a few years back, Marian Gaborik bought a house in North Vancouver. He's going to sign with the Canucks right? he's found a place to live, he's been hinting at it. Out of nowhere, New York offers him more money and he bolts to the Rangers. No one I knew of at the time called him a dick for doing that.
These examples...Gaborik buying a house? Not relevant whatsoever.

The kid went back on his word, no way around it. Defend it all you want, but if he signs somewhere else he lied to the Ducks, and ****ed them royally in the process.

All I'm saying is if he really didn't wanna play for the Ducks, he should have made it clear a while ago instead of leading the franchise on.

EDIT: dick is probably a strong word re-reading this ****. But still, not cool.

jax00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 02:43 PM
  #29
jax00
DangleSnipe&Celly
 
jax00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Anaslime
Country: United States
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeastOfTheBunch View Post
Sucks to lose out on Schultz, but I think it's irrational to say Murray would rather lose Schultz for nothing than trade his rights to Toronto for some asset(s). The Lupul trade was pretty much viewed as a salary dump type deal at the time and Brian helped Murray out from that point of view. And they have made a number of trades since then so it's not like Murray despises Burke because of the Lupul trade..
Like I said earlier, if it's a lock he's signing with Toronto, yeah Murray wil probablyl take the pity asset. But if he just wants to test the market, Murray ain't giving Toronto first dibs.

jax00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 02:43 PM
  #30
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,434
vCash: 500
A lot of people have pointed out that one interview, which is bad in itself, but if Russo's source is correct, it's much worse. He's reporting the Ducks have quite a few emails from Schultz telling them flat out that he's coming, and then all of a sudden refused. That could definitely be enough to get a tampering investigation if Schultz signs on July 1.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 02:55 PM
  #31
7even
Deus Ex Machina
 
7even's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Georgia
Country: United States
Posts: 7,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVPeyton View Post
A lot of people have pointed out that one interview, which is bad in itself, but if Russo's source is correct, it's much worse. He's reporting the Ducks have quite a few emails from Schultz telling them flat out that he's coming, and then all of a sudden refused. That could definitely be enough to get a tampering investigation if Schultz signs on July 1.
That's super circumstantial. Schultz retains the right to change his mid whenever he wants.

7even is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:09 PM
  #32
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafOfBread View Post
Those situations are a bit different though, there was an inciting incident that triggered those decisions. With Schultz, nobody has any idea why he's doing this. Maybe there is a valid reason, but at this point nobody knows what it could be, and it doesn't seem like Anaheim has treated him poorly in any way. They valued him highly and let him stay at school for as long as he wanted, and let him take his time, they regarded him as their top prospect and catered to him. The organization has been nothing but good to him (or so it seems) whereas in the situations you listed there was some sort of rift or something that happened which upset the players in question. Who knows, maybe Bob Murray is really an a-hole and did something to piss Schultz off
Or maybe Schultz simply changed his mind - something he's well within his rights as a player without a contract is able to do?

He didn't holdout of a contract. He has no contract and no legal obligation to any organization. If he changed his mind from where he was a year ago, without a contract in place, he has the right to do so. You do know people change their minds all the time - and without a legal obligation they are perfectly within their rights to do so.

People act like this player is somehow property of the team that drafted him and has to sign with said team. This is not the case at all, as indicated by the rules agreed on by both the team and the player. He is not property of the team until he has signed a contract with that team and unless that contract is still active. Neither of which has happened. If he wants to change his mind now, or next month or 3 days after saying whatever he did, he is perfectly within his rights to do so.

Teams trade players after signing them to NTC. They waive players that they don't feel fit anymore. They don't qualify RFA if they don't feel they are worth it. Players they draft they don't always sign, if they don't feel it's worth it for them. And they're all allowed to do this because the rules let them. So again why should a player be bound to non-existent rules that teams aren't? Schultz is perfectly within his rights to change his mind. No different at all to a team that signs a player to a long-term deal - like say Carter - and then changes their mind a year later to move him to a team he had no interest in going to. How is that any different than what Schultz is doing? Besides the fact that he has even less obligation to the other party as there is no contract in place, while Philly signs Carter to a 10yr deal with a NTC and then moves him just before (literally just before) his NTC is allowed to kick in. Isn't that exactly what you're blaming Schultz for? Saying one thing and doing something else? Again without a contract in place he's within his rights to do so... Hell as we've seen many times, both players (demanding trades while under contract like Heatley, Roy, Bure, etc) and teams (waiving/trading players with NTC) have done such things - go back on their words - many many times in the past. And those are with a contract (and thus legal obligation) in place.

I think people need to look at this outside their biased hockey glasses on. This is a person looking at his options to best guide his professional career. If he's doing things within the rules he has to comply to, why blame him for it? Would you criticize a graduate who turns down a teaching position at their university which helped him get his degree to work instead in the private sector? Would you criticize a financial analyst who leaves the place that gave him his start to go after a better paying job elsewhere? Would you criticize a professor for leaving the college where he got his degree if he gets a job offer in a different city or country where he wants to live? Do we criticize the thousands of young professionals that leave the country they were educated in and grew up in so they can pursue opportunities they want elsewhere? How is Schultz any different? Just because fans assume he owes the organization that drafted him something, when the rules don't? Is there some unwritten rule here that only applies to players but doesn't exist for teams?

NFITO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:16 PM
  #33
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVPeyton View Post
A lot of people have pointed out that one interview, which is bad in itself, but if Russo's source is correct, it's much worse. He's reporting the Ducks have quite a few emails from Schultz telling them flat out that he's coming, and then all of a sudden refused. That could definitely be enough to get a tampering investigation if Schultz signs on July 1.
No it couldn't get any tampering charges at all.

Schultz is able to talk to teams prior to July 1st but can't sign until then. He's got a week to negotiate with any team (after one month of exclusive rights for the Ducks following his intent to not return to college a few days ago).

So prove that he's been in contact with teams before, and didn't talk to them during the June 25-July 1st window and then sign July 1st?

Tampering is a non-starter in this case.

NFITO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:19 PM
  #34
LeafOfBread
van Dreamsdyk
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mississauga, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosh View Post
That's fair, someone posted a link to an interview with Schultz and Schultz said that after he made his decision to stay for another year, Anaheim was "hounding" him. I mean it's anyone's guess what hounding means and the extent it went to, but that could be the reason?

Maybe Schultz just doesn't want to play for Anaheim for whatever reason like Lindros didn't want to play for Quebec, or Steve Francis didn't want to play for Vancouver
Right, but Lindros and Francis made their disposition known right from the start, whereas Schultz seemed like he wanted to play for Anaheim and even essentially stated so. Something personal must've happened I'm guessing

LeafOfBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:21 PM
  #35
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
No it couldn't get any tampering charges at all.

Schultz is able to talk to teams prior to July 1st but can't sign until then. He's got a week to negotiate with any team (after one month of exclusive rights for the Ducks following his intent to not return to college a few days ago).

So prove that he's been in contact with teams before, and didn't talk to them during the June 25-July 1st window and then sign July 1st?

Tampering is a non-starter in this case.
Tampering investigation and tampering charges are two different things. That's obviously not enough to prove anything at all, but it is pretty odd, and if he signs quickly enough, they might go forward with an investigation. And who knows if Anaheim has other bits of evidence. Then it's a whole new ballgame, and they could indeed discover something substantial, then it wouldn't be good for the team that tampered.

To those saying he could've changed his mind, if this is indeed the case, get real. A player doesn't promise a team for months that he's coming at the end of the season and all of a sudden decide to hit free agency. If this is indeed true, there's no doubt that he's a grade A ******* and something else is probably up.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:21 PM
  #36
jax00
DangleSnipe&Celly
 
jax00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Anaslime
Country: United States
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
Or maybe Schultz simply changed his mind - something he's well within his rights as a player without a contract is able to do?

He didn't holdout of a contract. He has no contract and no legal obligation to any organization. If he changed his mind from where he was a year ago, without a contract in place, he has the right to do so. You do know people change their minds all the time - and without a legal obligation they are perfectly within their rights to do so.

People act like this player is somehow property of the team that drafted him and has to sign with said team. This is not the case at all, as indicated by the rules agreed on by both the team and the player. He is not property of the team until he has signed a contract with that team and unless that contract is still active. Neither of which has happened. If he wants to change his mind now, or next month or 3 days after saying whatever he did, he is perfectly within his rights to do so.

Teams trade players after signing them to NTC. They waive players that they don't feel fit anymore. They don't qualify RFA if they don't feel they are worth it. Players they draft they don't always sign, if they don't feel it's worth it for them. And they're all allowed to do this because the rules let them. So again why should a player be bound to non-existent rules that teams aren't? Schultz is perfectly within his rights to change his mind. No different at all to a team that signs a player to a long-term deal - like say Carter - and then changes their mind a year later to move him to a team he had no interest in going to. How is that any different than what Schultz is doing? Besides the fact that he has even less obligation to the other party as there is no contract in place, while Philly signs Carter to a 10yr deal with a NTC and then moves him just before (literally just before) his NTC is allowed to kick in. Isn't that exactly what you're blaming Schultz for? Saying one thing and doing something else? Again without a contract in place he's within his rights to do so... Hell as we've seen many times, both players (demanding trades while under contract like Heatley, Roy, Bure, etc) and teams (waiving/trading players with NTC) have done such things - go back on their words - many many times in the past. And those are with a contract (and thus legal obligation) in place.

I think people need to look at this outside their biased hockey glasses on. This is a person looking at his options to best guide his professional career. If he's doing things within the rules he has to comply to, why blame him for it? Would you criticize a graduate who turns down a teaching position at their university which helped him get his degree to work instead in the private sector? Would you criticize a financial analyst who leaves the place that gave him his start to go after a better paying job elsewhere? Would you criticize a professor for leaving the college where he got his degree if he gets a job offer in a different city or country where he wants to live? Do we criticize the thousands of young professionals that leave the country they were educated in and grew up in so they can pursue opportunities they want elsewhere? How is Schultz any different? Just because fans assume he owes the organization that drafted him something, when the rules don't? Is there some unwritten rule here that only applies to players but doesn't exist for teams?
Dude...

No one is pissed off at him for doing something illegal. We're pissed because it seems like he repeatedly told the Ducks he wanted to come here, and is changing his mind at the last minute.

Yes, it is well within his rights and no one is arguing against that, but the manner in which he is doing/has done it screws the Ducks big time. He's ******** all over the people that first gave him a chance. You're right, he does not owe the Ducks anything, technically speaking (even if most players would likely have some loyalty to the team that drafted them). But would a heads up, say last year, have been that hard? It's a punk move if you ask me, even if it is well within his rights.

jax00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:27 PM
  #37
Leafs03
Registered User
 
Leafs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toronto On
Country: Albania
Posts: 1,610
vCash: 500
wow. i can't believe how some people are reacting to this.......

It's called changing your mind people! Every human being goes through it! The guy probably has his own reasons to change his mind.... Because he said he's going to sign with ducks than months later changes it, doesn't make him a dick....As a leafs fan, i hope he does come here but i doubt he will..But wherever he goes, good for him. Its so ignorant to call him names and **** because a 22 year old changed his mind on a life changing decision..

Leafs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:28 PM
  #38
jax00
DangleSnipe&Celly
 
jax00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Anaslime
Country: United States
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs03 View Post
wow. i can't believe how some people are reacting to this.......

It's called changing your mind people! Every human being goes through it! The guy probably has his own reasons to change his mind.... Because he said he's going to sign with ducks than months later changes it, doesn't make him a dick....As a leafs fan, i hope he does come here but i doubt he will..But wherever he goes, good for him. Its so ignorant to call him names and **** because a 22 year old changed his mind on a life changing decision..
You're right, I already said dick was a pretty strong word.

Liar is more appropriate.

jax00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:32 PM
  #39
birddog*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,988
vCash: 500
Suck it up buttercups. Don't blame the player -- blame the game.

birddog* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:43 PM
  #40
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVPeyton View Post
Tampering investigation and tampering charges are two different things. That's obviously not enough to prove anything at all, but it is pretty odd, and if he signs quickly enough, they might go forward with an investigation. And who knows if Anaheim has other bits of evidence. Then it's a whole new ballgame, and they could indeed discover something substantial, then it wouldn't be good for the team that tampered.

To those saying he could've changed his mind, if this is indeed the case, get real. A player doesn't promise a team for months that he's coming at the end of the season and all of a sudden decide to hit free agency. If this is indeed true, there's no doubt that he's a grade A ******* and something else is probably up.

What is signing "quickly enough"??

Players sign July 1st all the time - and in most of those cases they become UFA's July 1st.

Schultz will become a UFA June 25th. He can not sign until July 1st - that's a week after he gets to UFA status. A week into FA most players have already signed.

So how can he possibly sign too "quickly" when he can negotiate for almost a week before he's even allowed to sign a contract.

What are the Ducks going to say? That he signed too quickly if he signs the first possible moment - that being July 1st, even though he actually hits UFA status and can talk to any team he wants a week before he can even sign a contract?

If you're going to make a case that he's tampering for signing "too quickly" then you can say that about every UFA that signs before July 6th - within 6 days of hitting UFA status, which is what Schultz can do if he signs at the first allowed moment on July 1st.

Again there is no support here for tampering simply because he's ALLOWED to talk to any team a week before he's actually ALLOWED to sign with them.

NFITO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:44 PM
  #41
Gliff
Nick Bonino
 
Gliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeastOfTheBunch View Post
Sucks to lose out on Schultz, but I think it's irrational to say Murray would rather lose Schultz for nothing than trade his rights to Toronto for some asset(s). The Lupul trade was pretty much viewed as a salary dump type deal at the time and Brian helped Murray out from that point of view. And they have made a number of trades since then so it's not like Murray despises Burke because of the Lupul trade..
Anyone who knows what situation the Ducks were in when that trade was made knows that Lupul was not the asset. Burke is not the devil to me. I really doubt he is the one doing the tampering if it is being done.

Gliff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:54 PM
  #42
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
What is signing "quickly enough"??

Players sign July 1st all the time - and in most of those cases they become UFA's July 1st.

Schultz will become a UFA June 25th. He can not sign until July 1st - that's a week after he gets to UFA status. A week into FA most players have already signed.

So how can he possibly sign too "quickly" when he can negotiate for almost a week before he's even allowed to sign a contract.

What are the Ducks going to say? That he signed too quickly if he signs the first possible moment - that being July 1st, even though he actually hits UFA status and can talk to any team he wants a week before he can even sign a contract?

If you're going to make a case that he's tampering for signing "too quickly" then you can say that about every UFA that signs before July 6th - within 6 days of hitting UFA status, which is what Schultz can do if he signs at the first allowed moment on July 1st.

Again there is no support here for tampering simply because he's ALLOWED to talk to any team a week before he's actually ALLOWED to sign with them.
Just something that might look a bit suspicious. He's obviously allowed to talk to anyone even earlier than that(before the draft), so it might not matter, but if he were to agree in principle soon enough, that might look suspicious. It also might not even matter.

Like it's been said, this isn't fans on HFBoards speculating there's tampering involved, it's a report that Anaheim management is building a case for it. There's a belief that a team has gotten to him already, so there's probably enough evidence to support an investigation. Hell, I don't think Lou investigated Stevens on much more than a feeling something was off, and Stevens didn't sign his offer sheet right away either.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 03:54 PM
  #43
Mystifo
Malkin To Kulemin.
 
Mystifo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: YYT
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gliff View Post
Anyone who knows what situation the Ducks were in when that trade was made knows that Lupul was not the asset. Burke is not the devil to me. I really doubt he is the one doing the tampering if it is being done.
Finally someone with sense. We took on Lupul as a boom or bust player and just to our luck he flourished in a first line role and built great chemistry with Kessel. If we are willing to move Holzer for Schultz rights it seems fair I mean Holzer is one part of the Marlies Shutdown D pairing that has been soo good for them in the playoffs I mean him and Fraser have worked really well and Holzer has been one of our better defenceman.

Mystifo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 04:07 PM
  #44
sgupca
Registered User
 
sgupca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lloydminster, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystifo View Post
Finally someone with sense. We took on Lupul as a boom or bust player and just to our luck he flourished in a first line role and built great chemistry with Kessel. If we are willing to move Holzer for Schultz rights it seems fair I mean Holzer is one part of the Marlies Shutdown D pairing that has been soo good for them in the playoffs I mean him and Fraser have worked really well and Holzer has been one of our better defenceman.
I've been saying this for weeks - when the AHL playoffs are over and IF Schultz really wants to play in Toronto I can see Burke Sending Holzer + pick to the ducks for Schultz rights.


I think ducks fans would really like Holzer's game, IMO it's very similar to Gunnar.

sgupca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 04:22 PM
  #45
Gliff
Nick Bonino
 
Gliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystifo View Post
Finally someone with sense. We took on Lupul as a boom or bust player and just to our luck he flourished in a first line role and built great chemistry with Kessel. If we are willing to move Holzer for Schultz rights it seems fair I mean Holzer is one part of the Marlies Shutdown D pairing that has been soo good for them in the playoffs I mean him and Fraser have worked really well and Holzer has been one of our better defenceman.
I'm not saying I dont think ANY tampering is going on. I just think it is probably Gardiner rather then Burke. Yes players can be charged with tampering also. They cant recruit players that are not UFAs.

Gliff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 04:37 PM
  #46
Leafs03
Registered User
 
Leafs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toronto On
Country: Albania
Posts: 1,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jax00 View Post
You're right, I already said dick was a pretty strong word.

Liar is more appropriate.
Please find me a human being who has never lied before in his life....

Leafs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 04:47 PM
  #47
jax00
DangleSnipe&Celly
 
jax00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Anaslime
Country: United States
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs03 View Post
Please find me a human being who has never lied before in his life....
Hey, **** gets a lot more real when you say it to the media, fair or not. He made a promise with cameras in front of his face, and it appears he's not gonna keep it.

Happens all the time in sports, I know. Still doesn't make it better or acceptable. Especially when you haven't proven a thing in the league.

jax00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 04:57 PM
  #48
Static
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 17,134
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Static
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
What is signing "quickly enough"??

Players sign July 1st all the time - and in most of those cases they become UFA's July 1st.

Schultz will become a UFA June 25th. He can not sign until July 1st - that's a week after he gets to UFA status. A week into FA most players have already signed.

So how can he possibly sign too "quickly" when he can negotiate for almost a week before he's even allowed to sign a contract.

What are the Ducks going to say? That he signed too quickly if he signs the first possible moment - that being July 1st, even though he actually hits UFA status and can talk to any team he wants a week before he can even sign a contract?

If you're going to make a case that he's tampering for signing "too quickly" then you can say that about every UFA that signs before July 6th - within 6 days of hitting UFA status, which is what Schultz can do if he signs at the first allowed moment on July 1st.

Again there is no support here for tampering simply because he's ALLOWED to talk to any team a week before he's actually ALLOWED to sign with them.
What are you even arguing?

Ducks fans are mad because he clearly made an about face about playing in Anaheim, and hasn't given a reason why. Is that really that tough to compute? Jesus.

What he is doing is full well his right, that doesn't mean it isn't a ****** move.

Static is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 05:02 PM
  #49
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Static View Post
What are you even arguing?

Ducks fans are mad because he clearly made an about face about playing in Anaheim, and hasn't given a reason why. Is that really that tough to compute? Jesus.

What he is doing is full well his right, that doesn't mean it isn't a ****** move.
He's also saying the Ducks have no chance at eventually discovering tampering based on what they have, despite Lou getting a nearly-five year investigation on the Blues based on a feeling.

Gibsons Finest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2012, 05:03 PM
  #50
Static
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 17,134
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Static
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosh View Post
How is it not relevant? you, along with a few others are acting like something like this has never happened before, like you're genuinely shocked that Schultz could have the audacity to say one thing and do something else.

It happens, people lie, not just in sports, but in general.

At the end of the day you do what's best for you. No one else, Schultz did nothing wrong, he is following the rules as laid out by the CBA, as people have done before him.

Must be sunny with kittens and rainbows in the world you live in if you "value someone's word" over a signed legal document.
Why are you defending lying by saying that it's happened before, as if it changes it's moral standing the more it is done.

As of now, the evidence we have points to him lying. That's a weak move, no matter the legality. In a situation as big as this, ie: professional sports, starting off a career this way is a little concerning as to the quality of his character.

Static is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.