HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Thomas Traded to Islanders

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-25-2013, 10:27 AM
  #552
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 17,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalus View Post
He certainly has the right to not fulfill the terms of his contract. Since he didn't provide his agreed upon services in his fourth year, the counterparty is not obligated to fulfill their terms, and that is that.

Let's not overlook that such a move shows poor character on Thomas' part. While legal and within his rights, this type of move is not looked upon favorably in business.

He fulfilled the first three years while the terms were most favorable to him (ntc, 85% payout) and effectively terminated the agreement in year four when the terms were less favorable to him (no ntc, 15% payout of total contract). Both parties negotiated the four year deal in good faith that all four years would be fulfilled.

The team gave up term leverage in the first three years with the understanding that some of it would be gained back in year four, providing optionality for the team.

In other words, the Bruins likely would not have agreed to a three year, $17mm deal with a full ntc. They agreed to those terms with the good faith understanding that the fourth year terms would be honored.

Poor character on Tim's part. A contracter in almost any other walk of life wouldnt last long taking that approach. Obviously Tim is in a very specialized set of circumstances where that is not a cincern, but that doesnt change the fact thst its bad business and shows poor character.
I don't see a difference between Chia setting up the deal so he could ship Thomas out in the fourth year and Thomas setting up the deal so he could walk away in the fourth year.

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 10:44 AM
  #553
Kalus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Quincy
Posts: 681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
I don't see a difference between Chia setting up the deal so he could ship Thomas out in the fourth year and Thomas setting up the deal so he could walk away in the fourth year.
That's fair. I understand your point. I just believe that Chia negotiated in the good faith that the full contract would be honored.

I don't think Chia would have agreed to a three year, $17mm contract with a full NTC and a $5mm cap hit (even with no $pmt) in the fourth year. Thomas sure would have taken it, but I doubt Chia would have accepted it. Those first three years were palatable for the team in connection with the terms of the fourth year.

Nobody got hurt here. No rules were broken. I just wanted to raise the point that i see such a move as a mark of poor character.

Kalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 10:48 AM
  #554
Kalus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Quincy
Posts: 681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainOfJ View Post
To me, retiring and walking away from millions of guaranteed dollars to spend time with your family shows incredible character and understanding for what's important in this life at the end of the day...But to each his own.
Thats a little cute. Of couse we all respect family men. That wasnt my point and i think that was clear.

Kalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 10:53 AM
  #555
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Game time, baby
Country: United States
Posts: 39,338
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalus View Post
That's fair. I understand your point. I just believe that Chia negotiated in the good faith that the full contract would be honored.

I don't think Chia would have agreed to a three year, $17mm contract with a full NTC and a $5mm cap hit (even with no $pmt) in the fourth year. Thomas sure would have taken it, but I doubt Chia would have accepted it. Those first three years were palatable for the team in connection with the terms of the fourth year.

Nobody got hurt here. No rules were broken. I just wanted to raise the point that i see such a move as a mark of poor character.
Chia wanted to trade Thomas a half of season into his new 4 year deal with a full NTC. After that, all bets were off... Chia had no intention of honoring the contract in it's original form...

WBC8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:00 AM
  #557
22Brad Park
Registered User
 
22Brad Park's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalus View Post
He certainly has the right to not fulfill the terms of his contract. Since he didn't provide his agreed upon services in his fourth year, the counterparty is not obligated to fulfill their terms, and that is that.

Let's not overlook that such a move shows poor character on Thomas' part. While legal and within his rights, this type of move is not looked upon favorably in business.

He fulfilled the first three years while the terms were most favorable to him (ntc, 85% payout) and effectively terminated the agreement in year four when the terms were less favorable to him (no ntc, 15% payout of total contract). Both parties negotiated the four year deal in good faith that all four years would be fulfilled.

The team gave up term leverage in the first three years with the understanding that some of it would be gained back in year four, providing optionality for the team.

In other words, the Bruins likely would not have agreed to a three year, $17mm deal with a full ntc. They agreed to those terms with the good faith understanding that the fourth year terms would be honored.

Poor character on Tim's part. A contracter in almost any other walk of life wouldnt last long taking that approach. Obviously Tim is in a very specialized set of circumstances where that is not a cincern, but that doesnt change the fact thst its bad business and shows poor character.
DEAD ON THE MONEY ALMOST!! You put your name to something you live up to it.Its that simple so the part about not fulfilling that to me is wrong,Rest i agree.Its better he gone anyways,The money is now free and Rask playing great.PERFECT!


Last edited by 22Brad Park: 02-25-2013 at 11:09 AM.
22Brad Park is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:08 AM
  #558
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
Chia wanted to trade Thomas a half of season into his new 4 year deal with a full NTC. After that, all bets were off... Chia had no intention of honoring the contract in it's original form...
Not to mention that PC panicked to get the deal done in a hurry because he didn't understand the 35+ contract rules. It's really strange that Thomas is hung out to dry as being disloyal to the organization, but they tried to pressure him multiple times to drop his NTC. Where was the loyalty there?

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:11 AM
  #559
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainOfJ View Post
To me, retiring and walking away from millions of guaranteed dollars to spend time with your family shows incredible character and understanding for what's important in this life at the end of the day...But to each his own.
IF this is what happened... I suppose we would ALL be ok with it.

Is this what happened?

Or did he make some controversial political comments/actions that created a storm of controversy and a backlash against him... which he then immediately ducked... and which turned his game kind of crappy leading us into a second half tail spin and a very disappointing playoff performance?

and then after that... did it all get out of control to the point that he decided to take his ball and go home? He has been acting like a bit of a spoiled brat in his public stance for the past year... spouting off his political views {which i happen to agree with} and using his celebrity status to give weight to his opinions, but then ducking out all followup debate that those opinions create.

Celbrities have a certain obligation to their fans when they are making millions of dollars at our expense to be our heros. The ONLY REASON these people make this money is because we fans put them on pedestals and make them IMPORTANT to us. When these people speak... their words mean something because we choose to make them mean something.

If a celbrity wants to be political then ok... but stand by your convictions. Answer the damn questions when you get asked to clarify your positions. Dont run away from your responsibilities to your fans if thing get hot for you. You were the one that spoke up and took a stance in the first place.

Thomas signed a FRONT LOADED contract that was a reward to him from the team for his good service. He as GIVEN NO TRADE PROTECTION to help him and his family for the first few years of the deal {despite his age}

He actually let us down for one season during the deal and the deal looked like it sucked for us. Everyone here was screaming he needed to get dealt cause Rask was looking so good for us. Luckily history shows us we didnt end up dealing him and he played a key role winning a cup for us {I will always love Thomas for this whatever else I feel about how he handled his exit}

Bruins honored their end of the bargain here. Thomas got the lion's share of his money and the team allowed him to be part of a cup winner. What else can any player ever ask for? All the problems Thomas ended up with were brought onto his own head when he begain his controversial political stance. Even that might have been addressable if he had simply answered the questions everyone asked. But he didnt... and it grew and grew and grew... and eventually he said he needed to take time off for his family but why?

And who got hurt?

The team and us fans had every right to expect to be able to deal Thomas for a valuable return. thats how the contract was done. We also had a right to expect him to keep his mind on the game instead of politics last year when we should have had a decent chance for a second cup. Its such a shame Rask got hurt going down the stretch driver cause the way Thomas was playing, it would have been nice if we could have turned the ball over to Rask and try to salvage the season.

There is NO DOUBT in my mind at all that Thomas would have been dealt had he choosen to play this year. It was 100% in the rights of the team to do this. Thomas decided instead to screw the team over. If we do end up with a second... then at least we get something, but Thomas didnt make it easy for us at all.

Its very very very hard to sugar coat this no matter how much we appreciate his on ice play while he was here. As a performer... a player... he did very good for us. He earned his paychecks. he was fun to cheer for. But as a man, even despite his attempts to wrap himself in patriosm and family and god... it just isnt an easy pill to swallow for us how this ended up and we as his fans have every right to feel let down by the guy. Its a real shame

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:13 AM
  #560
22Brad Park
Registered User
 
22Brad Park's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
Not to mention that PC panicked to get the deal done in a hurry because he didn't understand the 35+ contract rules. It's really strange that Thomas is hung out to dry as being disloyal to the organization, but they tried to pressure him multiple times to drop his NTC. Where was the loyalty there?
I can remember Thomas blowing 2 series alone and sliding over to the corner net and going clean past the goal post cause he had no control he was that bad at the time.It was clear then to see why he never stuck at that level.Then as time went on he got better and he pregressed alot thanks to Bruins for sticking with him.So yes they were loyal to him when alot teams would have gotten rid him before them great yrs.The Scott Walker goal was one worst i ever saw.Easy glove save on a dump in and he gives him huge rebound and bang in net year over as example..In the end Tim put it together and had 2 of the best yrs ever by any goaltender but to say the Bruins were never loyal to him is just wrong.

22Brad Park is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:14 AM
  #561
redsox7327
Registered User
 
redsox7327's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalus View Post
In other words, the Bruins likely would not have agreed to a three year, $17mm deal with a full ntc. They agreed to those terms with the good faith understanding that the fourth year terms would be honored.
The Bruins have already received great benefits from the 4th year of that contract, which are the reduced cap hits in each of the first 3 years (5.0 as opposed to 5.7).

redsox7327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:18 AM
  #562
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
IF this is what happened... I suppose we would ALL be ok with it.

Is this what happened?

Or did he make some controversial political comments/actions that created a storm of controversy and a backlash against him... which he then immediately ducked... and which turned his game kind of crappy leading us into a second half tail spin and a very disappointing playoff performance?

and then after that... did it all get out of control to the point that he decided to take his ball and go home? He has been acting like a bit of a spoiled brat in his public stance for the past year... spouting off his political views {which i happen to agree with} and using his celebrity status to give weight to his opinions, but then ducking out all followup debate that those opinions create.

Celbrities have a certain obligation to their fans when they are making millions of dollars at our expense to be our heros. The ONLY REASON these people make this money is because we fans put them on pedestals and make them IMPORTANT to us. When these people speak... their words mean something because we choose to make them mean something.

If a celbrity wants to be political then ok... but stand by your convictions. Answer the damn questions when you get asked to clarify your positions. Dont run away from your responsibilities to your fans if thing get hot for you. You were the one that spoke up and took a stance in the first place.

Thomas signed a FRONT LOADED contract that was a reward to him from the team for his good service. He as GIVEN NO TRADE PROTECTION to help him and his family for the first few years of the deal {despite his age}

He actually let us down for one season during the deal and the deal looked like it sucked for us. Everyone here was screaming he needed to get dealt cause Rask was looking so good for us. Luckily history shows us we didnt end up dealing him and he played a key role winning a cup for us {I will always love Thomas for this whatever else I feel about how he handled his exit}

Bruins honored their end of the bargain here. Thomas got the lion's share of his money and the team allowed him to be part of a cup winner. What else can any player ever ask for? All the problems Thomas ended up with were brought onto his own head when he begain his controversial political stance. Even that might have been addressable if he had simply answered the questions everyone asked. But he didnt... and it grew and grew and grew... and eventually he said he needed to take time off for his family but why?

And who got hurt?

The team and us fans had every right to expect to be able to deal Thomas for a valuable return. thats how the contract was done. We also had a right to expect him to keep his mind on the game instead of politics last year when we should have had a decent chance for a second cup. Its such a shame Rask got hurt going down the stretch driver cause the way Thomas was playing, it would have been nice if we could have turned the ball over to Rask and try to salvage the season.

There is NO DOUBT in my mind at all that Thomas would have been dealt had he choosen to play this year. It was 100% in the rights of the team to do this. Thomas decided instead to screw the team over. If we do end up with a second... then at least we get something, but Thomas didnt make it easy for us at all.

Its very very very hard to sugar coat this no matter how much we appreciate his on ice play while he was here. As a performer... a player... he did very good for us. He earned his paychecks. he was fun to cheer for. But as a man, even despite his attempts to wrap himself in patriosm and family and god... it just isnt an easy pill to swallow for us how this ended up and we as his fans have every right to feel let down by the guy. Its a real shame
You're buying into the spin that's been floated. His relationship with the team soured long before last season (recall how his pads went from Bruin's colors and logos everywhere to white and black with no team markings?). Hanging this on some flap about a photo opp at the White House is laughable, IMO. This was all about what happened when he got hurt and they tried to replace him with Rask. Even more to the point, if he had retired (which you said you'd be okay with), that would have screwed the team far worse than just not showing up.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:20 AM
  #563
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 22Brad Park View Post
I can remember Thomas blowing 2 series alone and sliding over to the corner net and going clean past the goal post cause he had no control he was that bad at the time.It was clear then to see why he never stuck at that level.Then as time went on he got better and he pregressed alot thanks to Bruins for sticking with him.So yes they were loyal to him when alot teams would have gotten rid him before them great yrs.The Scott Walker goal was one worst i ever saw.Easy glove save on a dump in and he gives him huge rebound and bang in net year over as example..In the end Tim put it together and had 2 of the best yrs ever by any goaltender but to say the Bruins were never loyal to him is just wrong.
You do realize that they would have traded him before his cup heroics, if PC had gotten his way, right?

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:27 AM
  #564
22Brad Park
Registered User
 
22Brad Park's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
You do realize that they would have traded him before his cup heroics, if PC had gotten his way, right?
Well thats matter of opinion.But perhaps.But they were only team give him any shot at NHL too.

22Brad Park is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:30 AM
  #565
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 22Brad Park View Post
Well thats matter of opinion.But perhaps.But they were only team give him any shot at NHL too.
That they did. The point I was making is that loyalty is thrown around by some people here as a reason when it justifies their point. If you want to really discuss loyalty, you have to look at both parties. In this case, the relationship between Thomas and the team went south. Therefore, you can't expect one side to show loyalty when the other is not. Doesn't matter who did what or when, just that there was no reason for either side to invoke loyalty (or a lack thereof) as proof their side was in the right.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:32 AM
  #566
PatriceBergeronFan
Dismayed B's Fan
 
PatriceBergeronFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainOfJ View Post
To me, retiring and walking away from millions of guaranteed dollars to spend time with your family shows incredible character and understanding for what's important in this life at the end of the day...But to each his own.
Agreed.

PatriceBergeronFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:36 AM
  #567
22Brad Park
Registered User
 
22Brad Park's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
That they did. The point I was making is that loyalty is thrown around by some people here as a reason when it justifies their point. If you want to really discuss loyalty, you have to look at both parties. In this case, the relationship between Thomas and the team went south. Therefore, you can't expect one side to show loyalty when the other is not. Doesn't matter who did what or when, just that there was no reason for either side to invoke loyalty (or a lack thereof) as proof their side was in the right.
Very fair assessment.

22Brad Park is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:40 AM
  #568
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
That they did. The point I was making is that loyalty is thrown around by some people here as a reason when it justifies their point. If you want to really discuss loyalty, you have to look at both parties. In this case, the relationship between Thomas and the team went south. Therefore, you can't expect one side to show loyalty when the other is not. Doesn't matter who did what or when, just that there was no reason for either side to invoke loyalty (or a lack thereof) as proof their side was in the right.
Good pt, and truth is, I love my employer, she treats myself and everyone else at work incredibly fairly, with respect, and in turn, I believe I bust my arse for her and try to repay her by doing so however, if there`s an employer who wants to pay me more, has the same reputation for being respectful etc......adios my friends.

I`m loyal to only a few, my family, friends ,my son and Mrs. Odaat, other than those 4.......

ODAAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:43 AM
  #569
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
 
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,962
vCash: 500
why is this thread still going? He's gone. Let's move on.

RussellmaniaKW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:47 AM
  #570
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellmaniaKW View Post
why is this thread still going? He's gone. Let's move on.
U kiddin, we still yakk about Kessel, Jumbo Joe, Harry Sinden, and a continuously running "what`s wrong with our PP" thread and this surprises ya??

I agree, I keep popping on here simply to see if he`s changed his mind and will play

ODAAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:48 AM
  #571
VanIsle
Registered User
 
VanIsle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Comox Valley, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellmaniaKW View Post
why is this thread still going? He's gone. Let's move on.
Never, Thomas shall live on this board and in our hearts forever.

On a side note, he won us the cup for the first time in a very long time and his jersey is hated here in B.C. so I shall forever love him, so what he is a little crazy, aren't we all in some small way? hahahaha.

VanIsle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:49 AM
  #572
Gee Wally
Grumpy
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 39,034
vCash: 500
Awards:
all I know is when I click on this thread I hear calliope music.




Just like the old fashioned carousels.

__________________

BOSTON STRONG !!!
Gee Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 12:02 PM
  #573
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 19,624
vCash: 500
I don't think anyone can say for sure what was going through Chiarelli's mind regarding Thomas and his contract, or what was (is) going through Thomas's mind regarding his "sabbatical." All we have to go on is second-hand reports, conjecture, and our own mind-sets.

Artemis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 12:41 PM
  #574
Roll 4 Lines
Pastafarian!
 
Roll 4 Lines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bear Country
Country: United States
Posts: 6,309
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Artemis;60442255]I don't think anyone can say for sure what was going through Chiarelli's mind regarding Thomas and his contract, or what was (is) going through Thomas's mind regarding his "sabbatical." All we have to go on is second-hand reports, conjecture, and our own mind-sets.[/QUOTE]

Not quite. We could actually take Timmy at his word.

That said, I'm not a fan of the NTC's and wish Chia didn't pass them out like Halloween candy.

Lotta talk about loyalty, and Chia trying to trade TT.

Well, A GM SHOULD be trying to trade players to make improvements to his team, especially when you've got a log-jam at one position and have an opportunity to use one of those assets to shore up another position.

The issue is, he did give out the NTC (or NMC), and then shortly thereafter tried to make the move.

I can see Tim being a bit upset at that, but that was years ago, and I really don't think it had much to do with his sabbatical. I think he really didn't want to play hockey this year.

Roll 4 Lines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 03:31 PM
  #575
Kalus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Quincy
Posts: 681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
Chia wanted to trade Thomas a half of season into his new 4 year deal with a full NTC. After that, all bets were off... Chia had no intention of honoring the contract in it's original form...
If Thomas agreed to waive his NTC, the contract would still be honored, only the participatory interest would be reassigned , ie. he'd be traded.

Thomas negotiated the NTC for the first three years and had every right to use it. I for one would not hold it against him if he didnt waive it, thats his contractual right to exercise. Good faith negotiation uncompromised.

Kalus is offline   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 11:26 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.