HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Never seen this before.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2003, 07:48 AM
  #51
brian11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Amen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohologo
I think it sounds majestic, shrewd, resourceful and astute.

We've been talking draft picks, prospects, and roster players as possible return for Comrie-why not money? The Oilers need cash, and cash is the best asset to get, because it can be turned into many different things: better scouting, a MacT buy out so we can hire Keenan , or to absorb a big-market salary that will help this team now.

Cash today is better than next year's draft pick, tomorrow's prospect, or even some guy wearing mauve & teal. Cash is flexible & instant, and it helps the Oil.

This negotiation is all about business, and this ploy is very good business. Comrie had leverage during the last negotiation, and exercised it well like a good capitalist. Lowe has the leverage now (rights to Comrie, Comrie wants to get out of Dodge), and is applying it like a good capitalist.

I'm surprised at the negative response to Lowe's possible request for cash; it's just another asset in return for Comrie, and it's the best one we could ask for.

Stroke of genius.

Couldn't have said it better myself! I think it is amazing that Oiler fans are posting messages that criticise Lowe for not using all the leverage he possibly can to get the most out of the deal. A brilliant and creative move by someone that has ALL the leverage power in the world. He should be applauded for the attmpt at getting money included in the deal.

For all of Lowe's detractors (who are Oiler fans): Would you rather him get even less or something? What is wrong with you people?

brian11 is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 07:51 AM
  #52
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilswell
What's your point? I dont recall Lowe asking for the money be transferred into his personal account. THAT would be extortion. If you're offended by the alleged negotiation tactic because Comrie isn't a faceless corporation, don't bother IMO. Comrie's well armed as he's packing a CBA and is backed by an NHLPA posse.
I don't get what your saying. The Oilers like any other business bear a risk when they hire and fire people. We just hired someone at work this week based on the fact that we think this individual is right for the job. If this person leaves in 3 months, we can't ask for the money back. And yet, we've invested resources (time and cash) to train that person. Why can't we ask for the money back? Because it's part of business risk.

Offended by negotiation tactics? Relax man. I disagree with it from a business standpoint. Dn't worry, I'll be able to sleep tonight.

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 07:52 AM
  #53
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian11
Couldn't have said it better myself! I think it is amazing that Oiler fans are posting messages that criticise Lowe for not using all the leverage he possibly can to get the most out of the deal. A brilliant and creative move by someone that has ALL the leverage power in the world. He should be applauded for the attmpt at getting money included in the deal.

For all of Lowe's detractors (who are Oiler fans): Would you rather him get even less or something? What is wrong with you people?
Part of it is that it makes Lowe look very bad (trying to get money from the player).

This isn't something the PFHLPA will look kindly on, and I would assume a great many of their members (including some on the Oilers), won't be very pleased with.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:08 AM
  #54
brian11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Part of it is that it makes Lowe look very bad (trying to get money from the player).

This isn't something the PFHLPA will look kindly on, and I would assume a great many of their members (including some on the Oilers), won't be very pleased with.
Sure, the players won't like the fact that their boss isn't willing to be a softy with negotiations... but who cares? That's how the game is played. The NHLPA won't like it either, less money for players = bad.

But I'm an Oiler fan much more than a NHLPA fan, so I don't care what they think.

I think I know what you might be getting at, that it might be breaking some sort of rule. If that's true, at least Lowe tried to get more for the organisation, and set an example for anyone else that wants to be a little puke.

brian11 is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:13 AM
  #55
USC Trojans
I have a plan.
 
USC Trojans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA Oiler fan
Posts: 11,728
vCash: 500
I think after this move, Kevin Lowe will become public enemy #1 for the NHLPA. Yes, this was a classless move by Kevin Lowe, but I can imagine 29 of the other GMs in the league are applauding him right now. Rather than taking a step back, or even meeting Comrie half way, he took a huge step forward and went on the offensive. Too many times have we seen a GM compromise his plans to satisfy one of their players. We've also seen on many occasions how a team got a minimal return from a trade because the player only wanted to play for certain teams. If the rumors are true, Comrie told Lowe that he refuses to play in Long Island. So basically Comrie is refusing to re-sign and is refusing to be traded to places that he doesn't want to go...so what does that leave Lowe with?

The fact is, the players have been making the calls for way too long, and its finally time that the GMs step up. What Lowe is doing with Comrie right now shows the players that he is ultimately in charge. Rather than asking Comrie what he wants, he's telling him this is what I want. I think that he is a pioneer in the sense that he is one of the first GMs to show his players who's the boss...its almost as if he's inviting the other GMs to join his crusade and march towards the new CBA.

USC Trojans is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:13 AM
  #56
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian11
Sure, the players won't like the fact that their boss isn't willing to be a softy with negotiations... but who cares? That's how the game is played. The NHLPA won't like it either, less money for players = bad.

But I'm an Oiler fan much more than a NHLPA fan, so I don't care what they think.

I think I know what you might be getting at, that it might be breaking some sort of rule. If that's true, at least Lowe tried to get more for the organisation, and set an example for anyone else that wants to be a little puke.
You might not be an NHLPA fan, and you may not care what they think... yet.

It's a bold move now by Lowe, but will it be the same thing 3 years from now when Lowe can't sign anyone to a contract?

This is something players won't forget, and in the end, you can be an Oilers fan all you want, but it isn't any good if there are no players.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:14 AM
  #57
oilswell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wandering the globe
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
The Oilers like any other business bear a risk when they hire and fire people. We just hired someone at work this week ... If this person leaves in 3 months, we can't ask for the money back.
Its not the same. I'm not a CBA or NHL business junkie, but I think I grasp a few of its points. The NHL operates as a cartel. Players who are RFAs haven't "quit" their job. They're free agents and can go play in China or Europe or anywhere. But if they want to play for money in North America they have to negotiate and sign contracts within the rules set out by the CBA. Maybe that's not very nice but the CBA establishes the rules for playing the game. When a team has your rights, they CAN ask for something back for them.

BTW, the reported quotes from the Brownlee article hint but do not definitively suggest that Lowe is specifically "out for his pound of flesh" or even trying to "ask for the money back". He didn't comment on the question of whether he's asking the money specifically from Comrie. Here's a transcription of the comments without the comments intended to add a slant to the discussion:
  1. Is money involved in the negotiation?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lowe
    When you make a deal, it's a difficult thing ...A lot of circumstances change as you move along. The one thing, if we're talking about Mike, there's an ever-fluctuating need, I suppose, from our perspective, to get a deal that in the long run benefits the hockey team but that also addresses present-day needs"
  2. Would money for a player right now help?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lowe
    That would be a win-win for us
  3. "Did you ask Comrie to fork over money?"
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lowe
    I'm not going to comment on that
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Brownlee
    Winter ... declined comment

The rest, to me, looks like spin threatening to turn into a witch hunt. Nowhere can I find anyone saying Lowe is asking Comrie directly for the money or its no deal. This could easily be heresay.

oilswell is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:19 AM
  #58
brian11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
You might not be an NHLPA fan, and you may not care what they think... yet.

It's a bold move now by Lowe, but will it be the same thing 3 years from now when Lowe can't sign anyone to a contract?

This is something players won't forget, and in the end, you can be an Oilers fan all you want, but it isn't any good if there are no players.

But what's the alternative to this? Lowe caves in to Comrie, and sends the message that you've just got to threaten to not sign, pick the teams you'd be wiling to sign with and wait a month before Lowe makes your wishes come true.

I'll take the tough version of Kevin Lowe thank you, including all the implications invloved.

brian11 is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:19 AM
  #59
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by USC Trojans
I think after this move, Kevin Lowe will become public enemy #1 for the NHLPA. Yes, this was a classless move by Kevin Lowe, but I can imagine 29 of the other GMs in the league are applauding him right now. Rather than taking a step back, or even meeting Comrie half way, he took a huge step forward and went on the offensive. Too many times have we seen a GM compromise his plans to satisfy one of their players. We've also seen on many occasions how a team got a minimal return from a trade because the player only wanted to play for certain teams. If the rumors are true, Comrie told Lowe that he refuses to play in Long Island. So basically Comrie is refusing to re-sign and is refusing to be traded to places that he doesn't want to go...so what does that leave Lowe with?

The fact is, the players have been making the calls for way too long, and its finally time that the GMs step up. What Lowe is doing with Comrie right now shows the players that he is ultimately in charge. Rather than asking Comrie what he wants, he's telling him this is what I want. I think that he is a pioneer in the sense that he is one of the first GMs to show his players who's the boss...its almost as if he's inviting the other GMs to join his crusade and march towards the new CBA.
The sad part is if any of the other 29 GMs showed 1/4 of the gumption Lowe has (not just this year, but in his tenure as GM), the league wouldn't be struggling right now.

Take Tampa for instance... they gave up Joni Pitkanen because "They couldn't afford the money it would cost for a 1st round pick", yet this summer they made a very strong attempt to screw up the league economics one last time before the new CBA (Richards signing). This idiocy has ran rampant in this league for the past decade.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:19 AM
  #60
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilswell
Its not the same. I'm not a CBA or NHL business junkie, but I think I grasp a few of its points. The NHL operates as a cartel. Players who are RFAs haven't "quit" their job. They're free agents and can go play in China or Europe or anywhere. But if they want to play for money in North America they have to negotiate and sign contracts within the rules set out by the CBA. Maybe that's not very nice but the CBA establishes the rules for playing the game. When a team has your rights, they CAN ask for something back for them.

BTW, the reported quotes from the Brownlee article hint but do not definitively suggest that Lowe is specifically "out for his pound of flesh" or even trying to "ask for the money back". He didn't comment on the question of whether he's asking the money specifically from Comrie. Here's a transcription of the comments without the comments intended to add a slant to the discussion:
  1. Is money involved in the negotiation?
  2. Would money for a player right now help?
  3. "Did you ask Comrie to fork over money?"

The rest, to me, looks like spin threatening to turn into a witch hunt. Nowhere can I find anyone saying Lowe is asking Comrie directly for the money or its no deal. This could easily be heresay.
I hope Brownlee is wrong.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:19 AM
  #61
windowlicker
Registered User
 
windowlicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Murky Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
I don't get what your saying. The Oilers like any other business bear a risk when they hire and fire people. We just hired someone at work this week based on the fact that we think this individual is right for the job. If this person leaves in 3 months, we can't ask for the money back. And yet, we've invested resources (time and cash) to train that person. Why can't we ask for the money back? Because it's part of business risk.

Offended by negotiation tactics? Relax man. I disagree with it from a business standpoint. Dn't worry, I'll be able to sleep tonight.

The only problem with this is when players and NHLPA talk about escalating salaries, and the league tanking it under bloated payrolls, they never refer to themselves as business entities or business employees.
At that point it becomes "Entertainment". Because how can you justify paying your employess such amounts... but entertainers who entertain...
thats a whole different matter. Oilers are of course a business organization, but in my mind due to the...extraordinary nature of their business, have other avenues open to them in dealings such as this.

windowlicker is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:20 AM
  #62
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian11
But what's the alternative to this? Lowe caves in to Comrie, and sends the message that you've just got to threaten to not sign, pick the teams you'd be wiling to sign with and wait a month before Lowe makes your wishes come true.

I'll take the tough version of Kevin Lowe thank you, including all the implications invloved.
What's with the extreme ends of the spectrum?

How about Lowe waiting until he gets a return he wants in a trade?

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:23 AM
  #63
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,056
vCash: 500
I think brownlee is spinning a situation to get a good story. Here is what I think happened.

Lowe - we are close to a deal but there is a money issue

winter - how much

lowe - I asked for 2.5 mill by the ducks are balking

winter - so the only thing standing between mike and his true happiness is 2.5 mill

Lowe - yup

winter - if we paid it, would you be happy

lowe - sure, if you want to pay it and go after the ducks , then be my guest.

winter (hangs up and calls mike) - mike, good news, they are close to a deal. If we come up with 2.5 mill, we can go after the ducks to get it back and the deal happens.

mike - winter, are you oout of your mind. Mikey likes bonusses, Mikey doesn't pay bonusses.

winter (hangs up and calls brownlee) - robin, that ****** lowe is out to screw mike. He wants 2.5 mill out of his pocket to make the deal.

brownlee - I smell a scoop.

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:23 AM
  #64
speeds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St.Albert
Posts: 6,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
This is something players won't forget, and in the end, you can be an Oilers fan all you want, but it isn't any good if there are no players.
where are all the Oilers RFA's gonna go? russia? none of them are gonnna sign a contract anymore? I doubt that very much.

speeds is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:27 AM
  #65
brian11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
What's with the extreme ends of the spectrum?

How about Lowe waiting until he gets a return he wants in a trade?

Ha!, fair enough. Maybe he could get more in trades. But either way I'd rather a GM that was tough to deal with... and is creative in his toughness than a pushover.

brian11 is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:27 AM
  #66
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by windowlicker
The only problem with this is when players and NHLPA talk about escalating salaries, and the league tanking it under bloated payrolls, they never refer to themselves as business entities or business employees.
At that point it becomes "Entertainment". Because how can you justify paying your employess such amounts... but entertainers who entertain...
thats a whole different matter. Oilers are of course a business organization, but in my mind due to the...extraordinary nature of their business, have other avenues open to them in dealings such as this.
Good point but then players should stop using the expression "It's a business decisions". I get what you are saying, but what this boils down to is Lowe taking money back from Comrie, money he has earned. Nevernmind the performance bonuses were too easy to achieve. Again, it's irrelevant here.

Look, the entertainment industry is a business. The Oilers are a classic example that an NHL team can and should be run like a business. As a small-market team have to. And it's not good business to do what Lowe is doing. Not because he's screwing over Comrie 'cuz I don't give a rat's ass about MC or Winter. It makes Lowe and the entire organization look bad. "Hey, I don't want to go to Edmonton, they want their money back I if don't perform up to their standards".

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:31 AM
  #67
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by speeds
where are all the Oilers RFA's gonna go? russia? none of them are gonnna sign a contract anymore? I doubt that very much.
They could easily price themselves out of town (arbitration), or if the new CBA has a lower UFA age, or some players may simply refuse to sign a deal longer than one year.

Or kids the Oilers draft (from North America), could simply refuse to sign, thereby re-entering the draft.

Not to say this is all going to happen, but there are consequences for this, and they need to be thought of before this kind of decision (if it is true), is criticized or endorsed.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:36 AM
  #68
speeds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St.Albert
Posts: 6,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
They could easily price themselves out of town (arbitration), or if the new CBA has a lower UFA age, or some players may simply refuse to sign a deal longer than one year.

Or kids the Oilers draft (from North America), could simply refuse to sign, thereby re-entering the draft.

Not to say this is all going to happen, but there are consequences for this, and they need to be thought of before this kind of decision (if it is true), is criticized or endorsed.
It could happen. In a similar way, someone could come to my house today and give me 1 mil for no reason.

speeds is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:41 AM
  #69
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by speeds
It could happen. In a similar way, someone could come to my house today and give me 1 mil for no reason.
I think the odds of a GM making a move to piss off all the players in the league is a lot more conceivable than someone giving you $1mil for no reason.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:55 AM
  #70
speeds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St.Albert
Posts: 6,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I think the odds of a GM making a move to piss off all the players in the league is a lot more conceivable than someone giving you $1mil for no reason.
of course

but both are very unlikely, just IMO of course.

speeds is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 09:00 AM
  #71
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
How about thinking of it like this;

1) As far as pissing off other players, at the very least, the next 23 year old that comes along and for what ever reason wants out, he will know that it isn't as simple as holding out and pouting to get it done. In the end, without Comrie paying up he is simply just another player getting what he wants. Sure it cost him 2 months of playing time but it also cost the Oilers 7 years of service from a player that is a decent hockey talent. Ultimately who is the real loser here? Comrie is back playing and the Oilers are left gambling on a trade that may or may not be fair market value.

2) As for the 2.5 mil suggested, I think it's fairly logical. The Oilers typically budget for one round of playoffs. That single round is worth about the same amount. Now Comrie apparently (as rumoured) pooh poohed a trade idea with the Islanders as is his right (I guess) through conract negotiating. If Lowe can't find a destination for Comrie in the East and the teams in the West that are calling are all on the bubble for the remaining playoff spots then Lowe weakens his teams chance to make the playoffs. Especially if the trade will only garner prospects and picks. So any western team involved gets a decent player for their playoff run and the Oilers are looking for some insurance on their potential revenue losses by missing. I don't see the problem with Comrie being the guy to anti up because he is the one that is handcuffing Lowe by only wanting to play on selective teams.

Just my thoughts.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 09:01 AM
  #72
mugu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
I don't get what your saying. The Oilers like any other business bear a risk when they hire and fire people. We just hired someone at work this week based on the fact that we think this individual is right for the job. If this person leaves in 3 months, we can't ask for the money back. And yet, we've invested resources (time and cash) to train that person. Why can't we ask for the money back? Because it's part of business risk.

Offended by negotiation tactics? Relax man. I disagree with it from a business standpoint. Dn't worry, I'll be able to sleep tonight.
agreed on your point that when you hire a person you bear the risk I likin the situation more to this keeping in line with the work example,

so ever since your potential hire was in university youve had first and only dibs on him becuase you in essence have layed claim to his name and have first and only right to negotiate with him to one day come and work for your company (ie draft and cba negot rules) so then over the course of university this employee studies harder then anyone expects gets 4.0 and your thinking alright we have an excellent management type potential worker here, your company rejoices becuase the rest of the companies can see your employee turning the corner and developing into a real potential star and they know your the only one who has rights to him,......then all of a sudden your employee uses a loophole which is completly legal to do and he should do and forces you over the barrel to either sign him or he then becomes available to the competion and youd be left with no tangible asset and left completly embarresed and humilated for not signing him, so now your forced to overpay for the asset because you know the bigger and more rich companies in the world will begin a free agent bidding war for this high end talent and this talent at the time may have been worth it potential wise as he was just that good, so basically youve done your accretion analyisis and found that your pro forma looks better with him in your roster so you invest your money in him. Over the course of the next two years this employee performs for you at an admirable level and you can see that one day he may become very special, all the while knowing that you ended up paying a premium up front for his services and that although the upfront money may have not been worth it but you could give him moderate raises from his base salaries in his next contract to pay him status quo for his level of potenital employee, you also knew that in a work setting companies give bonuses for performance and he met all performance criteria while working there. In addition, youve payed him to train there learn there and learn the process of how the buisness aspects of the game work knowing full well that you have this employee for the next ten years as thats the leverage that you payed for when you payed up front. Then all of a sudden becuase this emplyee did not perform for your company when you needed it most you repremand him slightly, he takes it like a man in front you but deep down you know he is crying like a six year old being kicked in the balls for the first time. So over the next little while you try to coddle him back and tell him everything he wants to hear, he then counters and says im not going to ever work for you guys and I want to go to a bigger company, so now ..... youve payed the premium to get him, youve trained him in your company ways assuming he'll be tehre for the next ten years, youve taught him buisness about your company and he doesnt want to be tehre anymore becuase of a repremand? so your next course of recourse would be to get tangible assets from this larger company in exchange for his services, in addition you as the manager would also want someone to pay for the right to have him for the next ten years because you already payed teh premium for his services and you trained him and you wouldnt get the ten year serviceable agreement out of him.

Bottom line becuase this is really long, KL is asking for teh money he payed to train and retain comrie for the next ten years, I would ask the exact same for an employee of comries situation given what happened to get him in oilers silks to begin with

anyways best of reading gentlemen and well done on the posts they make my work day atleast bearable

regards
jb

mugu is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 09:02 AM
  #73
oilswell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wandering the globe
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
"Hey, I don't want to go to Edmonton, they want their money back I if don't perform up to their standards".
The $2.5 isn't the value of the bonuses. Assuming for the moment the money has to come from Comrie, this can be viewed as a cost Comrie has to lump to ply his trade in the destination of his choice. In this view, the money is skimmed by the Oilers off Comrie's future earnings. The Oilers own his rights. Maybe $2.5 mil is the price to buy the right to choose his destination?

oilswell is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 09:07 AM
  #74
aki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 305
vCash: 500
IF what Brownlee says is true, and IF it is true that Comrie has been vetoing trades etc., then it would be pretty easy for Lowe to justify his position as a special hardball position to only be taken with Comrie and other players who may choose to emploiy similar "negotiation" tactics in the future, i.e. not a position to be used with each and every RFA (i.e. guys who bargain in good faith, such as Smyth). In other words, if you act in good faith, I'll act in good faith, but if you want to play dirty, I can too. Bargaining in good faith does not prevent you from being a tough negotiator, but it does imply a certain code of conduct that Comrie's camp has not complied with, IF the rumours are true.

aki is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 09:09 AM
  #75
speeds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St.Albert
Posts: 6,823
vCash: 500
why not just set it up like this

Comrie to ANA for Perry, 1st, 2.5 mil (this $$$ figure might even be negotiable down, who knows how much less than 2.5 Lowe would take?)



Comrie signs in ANA for 2 years at 1 mil a year?



If Comrie wants out bad enough it works for him (he's already rolling in it from EDM's bonus money of last year, he'd have arb rights after next year - under the current CBA anyways- that in mind the low qualifying amount probably wouldn't matter all that much unless he's garbage), ANA gets Comrie at about a 1.5 mil discount.



so basically Comrie's paying about 1.5 to EDM, and ANA the other mil. Maybe that ratio is acceptable to everyone, especially since it doesn't look "bad" as the funding to EDM technically comes directly from ANA.

just an idea...

speeds is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:30 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.