|
|
Post by franko on Jul 31, 2004 10:57:46 GMT -5
Allen Panzeri, Inside the NHL
Lightening coach John Tortorella was not happy when defenseman Jassen Cullimore took the money and ran to the Chicago Blackhawks. The Hawks offered him$10 million over four years, while the Lightening offered $5 million over two. “I guess I’m still a little naïve,” Tortorella said. “I think an organization helps a player come along, and we all do it together and up getting it done. And then we end up chasing the money. I always hold out hope that winning is the most important thing. But when it comes to this, it’s the same old (expletive). Players want the money. When is it a little giveback to the organization and their teammates?”
Naïve? A rather weak word. Have you not learned yet, Johnny-boy? It’s always all about the money. Or at least mostly (see: Sunny).
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 31, 2004 11:16:50 GMT -5
I am dazed by the logic of the sanctimonious fans who condemn Kovalev as a mercenary for not signing for the money offered him by Gainey when he was previously making much more and might have accepted a smaller reduction to stay in Montréal (where he played for less than 2 months of his lengthy career). Yes, Sundstrom is atypical. Pronger and Belfour are typical. On the other hand, we have to take bargaining position into consideration. Before awarding Sundstrom any prizes for altruism we should bear in mind that he wasn't being inundated with offers and he wasn't regarded as the linchpin to the Habs' success. Pronger and Belfour, on the other hand, were seen in that light by the Blues and Leafs respectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 31, 2004 11:57:50 GMT -5
I blame no one for taking the money offered. Don't most of us whine when we are not offered a raise over COL (or not even offered that) even though we put in our hard labour? And don't many jump at the opportunity to move on or move up for a better situation? No, I do not blame the players at all. It is merely a symptom of the times in which we live: we no longer sell our soul to the company and stay there for life as did previous generations. otoh, companies no longer reward commitment and longevity of position, but are instead more interested in bang-for-the-buck productivity and profit.
Unless we own our own company/business we are all mercenaries; just on a lesser scale.
As to Pronger and Belfour, if you can get it you take it, though it may be moot with (yep, here it is again) no season upcoming. Tie 'em in just in case there is, and hope for a grandfather clause for the salary cap/luxury tax/whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 31, 2004 12:44:05 GMT -5
I blame no one for taking the money offered. Don't most of us whine when we are not offered a raise over COL (or not even offered that) even though we put in our hard labour? And don't many jump at the opportunity to move on or move up for a better situation? No, I do not blame the players at all. It is merely a symptom of the times in which we live: we no longer sell our soul to the company and stay there for life as did previous generations. otoh, companies no longer reward commitment and longevity of position, but are instead more interested in bang-for-the-buck productivity and profit. I agree, but there's a catch - the players can't after that go and expect loyalty to be rewarded or expect to be treated as anything else than plain old business assets, to be flushed when no longer needed. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 31, 2004 13:42:54 GMT -5
What percentage of a player's salary is determined by loyalty, what percentage by past performance, and what percentage by anticipated performance? The first part is obviously the smallest.
|
|
