A buyout would cost Krug $7M in actual dollars. No one is giving him $7M on a 1 year deal this summer and I'm not 100% convinced that he would get $7M on a 2 year deal unless he is willing to go to a destination that he clearly doesn't want to go to. I think he has a good chance of losing real money (in addition to delaying the payment of a lot of money) if he is bought out. As a player, I would be absolutely livid if my GM bought me out without giving me an opportunity to provide a list of realistic trade destinations to keep my guaranteed money. An empty threat of a buyout is a crappy move by a GM, but if you actually intend to buy a guy out if he isn't moved by X date, telling him that as a way to foster a better outcome for the player is the mature and classy thing to do.
Hopefully, you realize there is a quantum difference between a GM going to a player and saying "look, I'm thinking about buying you out but I'm willing to try and help out as much as I can, let me know where you're be willing to waive your NTC to go to and I'll see what I can do" and exhausting those options and maybe having another discussion before moving to a buyout, and "waive your goddamn NTC for wherever the hell I want to send you, or I'm buying your ass out."
I'm OK with the first approach. You and others were [maybe still are] advocating the 2nd approach.
"I'm going just going to say nothing and then cost you money instead of having a conversation about a mutual beneficial solution" isn't remotely close to a 12 year old tantrum.
"Do what I say or I'm going to punish you for exercising the contractual rights I agreed to give you"
is a 12-year old tantrum.
I do love the concern for Krug's future financial well-being, though. Touching, almost had a tear going down my cheek ... and then you pivoted to "this is a business, folks" with:
I have no ill will toward Krug exercising the clause he negotiated. I have said that around here repeatedly. But that is a 2 way street. When you get a NTC instead of a NMC from a GM who has made it publicly clear that he places a high value on the difference between the two clauses, you can't acted shocked and offended when the GM actually exercises the difference between the two clauses.
Again, for the 27th time: there is a massive difference between a GM making moves that aren't prohibited by a player's contractual rights and a GM telling a player to give up contractual rights or the resulting actions will be intentional and punitive.
While it is not a requirement, I think a GM has a moral obligation to try and find a solution with the player before going nuclear. I think any good GM should attempt to work with a player to get them to a good situation before getting to the point of waivers or a buyout. That's how you earn a quality reputation with players, not by just ghosting the player and then buying them out.
So ... why did you advocate for Armstrong going nuclear? Let me remind you of your exact statement:
I want Army aggressively trying to move Krug, which would include a conversation with his agent about waivers, actually assigning him to the AHL if he clears, and potentially even threatening a buyout if he intends to exercise his NTC aggressively. We have Krug in large part because of the difference between a NTC and NMC. I want this summer to be the time when Army exercises the contractual freedom that he deemed so important.
That is going nuclear, unless you want to come up with some tortured explanation as to how "if Krug exercises his NTC, punish his ass in any of these ways for it" isn't going nuclear.
If you want to say "look, I've rethought this, I was wrong, let me restate" fine. I'm totally fine with that. But please do not trying some hair-splitting gobbledygook, "
well ackshualye assigning him to the AHL if he won't waive his NTC isn't being punitive, it's just business and it's within Armstrong's rights to do so - and really, he's still getting all his money so if that happens he should be thankful we're still giving him all that money." Please don't do that when it's readily apparent the only reason to do that is to punish Krug for using his NTC and not because he's so f***ing inept, he should be there.
Really don't do that and pretend it's better for everyone - including Krug - than buying him out because we're "doing Krug a favor" by paying him all the money he'd still have on his contract [which comes out of the pockets of the owners] than making him suffer through a buyout and never making it up later on.
