Friedman: and Fourth Period: Seabrook asked about waiving NTC but does not seem interested in doing so

[MXD]

I'm a free market person, let the business or sport dictate salaries and profits.

You know what's extremely crucial to free market?
Contract law. And respect of contracts.

Keith and Seabrook's contracts provides that they can't be moved without their consent.

 

[Taylorst]

You should probably direct your tantrums at the person who offered them those deals.

I am just as upset with the FO and Rocky for not stepping in with clear eyes and thinking things through.

 

[LDF]

Keith and Seabrook are like a little kids favorite toy to some people , whining and making excuses why they can't let go or live without their favorite toy.

Keith and Seabrook no matter what will get their paychecks for the next 5 and 6 years, what chicago won't get is a rebuild and will have to watch these 2 painfully decline to the point where they need wheel chairs and clog up roster spots for the young promising defenseman and eat up 12 plus million in a tight salary cap with rising salaries that Chicago won't be able to resign players or make a splash in free agency .

I have no sympathy for these guys who are multi millionaires.

Their not on food stamps or ssi. Or struggling to pay their bills, their health care is free because they receive it from the nhl and it is top notch.

in no offense territory you are backing the owner pov then , correct ??

 

[Taylorst]

You know what's extremely crucial to free market?
Contract law. And respect of contracts.

Keith and Seabrook's contracts provides that they can't be moved without their consent.

Contracts are a 2 way streak. We all agree with that. Just like the lemon law which protects buyers .

Stan can always send both of them to the press box or down to Rockford and their is nothing either of those 2 players can do.

So instead of making the relationship turn sour.

 

[LDF]

The unions aren't what they use to be or stand for . They have become to political and more worried about their bottom line by enrolling as many people as possible.

I'm a free market person, let the business or sport dictate salaries and profits.

I also believe in before you enter a profession you should know what that position pays and the max you can make. If you are not happy with your pay , you have a choice improve your demand and knowledge to earn a raise or higher position or look at another field.

Nobody owes anyone anything. You have to work hard and make your own luck.

again no offense but your stance on the union is.... let me put this in a nonsensical non fantastical visual pov.

this present union of the players are now on the players side. before this present contract, the union management were being lackeys, more of the owners puppet esp with the union players retirement side of the contract.

analogy, look at the long shorement contract and the corruption of the men in charge.....

 

[Taylorst]

in no offense territory you are backing the owner pov then , correct ??

I'm not against anyone as a whole. What im against is both parties at the time of their contract signings agreed that the salary cap was a problem and they both agreed that they wanted to keep winning.

Stan took a risk by giving Seabrook his contract as a form of a thank you but also with the understanding they would win another cup.

Keith received his contract before Stan took over , he also chose a long term solution instead of a higher salary.

 

[LDF]

So you support tanking for the next 10 years and watching 2 players who will rapidly decline and take away rosters spots because they years ago won 3 cups and since then have declined to a sad point?

lets be honest with each other. there is prob 95+ % of posters on this site that is for tanking, while not admitting it.

 

[Taylorst]

lets be honest with each other. there is prob 95+ % of posters on this site that is for tanking, while not admitting it.

I want them to tank but not for the next 5 years plus.

I'd like to see toews and Kane get 1 more shot at a cup in the next 4 years. I just don't see that happening with Keith and Seabrook on this team due to their decline and salaries,

 

[LDF]

I am just as upset with the FO and Rocky for not stepping in with clear eyes and thinking things through.

thing is, no at the time thought of the big picture and realizing the damage being done.

it was like a kid at xmas day and waking up and see all the toys.

 

[MXD]

Contracts are a 2 way streak. We all agree with that. Just like the lemon law which protects buyers .

Stan can always send both of them to the press box or down to Rockford and their is nothing either of those 2 players can do.

So instead of making the relationship turn sour.

First, He can't send them to Rockford. NMC.
Second, there is indeed nothing the players can do if they get scratched by Colliton or whoever coaches the Hawks. GM typically arent dictating who is playing and who is not, but whatever.
Third... well, even if that happens, they're still earning their money, while taking 2 rosters spots and something like 12.5M as caphit.

 

[LDF]

Contracts are a 2 way streak. We all agree with that. Just like the lemon law which protects buyers .

Stan can always send both of them to the press box or down to Rockford and their is nothing either of those 2 players can do.

So instead of making the relationship turn sour.

when they do not agree to waive their clause. the relationship became sour at that point. trust me.

 

[Taylorst]

thing is, no at the time thought of the big picture and realizing the damage being done.

it was like a kid at xmas day and waking up and see all the toys.

Your exactly right. The FO was to immature and I include Rocky for not being the adult in the room . What's even worse is they bounced talon for what he did but Rocky was given a pass .

 

[LDF]

I'm not against anyone as a whole. What im against is both parties at the time of their contract signings agreed that the salary cap was a problem and they both agreed that they wanted to keep winning.

Stan took a risk by giving Seabrook his contract as a form of a thank you but also with the understanding they would win another cup.

Keith received his contract before Stan took over , he also chose a long term solution instead of a higher salary.

but SB never and i do mean NEVER look on the consequence of such actions. he was unprepared for the future.

 

[LDF]

I want them to tank but not for the next 5 years plus.

I'd like to see toews and Kane get 1 more shot at a cup in the next 4 years. I just don't see that happening with Keith and Seabrook on this team due to their decline and salaries,

you do have a righteous cause.... believe me.

my whole life, my working life i have been on the what is right or wrong part of every pov.

 

[LDF]

First, He can't send them to Rockford. NMC.
Second, there is indeed nothing the players can do if they get scratched by Colliton or whoever coaches the Hawks. GM typically arent dictating who is playing and who is not, but whatever.
Third... well, even if that happens, they're still earning their money, while taking 2 rosters spots and something like 12.5M as caphit.

welcome to the players union gold mine.

 

[LDF]

Your exactly right. The FO was to immature and I include Rocky for not being the adult in the room . What's even worse is they bounced talon for what he did but Rocky was given a pass .

that is the caveat to any of this discussion.

 

[Taylorst]

but SB never and i do mean NEVER look on the consequence of such actions. he was unprepared for the future.

Your exactly correct. Or he did know and at the time said we will deal with that later but on Your point he didn't have a sound plan.

 

[LDF]

Your exactly correct. Or he did know and at the time said we will deal with that later but on Your point he didn't have a sound plan.

and that was another argument i have been having which lead to me getting banned from another site.....

but you are sooooo right. i have a theory about that. Daddy Bowmen comes in the argument at this time.

 

[Taylorst]

welcome to the players union gold mine.

That's my whole point on unions as a whole. Players come and go , but owner have millions or billions at stake for their business and brand.

We've seen owners go bankrupt, Arizona ring any bells. The Winnipeg jets who are now the coyotes.

Declining players or players who can be a detriment to the teams brand and financials are not good for the business or the nhl as a whole,

 

[Taylorst]

and that was another argument i have been having which lead to me getting banned from another site.....

but you are sooooo right. i have a theory about that. Daddy Bowmen comes in the argument at this time.

I think we both to some degree see things similar and we don't sugar coat or make excuses.

I have the same feelings though about Stan being protected because of his daddy.

 

[LDF]

That's my whole point on unions as a whole. Players come and go , but owner have millions or billions at stake for their business and brand.

We've seen owners go bankrupt, Arizona ring any bells. The Winnipeg jets who are now the coyotes.

Declining players or players who can be a detriment to the teams brand and financials are not good for the business or the nhl as a whole,

you are really walking a thin rope of a double edge sword.

you can look at the player success and you have every right to do so.

but you need to see the owners pov. sign a player, no (NMC/NTC) . now the players get their life and immerse them self in the community. well out of the clear blue, the owner trade said player. well tough shit for his personal life....

lets look at Seab and family. his wife said NO he does not want to move out of chi and she will not follow him....

now lets take this one step further. Manning before the trade, SB need to move him, for this discussion, lets assume he is still a Bhawk, the owner will move him to the mnors without any recourse.

i can continue here, but i won't/

 

[bucks_oil]

Just savage.

Oh Edmonton, those poor fans..

He's not wrong though... there were rumors that "something big" was happening with Chicago just before Chia was fired. I'm at least hopeful that Sekera, Russel, or Lucic were involved going the other way in a bad contract for bad contract trade, but who's to know for sure. Chia gonna Chia.

 

[LDF]

I think we both to some degree see things similar and we don't sugar coat or make excuses.

I have the same feelings though about Stan being protected because of his daddy.

 

[Taylorst]

you are really walking a thin rope of a double edge sword.

you can look at the player success and you have every right to do so.

but you need to see the owners pov. sign a player, no (NMC/NTC) . now the players get their life and immerse them self in the community. well out of the clear blue, the owner trade said player. well tough **** for his personal life....

lets look at Seab and family. his wife said NO he does not want to move out of chi and she will not follow him....

now lets take this one step further. Manning before the trade, SB need to move him, for this discussion, lets assume he is still a Bhawk, the owner will move him to the mnors without any recourse.

i can continue here, but i won't/

I see that point and I'm not disputing it. I'm just against the notion that it's all the owners fault when both Keith and Seabrook at the time of their contracts went into those discussions fully knowing that they wanted to win and the cap was a serious challenge to them accomplishing both goals winning cups multiple and getting paid. So they fully knew that around the age 32 they would seriously start to decline especially being a defenseman.

Now their still getting paid no matter what and what if tomorrow Keith says I'm retiring his contract would screw the hawks because of the recapture penalty he fully knows he could screw Chicago over and let's say he does do that all these fans who want to keep him would be screaming for his head.

That's all I just think both parties involved didn't make the best choice in these contracts

 

[DRW204]

I think sometimes players take little discounts in exchange for these bonuses.

Yes because the team's lose leverage on being able to deal the player so the player gives up something in return (ie: shave off a bit on the cap hit or term).

I just find NHL contracts of 7-8 years are just to long for a given player (obviously there is exceptions of guys you're willing to go that long with), so much can change in that time when it comes to the NHL game & the player's abilities and then you have these NMC/NTC's on top of that to boot.