Speculation: Babcock is gone, but will Cleary be back? Also tank talk.

[detredWINgs]

Cleary and general manager Ken Holland are meeting next week to discuss Cleary's future. A situation that bears the handprint of former coach Mike Babcock has put the Wings in the position of being honor-bound to keep Cleary, 36, aboard, even as he is coming off a season that saw him play just 17 games, producing two points.

Ignoring the horrific syntax of this paragraph for the time being, this is an absolutely disgusting proclamation - disgusting, dumb, naive, and ****ing flabbergasting. You're going to tell me that Cleary has (a) no contract with the team and (b) the person who is (allegedly) behind this - a ****ing promise - is no longer with the team....and yet we're somehow "honor-bound" to extend him an offer?

What the **** is going on? Am I in bizarro land? This is a ****ing business. You aren't honor-bound to do a god damn thing. Your number one goal that trumps all others is to extend contractual offers to the best NHL players you can feasibly acquire. Dan Cleary is not one of them.

I don't know that I've ever been more disgusted or pissed off by something thats come out of the Wings camp. ****ing grow up and start GM'ing like a professional, Holland. Dan Cleary is not a top 15 forward in this organization and you don't owe him a god damn thing anymore.

Now comes Year 3. The Wings may end up signing Cleary to another $1.5 million one-way deal, and if he doesn't earn a job at camp, put him on waivers, gaining $925,000 in salary cap relief.

This is just disgusting. You're going to piss away 500K+ just because of a promise? Absurd.

 

[detredWINgs]

I'm starting to think the Wings are trying to avoid being sued by Cleary for some oral contract they may or may not have entered into. Otherwise, I can't understand why any of this is happening. That said, I totally agree that keeping him around where he doesn't take a roster spot is probably a great thing. Maybe he can coach or fill some other role like the job Cheli might vacate?

Sued for what? Money? Then they can give him the money without (a) Cleary being a player for the team and (b) Cleary's money having any effect on the cap. And if Cleary is threatening litigation, then he damn well shouldn't be around the team. There is absolutely 0% chance of a court (if Cleary could even make it past summary judgment) awarding specific performance. Not only is specific performance almost never awarded, but no judge is going to set a precedent for specific performance based on an oral agreement to retain a has-been athlete. The sports world would blow up and the judgment would be appealed. Not to mention, by the time the judgment came down, specific performance would no longer be feasible because of the time constraints of the deal and Cleary would simply end up with actual/compensatory damages anyways, like he would have had he settled.

And none of this even touches on the near-impossibility of proving an oral contract existed, let alone proving the terms of the agreement that have allegedly been violated by the Wings.

 

[wings95]

Ignoring the horrific syntax of this paragraph for the time being, this is an absolutely disgusting proclamation - disgusting, dumb, naive, and ****ing flabbergasting. You're going to tell me that Cleary has (a) no contract with the team and (b) the person who is (allegedly) behind this - a ****ing promise - is no longer with the team....and yet we're somehow "honor-bound" to extend him an offer?

What the **** is going on? Am I in bizarro land? This is a ****ing business. You aren't honor-bound to do a god damn thing. Your number one goal that trumps all others is to extend contractual offers to the best NHL players you can feasibly acquire. Dan Cleary is not one of them.

I don't know that I've ever been more disgusted or pissed off by something thats come out of the Wings camp. ****ing grow up and start GM'ing like a professional, Holland. Dan Cleary is not a top 15 forward in this organization and you don't owe him a god damn thing anymore.



This is just disgusting. You're going to piss away 500K+ just because of a promise? Absurd.

Why is that absurd? A promise is something you keep even if it is a big inconvenience for the Wings and even if the fans hate it. I for one, am glad that the upper level management is good at giving and keeping their word. That is a good part of Leadership to have!

 

[Frk It]

Why is that absurd? A promise is something you keep even if it is a big inconvenience for the Wings and even if the fans hate it. I for one, am glad that the upper level management is good at giving and keeping their word. That is a good part of Leadership to have!

If all promises were kept in sports, no players would ever get bought out, and no coach would ever be fired before their contract is up. Also no one would ever get traded.

Your job as a GM is not to be confined to something you agreed to 2, 3, 4 years ago when circumstances were different. You have to be fluid, and you have to do what's best for the team first. Let's also remember Cleary has an obligation on his end too. That's what people are missing. Cleary's play is not at all holding up his end of the deal, so if Holland told him to kick rocks it would be more than understandable. Actually, it should be expected.

 

[wings95]

If all promises were kept in sports, no players would ever get bought out, and no coach would ever be fired before their contract is up. Also no one would ever get traded.

Your job as a GM is not to be confined to something you agreed to 2, 3, 4 years ago when circumstances were different. You have to be fluid, and you have to do what's best for the team first. Let's also remember Cleary has an obligation on his end too. That's what people are missing. Cleary's play is not at all holding up his end of the deal, so if Holland told him to kick rocks it would be more than understandable. Actually, it should be expected.

I guess we will agree to disagree.... When players sign a contract they know that they can be bought out or traded, unless an NTC or NMC is put it. I am a person who does my best to keep my word and therefore I respect that in a person probably more than the average person!!

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

I guess we will agree to disagree.... When players sign a contract they know that they can be bought out or traded, unless an NTC or NMC is put it. I am a person who does my best to keep my word and therefore I respect that in a person probably more than the average person!!

but what about firing a coach before his contract is up? Isnt that going back on your word, your legal and contractual word?

what about buying our or trading a player? if you sign a player for X number of years you have said to him that he will be playing for you during all those years, i would imagine not honouring that would be going against your word...

 

[wings95]

but what about firing a coach before his contract is up? Isnt that going back on your word, your legal and contractual word?

what about buying our or trading a player? if you sign a player for X number of years you have said to him that he will be playing for you during all those years, i would imagine not honouring that would be going against your word...

Your right but I am sure GM's have a hard time doing that but I respect when you give your word and you keep it. Buying out and trading a player is differnt than telling a player you have a place here for x number of years, is it not??? Telling someone that you will sign them if there is money and space or give them a place on the team is way differnt IMO!! While I am not too keen on Cleary being back, if he is brought back than at least Holland keeps his word. Are contracts really giving your word to a player when it has provisions in there saying you can be traded or bought out or sent to the minors or waived?? I don't think it is anymore than telling the players strait up!!

 

[Frk It]

Your right but I am sure GM's have a hard time doing that but I respect when you give your word and you keep it. Buying out and trading a player is differnt than telling a player you have a place here for x number of years, is it not???

How? A contract has mutual consent between both parties, a defined length, and a defined amount. And unlike a verbal agreement in a ****ing airplane hangar, it's legally binding. If anything, it's a way more legitimate promise, with more serious implications.

Keeping your word is admirable and important in things like friendships. But your friends aren't pro athletes, and they don't work for you.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Your right but I am sure GM's have a hard time doing that but I respect when you give your word and you keep it. Buying out and trading a player is differnt than telling a player you have a place here for x number of years, is it not??? Telling someone that you will sign them if there is money and space or give them a place on the team is way differnt IMO!! While I am not too keen on Cleary being back, if he is brought back than at least Holland keeps his word. Are contracts really giving your word to a player when it has provisions in there saying you can be traded or bought out or sent to the minors or waived?? I don't think it is anymore than telling the players strait up!!

no its not

if you sign a player for 5 years then that means your saying to that player he will be playing for your team for five years, that written contract is worth 1000 times what any verbal one is worth

those provisions are just means for a way out, thats all, they're avenues you can take to break your word, but at the end of the day thats what you did, broke your word(and thats sports).

you cant pick and choose when you have honour or choose to uphold your honour

 

[wings95]

How? A contract has mutual consent between both parties, a defined length, and a defined amount. And unlike a verbal agreement in a ****ing airplane hangar, it's legally binding. If anything, it's a way more legitimate promise, with more serious implications.

Keeping your word is admirable and important in things like friendships. But your friends aren't pro athletes, and they don't work for you.

It is a legal binding agreement but there are clauses in there right?? It may say something like you can be traded, waived or something like that, right????? How is that the same as telling someone we will give x for x years? Too me it is different!

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

It is a legal binding agreement but there are clauses in there right?? It may say something like you can be traded, waived or something like that, right????? How is that the same as telling someone we will give x for x years? Too me it is different!

its just a legal "weasel" manuever so that you have an out later on if you wish to break your word

the end result is still the same so who cares how you go about it

 

[Dotter]

but what about firing a coach before his contract is up? Isnt that going back on your word, your legal and contractual word?

To me, the circumstances are the same... They all still get paid. They get to sit in their lazy boy and collect that check.

what about buying our or trading a player? if you sign a player for X number of years you have said to him that he will be playing for you during all those years, i would imagine not honouring that would be going against your word...

They still get paid.

Cleary is just getting paid, nothing more. Something amazing will have to happen for him to beat someone out at camp. Everybody knows that's not going to happen.

 

[Actual Thought*]

cap space isnt an issue?

is the NHL a cap league?

every dollar counts, a dollar spent on one player is a dollar you cant spend on another both at the start of the season and at the TDL

the very idea we would sign cleary to a nhl contract only to waive him is stupid as it flies in the face of everything ken holland stands for..

cleary will either retire(most likely) and be given a job within the organization or he will be given a 1.5-2 million dollar loyalty deal and sit in the pressbox and thus wasting all that money(i dont think pressbox seats at joe cost 2 million a season)

We almost certainly won't be at the cap anyway and I am not going to lose sleep over who the 14th forward is. It's merely and excuse for people to rip Holland.

 

[sarcastro]

no its not

if you sign a player for 5 years then that means your saying to that player he will be playing for your team for five years, that written contract is worth 1000 times what any verbal one is worth

those provisions are just means for a way out, thats all, they're avenues you can take to break your word, but at the end of the day thats what you did, broke your word(and thats sports).

you cant pick and choose when you have honour or choose to uphold your honour

Ultimately, Holland's top priority must be to do what is best for the Wings as a franchise. If that means going back on his word to Cleary, then so be it.

In quantifying what is best for the organization, he must weigh two factors:

1. Going back on his word with Cleary may cause current and potential Wing players to distrust him.

2. Keeping his word with Cleary may cause current and future players to feel that the Wings are not about winning, if they allow themselves to be clowned repeatedly by a player that can no longer play. And who is given money and opportunity at their expense.

It is plain that consideration #2 outweighs consideration #1. And it's not close.

This franchise does not exist to maintain or augment Ken Holland's reputation. Nor his fee fees. It exists to win championships and make money. Period. Those two goals are subverted by any future dealings with Cleary.

In short, it doesn't matter if Holland has to break his word. Cleary cannot be allowed to return as a player. End of story.

 

[jkutswings]

We almost certainly won't be at the cap anyway and I am not going to lose sleep over who the 14th forward is. It's merely and excuse for people to rip Holland.

No, it's simply an awful idea to keep Cleary.

Injuries happen. Players slump. Who gets called up and sent down can change at a moment's notice. So while the 14th forward on a roster SHOULD get hardly any time, there is absolutely no guarantee of that. So what could possibly be the advantage of spending more on a player with nothing left in the tank, rather than having young cheap talent ready if needed?

Dan Cleary is years past being useful on the ice, and the leadership angle is WAY overblown. He is the definition of a waste of a roster spot.

 

[Heaton]

There should be a reason to keep Cleary, from a hockey perspective. People saying 'Eh, he's a 14th forward' isn't a reason. Would you be on board with re-signing Samuelsson or Lilja next year as an 8th defensemen or 14th forward? Because eh, they will only play 10 games or so.

 

[sarcastro]

There should be a reason to keep Cleary, from a hockey perspective. People saying 'Eh, he's a 14th forward' isn't a reason. Would you be on board with re-signing Samuelsson or Lilja next year as an 8th defensemen or 14th forward? Because eh, they will only play 10 games or so.

It seems like Holland is saying "hey, I promised, and if I break my promise then free agents won't want to sign here."

Take a minute to fully absorb that, keeping the Wings' recent free agent history in mind.

If he comes back, it will have absolutely nothing to do with hockey.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

There should be a reason to keep Cleary, from a hockey perspective. People saying 'Eh, he's a 14th forward' isn't a reason. Would you be on board with re-signing Samuelsson or Lilja next year as an 8th defensemen or 14th forward? Because eh, they will only play 10 games or so.

Ill take Lidstrom

 

[wings95]

its just a legal "weasel" manuever so that you have an out later on if you wish to break your word

the end result is still the same so who cares how you go about it

It is not a weasel move when the player knows up front. Making a promise to someone is different than the contract situation anyways!.

 

[Actual Thought*]

No, it's simply an awful idea to keep Cleary.

Injuries happen. Players slump. Who gets called up and sent down can change at a moment's notice. So while the 14th forward on a roster SHOULD get hardly any time, there is absolutely no guarantee of that. So what could possibly be the advantage of spending more on a player with nothing left in the tank, rather than having young cheap talent ready if needed?

Dan Cleary is years past being useful on the ice, and the leadership angle is WAY overblown. He is the definition of a waste of a roster spot.

Because it is obviously stupid to have young cheap talent rotting in the press box?

It is a waste of prospect development to bring up a kid and let him sit. That said I am not saying we should sign Cleary. I said I am not going to lose sleep over the 14th forward. It's a silly argument. If a kid is waiver eligible and he fails to win a spot on the ice or he fails to do the everyday things right everyday, you send him to the minors to learn. It is just that simple.

 

[abbbaron]

This bit is new to me (and I hope may definitively silence any remaining Dan Cleary conspiracy theorists):

"Dan Cleary, I need to talk to," Holland said. "Certainly two years ago when he made a decision to stay in Detroit and he's been offered three-year contracts in Winnipeg and Florida and Philadelphia, I know what he walked away from."

 

[detredWINgs]

This bit is new to me (and I hope may definitively silence any remaining Dan Cleary conspiracy theorists):

"Could he possibly re-sign? He could possibly re-sign."

I think I'm going to be sick. You've got a fanbase that is as disenchanted with Cleary as ever and you're going to even suggest the possibility of re-signing him? If you want to be diplomatic because your true intention is to ditch Cleary, then don't say anything. Or deflect and tell us that your priority right now is the draft. Or say pretty much anything other than a statement that is akin to "there is a possibility that I will re-sign a player who is highly ineffective, not better than 15 other forward options I have, and now generally scorned by the fanbase."

Honestly, I don't even care if Cleary comes back or not. The fact that the GM is so clearly governed by loyalty and sentimentality is what I find so disturbing.

 

[SirloinUB]

"Could he possibly re-sign? He could possibly re-sign."

I think I'm going to be sick. You've got a fanbase that is as disenchanted with Cleary as ever and you're going to even suggest the possibility of re-signing him? If you want to be diplomatic because your true intention is to ditch Cleary, then don't say anything. Or deflect and tell us that your priority right now is the draft. Or say pretty much anything other than a statement that is akin to "there is a possibility that I will re-sign a player who is highly ineffective, not better than 15 other forward options I have, and now generally scorned by the fanbase."

Honestly, I don't even care if Cleary comes back or not. The fact that the GM is so clearly governed by loyalty and sentimentality is what I find so disturbing.

For better or worse, you Gotta figure the bolded is completely irrelevant to Holland's decision on the matter.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

What did Dan Cleary do that was so special he deserved a contract no matter what?

Darren McCarty, the people's champion, was forced to pay his dues coming back before even being though of on the Wings roster back in 2008.

 

[Frk It]

What did Dan Cleary do that was so special he deserved a contract no matter what?

Darren McCarty, the people's champion, was forced to pay his dues coming back before even being though of on the Wings roster back in 2008.

I'm not trying to say it is anything perverted or anything, but there is clearly a personal relationship there that trumps anything hockey related. For whatever reason. Cleary has received preferential treatment that we have not seen.