I thought your point was about how he would be perceived by teammates. This distinction seems like it would be more about a management perspective. Teammates likely wouldn't differentiate.
I'm more inclined to believe that ROR's situation would be better understood by his peers. He wasn't publicly demanding trades or trying to force himself out of an organization having accomplished next to nothing as an NHL player. ROR and the Avs had a good-faith contract dispute and ROR exercised his collectively-bargained rights. I think most players recognize that the parties had to settle their business, and they did (with a little nudge from Calgary). And, by most accounts, ROR always wanted to be an Av, provided that he was fairly compensated and had the contract security that he was seeking. Drouin is now engaged in what is effectively a midseason holdout. I find this to be significantly different than the Kane and ROR situations.
In sum, I have no problem with players exercising their collectively-bargained rights to pursue their options in restricted free agency, even if that results in the player missing games. Nor do I have a problem with players privately requesting trades and showing up every night and working hard for their teammates and organizations. I think most players understand that's part of the business. I do have some problem with a player who has yet to accomplish much of anything in the NHL quitting on his organization in the middle of the season because of some perceived mistreatment. More importantly, I think most NHL players have a problem with that, too.
yeah sure. Drouin has all the same accomplishments and solid character traits that ROR had when he was a hold out. "Teammates likely wouldn't differentiate." Nonsense...where do you get this crap from?
