Seriously why are people
still pretending that the starting position or offer that a party makes at the beginning of a negotiation, must be non-negotiable and will not move?
That because Hamilton signed for lower than his starting counter, he must have wanted to leave? Hasn't anyone here actually negotiated anything in their entire life?
If I'm negotiating and at the beginning of a negotiation the Bruins start at 5.5, of course I go big on my counter (7+) with the assumption that both parties move and a compromise is found somewhere in the middle (around 6m). That's how negotiations normally work.
In fact, Hamilton signed for a value essentially along the lines of just such a compromise -- between the B's starting offer and Hamilton's starting counter. It was a little lower, because he arguably has less leverage after being traded to Calgary.
We have absolutely no evidence that Hamilton indicated that his initial counter was non-negotiable. The only party unwilling to negotiate here, it seems, are the Bruins.
Based on everything we know, here is how the trade and signing happened:
- 5.5m offer from the Bruins.
- 7+m counter from Hamilton.
- Rather than counter, Bruins trade Hamilton.
- Hamilton signs for a compromise number of just under 6m/year with Calgary, which was a compromise between the Bruins and his own starting counter.
Based on this, it seems to me it's the Bruins who were not negotiating in good faith, and did not try to find a compromise. They made a non-negotiable offer and when Hamilton didn't sign, but countered, they traded him, for bad value.
And now, surprise, surprise, there are all these nasty stories appearing on HFBoards and in anonymous sources, that he's "uppity" and "didn't want to be here", whatever.
If the Bruins made a below market value non-negotiate starting offer and said "take it or leave it", then why would he stay for a hometown discount? Our second best D last year, who would be our best this year.
