First, let me make something clear. If Malkin has entered into a voluntary agreement to play the 06-07 season for Metallurg, then
I completely agree that Metallurg should be entitled to compensation for the breach of contract that will occur when Malkin leaves for Pittsburgh.
(However, there is a lot of confusion about the nature of Malkin's contractual obligations to Metallurg. According to some, a Russian hockey contract can be cancelled like any other contract (give a 2-week notice of resignation and then you're done). According to Jaded-fan, Malkin and Metallurg had a verbal agreement that he could go play in the NHL. etc, etc.)
Second, I think it's a good idea that there be a payment system for transfers from bad teams (Russian club teams) to good teams (NHL teams) even when there's no contract that binds them. It will help offset the losses for the Russian teams who happen to develop a player who becomes too good for them. And for the NHL teams, it will ensure that they can draft Russians in tranquility of mind, in knowledge that there is a mechanism in place to ensure the systematic and predictable transfer of players for a small fee, with no surprises and no uncertainty. Everyone will win. The Russian teams have no right on their players beyond their contracts (and even that is unclear) so whatever they would receive is purely out of the self-interested goodwill of NHL teams.
The point on which I disagree with you, is your insinuation that since Metallurg has been kind to Malkin by investing in his development, this gives them the right to decide his future and to impose restrictions on where he can play.
Saprykin said:
But this is the simple business austerity that will screw Russian hockey for years to come. If you make an investment all your life and barely get anything in return, there's no point in making another investment.
No, top clubs like Osmk, Dynamo and Metallurg will keep recruiting and developing players because it's in their best interest and because that's how they can compete over the long term. They're not going to stop just because of the off-chance that every few years, there's going to be a player who might leave for North America. And in any case, this point is moot. There will be an agreement at some point. If there isn't, then players like Ovechkin will just leave and clubs like Dynamo won't get a single red penny. So the Russian clubs have all the incentive in getting an agreement signed, because they have no leverage over players like Ovechkin and Malkin, who can simply board a plane for NA.
Saprykin said:
You say "they didn't have to do it", "it was their choice." Okay, fine. It was their choice to invest money in Malkin to get one good competitive season out of him, and then see him go to America where his fate (within the NHL, that is) will be decided by people who'll want to exploit him even more. NHL means business. Pittsburg obviously wants to make money off of Malkin, more than Metallurg should ask for and will ask for. But it's the Russian clubs that we call greedy, riiight.
Oh please. Don't be ridiculous. Russian NHL players aren't exploited. This isn't the '50s. They are protected by a powerful union and are represented by elite attack-dog agents like Pat Brisson and Don Meehan who fight for every dollar they can get from the team. Seriously, don't tell me that poor Sergei Fedorov and Alexei Yashin are being exploited by mean North Americans.
And yes, when Russian teams recruit top 13 year-olds, they are fully aware that those players might one day leave to play against the best players in the world in the best league in the world (i.e. the NHL). They are fully aware of the risk they are taking. There should be no crying over that. It's a risk they take voluntarily.
Saprykin said:
From the contractual point, yes, it gives them zero rights. And I think that it shouldn't be like that. Russian hockey works like European soccer. I don't like it, but Russia is not a country wherein kids play sports just for recreation and wherein parents can easily afford to get a kid through the leagues. This is a sad reality. But applying the "American model" to Russia will screw Russia because Russia doesn't have the societal and legislative backbone that Canada and United States so fortunaly possess. There will be less Malkins simply because there will be NO POINT in making them; and the way Crosbys are made in North America will not apply to Russia.
This is basically the crux of where I disagree with you. I believe very much in the individual rights of people like Malkin to live and work where they want to, free from the constraints of previous employers. You believe that if you're generous towards someone, that gives you the right to force him to work for you. Basically, my view is right and yours is completely wrong.
It's not about which country is better, or where he'll make more money, it's about whether he has the right to make a free choice of where to live and work, and he does. Unfortunately, you believe that since he benefited from Metallurg's generosity, he is binded to them by ties of servitude and he must do what they want. You are wrong.
Rationales about how Russian hockey will suffer are irrelevant. Individual human rights must always trump nationalistic concerns. This is not about Canada versus Russia. It's about a man's right to choose where to work versus people like you who want his future to be decided by former clubs.
Saprykin said:
Difference was that he was out of contract. Then Dynamo went and said he actually signed another contract with them last summer, so he should come back. I really don't know if he did or not, so I don't wanna comment on it. I thought you were aware of the situation.
A Russian arbitrator determined that he had a contract to fulfill with Dynamo for the 2005-2006 season. He didn't fulfill it. He took a flight and went to Washington. Dynamo didn't get a single penny in compensation for him. So tell me why it is that you support his move but not Malkin's ?
Saprykin said:
You say what you really have no way of knowing, though. Just something fun to write down and piss people off.
I write about nationalistic expatriate youths because they are the ones in which I encounter this type of demented, fanatic patriotism, much more so than among the adults. The young guys like you, who have lived in the comfort, security and wealth of North America for the past decade, are the ones who think the interests of Russia trump everything, who denigrate Ukrainians, who long for the good old days of Stalin, and who think that Malkin should not be allowed to play in the NHL unless Metallurg gives him permission. I'm not saying that that's you in particular. I'm saying that this type of nationalism seems much more prevalent among young expatriates than among adults.
In all seriousness, I think the point about RSL teams getting compensation is a valid one, which is why the NHL agrees to pay about 1 million per player in the first place. The NHL could just as easily not sign a transfer agreement and give countries nothing, but this fee does smooth things over and acts as an incentive to continue cultivating hockey players. To ask more than 1 million when the other countries really have no leverage is asking a little too much though IMO.
