Players and their wives!

[Rudolf Yaber]

I am not trying to argue so much as just asking...

I think this thread has come to a bit of a boil and might need to chill out!

Have you read the HF rules? If those are sincere questions you are asking, the answers are in there.

Rumours need to have a credible source, not just a friend speculating.

 

[seenmassive]

Rumours need to have a credible source, not just a friend speculating.

I was sayiing what if the player was my friend

 

[alanschu]

People should be able to say whatever they want,free country.I dislike the Oilers but there fans should be able to say anything when it comes to the Pronger situation now.He says he will speak and tell everyone what transpired,did he

The legal system, particularly under the areas regarding libel, disagree.

For example. Let's say you were applying for a job, and I got 20 or so people to start spreading rumours that you are a child molester or something. Are you still willing to stand by the fact that my friends and I should be able to say whatever we want? Even if suddenly you don't get the job?

 

[alanschu]

ya so ... and why cant the player ask for a trade? thats all i am saying, asking for a trade is not renegging on a contract.

trades are part of the game, as you say. why is it only ok for the team to initiate a trade.

if the team doesnt trade him, i am not advocating he sits out. i am merely saying he has not broken any contract by asking for a trade.

I think you're being a bit of an optimist if you honestly felt that Pronger would even show up to training camp, let alone play to the best of his ability.

At the very least it would provide mountains of distraction from the media alone if Pronger was not traded. After the leak and whatnot, saying that Pronger didn't have to be traded is technically true, but I doubt that it is actually the case. IMO, Lowe had to trade Pronger. The two options of him either not playing (holding out) or not playing as well as he could (whether on purpose or because of distractions from media/being separated from his family) are both much more likely than him coming to camp and playing as hard as he did last year for the next 4.

 

[OG6ix]

I agree, players should honor their contracts. However, no offense to the people of edmonton, but if I were a pro player I wouldn't want to play in edmonton either.

It's cold and boring.

 

[Fugu]

I agree, players should honor their contracts. However, no offense to the people of edmonton, but if I were a pro player I wouldn't want to play in edmonton either.

It's cold and boring.

And if you feel this way, you never would have committed to a 5-year contract. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion and preferences, but these usually are made known upfront (at least to the agent if the idea is to bargain in good faith).

 

[Fugu]

It's also possible that Pronger really is a serial killer who's rubbed out 9 people since he came to town and thought the cops were closing in so he wanted to get out before the Mounties caught up with him.

I have no idea what the real deal is. None of us knows. Everything has been speculation, and none of it has been proven. But some have their own idea, are convinced it's fact, and have run with it accordingly.

If it was something serious, it's doubtful the Oilers would have said anything either. The Leafs didn't go public with the info on McCabe's wife, the Blues didn't go public with info on Pavol Demitra's family when he lost a child under the age of 2 just a couple years ago, and so forth and so on, and the Devils never talked about Ken Daneyko's alcohol problem except when they had to announce he was going to rehab. It's called "privacy", teams try to respect it if at all possible unless the player wants to step forward and talk about things.

I think you are taking your frustrations out on me. I never speculated what the reasons could be for Pronger's request, nor carried over any rumors from any other place. Absent any other information, all I want to do is stick to pointing out the limitations on their personal lives/preferences NHL'ers implicitly, or maybe explicitly, accept through collective bargaining and contractual obligations.

You introduced the conjecture on what some of these personal issues could be, and I pointed out that yes this was as true as what they could not be... meaning neither one of us knows. Taking this a step further with the serial killer analogy really has no place in the discussion I was having here. Furthermore introducing the personal matters of other NHL'ers...still does not prove nor disprove a single thing! It does show these things can come up, sure, but what relevance it has to Pronger's situation is pure and total speculation as well. Like I said, maybe some other posters did overdo the rumor-mongering bit, but please address those directly if you choose to address them at all. I never brought any of that up.

 

[OG6ix]

And if you feel this way, you never would have committed to a 5-year contract. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion and preferences, but these usually are made known upfront (at least to the agent if the idea is to bargain in good faith).

I agree, he shouldn't have committed to the 5 year contract. I am just saying, I wouldn't want to be in edmonton though, but yeah he shouldn't have signed the contract.

 

[alanschu]

Who cares if you don't like Edmonton though?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think you are taking your frustrations out on me. I never speculated what the reasons could be for Pronger's request, nor carried over any rumors from any other place. Absent any other information, all I want to do is stick to pointing out the limitations on their personal lives/preferences NHL'ers implicitly, or maybe explicitly, accept through collective bargaining and contractual obligations.

You introduced the conjecture on what some of these personal issues could be, and I pointed out that yes this was as true as what they could not be... meaning neither one of us knows. Taking this a step further with the serial killer analogy really has no place in the discussion I was having here. Furthermore introducing the personal matters of other NHL'ers...still does not prove nor disprove a single thing! It does show these things can come up, sure, but what relevance it has to Pronger's situation is pure and total speculation as well. Like I said, maybe some other posters did overdo the rumor-mongering bit, but please address those directly if you choose to address them at all. I never brought any of that up.

The point here is that a lot of people are supposing they know the real story. The fact is, no one does, and to speculate on why he wanted out doesn't answer the question and generally leads some people to draw some wildly inaccurate (and potentially damaging) conclusions.

I'm not blaming you - if you feel that I am, I'm sorry, because that wasn't my intent.

In fairness to those who've been directly involved in this whole situation, no one outside of those involved should assume they know anything. Again ... look at all the people who knew nothing about Bryan McCabe but knew McCabe hadn't signed his contract because his wife wanted to go back to New York - from that, a lot of people made some incredibly nasty remarks about the two of them.

I looked at some of the threads where these people made disparaging remarks about the McCabe's ... not surprisingly, very few of them admitted they were wrong or made a mistake when the true story came out. Incredibly, there were several who thought that he should have not worried about his wife's health and just signed the contract when it was offered.

I just think a lot of people are passing judgment about how things should have gone without knowing what the true story was, and it would be nice if everyone would wait until that story comes out before rendering their verdict on this.

 

[OG6ix]

Who cares if you don't like Edmonton though?

C'mon man, if Chris Pronger was on a team that were one game away from winning the cup and wanted to be traded, it tells you something.

 

[braincramp]

C'mon man, if Chris Pronger was on a team that were one game away from winning the cup and wanted to be traded, it tells you something.

What it tells me is that he is not requesting a trade for any trivial reason. No hockey player would do that, given the circumstances. No one can convince me that he would take this action without being under some great pressure to do so, and I have the decency to take him at his word.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I was sayiing what if the player was my friend

Go read rule #12 in the FAQ.

 

[alanschu]

C'mon man, if Chris Pronger was on a team that were one game away from winning the cup and wanted to be traded, it tells you something.

I was referring to whether or not you like Edmonton.

There's lots of places that I don't like that other people seem to like just fine.

 

[OG6ix]

I was referring to whether or not you like Edmonton.

There's lots of places that I don't like that other people seem to like just fine.

It's just food for thought.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

And yes, Pronger does owe the Edmonton Oilers (but not the fans) something - four more years on a signed contract.

Reversing this -- should the clubs then be denied the right to arbitrarily trade a player since they've signed a contract which means they "owe" the players X number of years? Same contract, same obligations to the other party?

Anticipating a flood of "that's different" responses, I guess the club's business decisions are more important than an individual's decisions which could profoundly impact his life and that of his family?

Interesting discussion. I'd be disappointed if a favorite player asked to be traded. Then again, if he didn't want (or couldn't for whatever personal reason) to stay with my team, I don't suppose I'd really want him around because his presence would likely be more harmful than beneficial. I'd like to think I'd look past the ice and realize that life is more important than the game. I’d certainly like to think I’d wait to learn all the facts before making any kind of final judgment. And I'd sure try to keep in mind that there are probably people out there who aren't perfect and who make decisions that turn out to be mistakes. It's awfully easy to say he shouldn't have accepted the contract in the first place in view of what has transpired since then when, of course, there was no way to foresee the future the day he put his signature on the dotted line.

 

[O'shizzle]

Go read rule #12 in the FAQ.

12) Libel: Any posts libeling players, prospects, or hockey personnel. It's not acceptable to post that you heard Player X has a drinking/drug/sex/personal problem from a "good" source. A link to a credible media source must be posted to support such claims. Other forums and personal websites are not credible.

I don't get it. Is this a Canadian site? If so, the laws must be different than in the States. Please fill me in on how other sites get around this but you can't.

 

[kdb209]

Reversing this -- should the clubs then be denied the right to arbitrarily trade a player since they've signed a contract which means they "owe" the players X number of years? Same contract, same obligations to the other party?

Argh, NO.

Same contract - yes. Same obligations - no.

The contract itself explicitly gives the team (absent a NTC or NMC) the right to trade the player. The player agreed to that right when he signed the contract.

Anticipating a flood of "that's different" responses, I guess the club's business decisions are more important than an individual's decisions which could profoundly impact his life and that of his family?

No, but the "business decisions" are covered in the contract, the "individual's decisions" are not - other than the most important decision, the one the player made to sign the contract.

Well I guess a player should have thought about his "decisions which could profoundly impact his life and that of his family" before signing a long term deal.

Again - a player can have the flexibility and freedom of a 1 yr deal or the security of a multi year deal, but not both.

Interesting discussion. I'd be disappointed if a favorite player asked to be traded. Then again, if he didn't want (or couldn't for whatever personal reason) to stay with my team, I don't suppose I'd really want him around because his presence would likely be more harmful than beneficial.

Exactly, and that is why (some obstinate posters here to the contrary), Pronger "asking" for a trade was in all practicallity forcing Lowe to trade him.

I'd like to think I'd look past the ice and realize that life is more important than the game. I’d certainly like to think I’d wait to learn all the facts before making any kind of final judgment. And I'd sure try to keep in mind that there are probably people out there who aren't perfect and who make decisions that turn out to be mistakes. It's awfully easy to say he shouldn't have accepted the contract in the first place in view of what has transpired since then when, of course, there was no way to foresee the future the day he put his signature on the dotted line.

But he could foresee that he was signing a 5 year deal without a NTC, so he was subject to being traded to any of 29 other cities in the league, whether he wanted to play there or not.

He was perfectly free to sign a 1yr deal in Edmonton (or choose arbitration and force the issue), and then he would be a UFA right now and we wouldn't be having this long drawn out thread.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

12) Libel: Any posts libeling players, prospects, or hockey personnel. It's not acceptable to post that you heard Player X has a drinking/drug/sex/personal problem from a "good" source. A link to a credible media source must be posted to support such claims. Other forums and personal websites are not credible.

I don't get it. Is this a Canadian site? If so, the laws must be different than in the States. Please fill me in on how other sites get around this but you can't.

PM an admin.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Again - a player can have the flexibility and freedom of a 1 yr deal or the security of a multi year deal, but not both.
...

clearly you are mistaken as it seems the evidence proves otherwise.

not only does Pronger have the security of the long term deal, apparently he also had the (limited) flexibility you claim he didnt.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

This thread is having less and less to do with the the title given and more and more like something that should probably be in another thread.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Argh, NO.

Same contract - yes. Same obligations - no.

The contract itself explicitly gives the team (absent a NTC or NMC) the right to trade the player. The player agreed to that right when he signed the contract.

No, but the "business decisions" are covered in the contract, the "individual's decisions" are not - other than the most important decision, the one the player made to sign the contract.

That was really more a "rhetorical" question based on the statement about what the player "owes" the team. Both parties are obligated to abide by the terms of the contract, nothing more. Does the SPC forbid a player from asking for a trade? I doubt it. And, if that's the case, no one has done anything outside the purview of the contract -- the player has simply done something he's fully entitled to do, the fans just don't like it.

Well I guess a player should have thought about his "decisions which could profoundly impact his life and that of his family" before signing a long term deal.

I find it incredibly hard to believe he didn't think about that. I don't think people are looking at this properly. We're looking at it today and criticizing him for things that happened after he signed the contract. That's not exactly fair, for lack of a better term.

If he had Miss Cleo or Karnak the Magnificent on staff at the time and could have foretold the future, then perhaps we could criticize him for signing a contract in a city where, for whatever personal reasons, things didn't work out. But when he made the decision he clearly thought it was the best thing for him and his family and didn't have any reasons to think it wouldn't work, or that something unforetold might happen that could change things.

In the legal field, things are based on the premise of "what a reasonable person would (or would not) do under like circumstances." I think many people here are asking the professional athlete to be a soothsayer as opposed to a normal person who makes decisions the best they can based on the circumstances of his or her life at the time they make those decisions. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's just not good grounds for criticism when the circumstances may have been unforeseeable.

Exactly, and that is why (some obstinate posters here to the contrary), Pronger "asking" for a trade was in all practicallity forcing Lowe to trade him.

But he could foresee that he was signing a 5 year deal without a NTC, so he was subject to being traded to any of 29 other cities in the league, whether he wanted to play there or not.

He was perfectly free to sign a 1yr deal in Edmonton (or choose arbitration and force the issue), and then he would be a UFA right now and we wouldn't be having this long drawn out thread.

He could foresee he could be traded, sure. Could he foresee any number of situations which could change his life and, as a result, change the wisdom of remaining in the city where he signed that contract? If the published reports that his wife is unhappy there are true, did he have reason to believe on the day he signed his contract that something would happen to make living there intolerable for her? I wish I had the kind of precognition that would require.

I’m in a life situation right now that I could not have foreseen that has changed my life dramatically. I’m glad that my friends, family and employer are far more understanding of the fact that life takes turns we simply cannot anticipate than the good folks in this forum are.