Levitate
Registered User
- Jul 29, 2004
- 31,036
- 7,806
yeah i skipped over one person being a dumbass...your post was worded like you were talking to everyone else who wasn't all pro russia
as for the rest of your point...i don't think a team should have to pay a contract if a player wants to break it for one thing. no buying out or anything like that. and yes there should be reasonable compensation then for the club. keyword reasonable. i can't even say it's fair having to pay $10 mill straight up for Nash.
the thing it boils down to for me is what the players want to do. If a young kid in Russia really wants to play in the NHL, he should be allowed to be in a position to do so and not locked into a long term contract by a Russian team hell bent on keeping him or getting 10's of millions in return for him. (ok i exaggerate but oh well). on the flip side, if a young NA kid really wants to go play in Russia...fine, he should be given the same opportunity to either be a FA and sign there or his club get some compensation, and not have him locked into a long contract when his real wish is to play elsewhere. however, excuse me for being ethno-centric, i don't see that one happening as much...
the nash comparison falls apart some because you're giving the scenario of an established player in the NHL who suddenly wants to go to Russia while he's still under contract (hello? Jagr? what?) and not a rookie kid who's forced to sign a longer contract than he wants when he really wants to play elsewhere. if you're already a NHL vet i think you need to just ride out the contract because you negotiated it and agreed on it yourself without the pressure of being a rookie on your head. like in jagr's case...he skipped all the way to the bank with his $11 mill per/year 6 year deal...he didn't have to do 6 years, but he did cuz he wanted all that guaranteed $$. and he obviously wanted to play in NA or he could have just refused a contract extension, let his deal run out and then leave the NHL.
i don't now if i'm making the distinction clear enough here...i'm just trying to say there's a difference between a rookie being forced into a long term deal he doesn't want and a vet making that decision to sign a long term deal for the $$.
as for the rest of your point...i don't think a team should have to pay a contract if a player wants to break it for one thing. no buying out or anything like that. and yes there should be reasonable compensation then for the club. keyword reasonable. i can't even say it's fair having to pay $10 mill straight up for Nash.
the thing it boils down to for me is what the players want to do. If a young kid in Russia really wants to play in the NHL, he should be allowed to be in a position to do so and not locked into a long term contract by a Russian team hell bent on keeping him or getting 10's of millions in return for him. (ok i exaggerate but oh well). on the flip side, if a young NA kid really wants to go play in Russia...fine, he should be given the same opportunity to either be a FA and sign there or his club get some compensation, and not have him locked into a long contract when his real wish is to play elsewhere. however, excuse me for being ethno-centric, i don't see that one happening as much...
the nash comparison falls apart some because you're giving the scenario of an established player in the NHL who suddenly wants to go to Russia while he's still under contract (hello? Jagr? what?) and not a rookie kid who's forced to sign a longer contract than he wants when he really wants to play elsewhere. if you're already a NHL vet i think you need to just ride out the contract because you negotiated it and agreed on it yourself without the pressure of being a rookie on your head. like in jagr's case...he skipped all the way to the bank with his $11 mill per/year 6 year deal...he didn't have to do 6 years, but he did cuz he wanted all that guaranteed $$. and he obviously wanted to play in NA or he could have just refused a contract extension, let his deal run out and then leave the NHL.
i don't now if i'm making the distinction clear enough here...i'm just trying to say there's a difference between a rookie being forced into a long term deal he doesn't want and a vet making that decision to sign a long term deal for the $$.