Zuccarello: Being Loyal Is Nonsense
- Thread starter Kshahdoo
- Start date
Sugi21
Registered User
- Dec 7, 2016
- 3,101
- 2,776
Bergie in Mtl once said “if you want loyalty get a dog” when he was negotiating with Markov and then he went and spent big money on Alzner lol
1865
Alpha Couturier
Loyalty is good if you can guarantee it's two way. However, the club would trade you in a heartbeat so why show unrequited love?
Mickey Marner
Registered User
How out of character for the Rangers to sign a player to a long-term contract that they had no intention of honouring.
glovesave_35
Name
As I've gotten older I think more and more that players should maximize their career earning potential. Teams will play on emotions of 20-somethings to get team-friendly deals. Zucc is just finally realizing what the old phrase "it's a business" really means.
Uncle Dru
Formerly Kakk Addict
- Mar 12, 2012
- 645
- 494
Dallas traded assets to acquire Zucc and were even willing to part with the conditional 1st to extend him...Zucc signs with the Wild. Loyalty
Cursed Lemon
Registered Bruiser
I have no problem with players chasing money. This job only lasts for 15 years or so, might as well try to squeeze as much from it as possible.
KingsFan7824
Registered User
Yeah, had they won in 2014, things would be different, but they didn't, so things ended up different. Then the Rangers started missing the playoffs a few years after 2014, and everyone was older, the contracts didn't look as good, so guys get traded, things change, etc. That's not a new thing Zuc.
The question would be, did he turn down any money from an eastern team to do this? If so, that's why you can't let emotion dictate what you do. On the other hand, if he did only want to play in the West, and he still got $30m over 5 years, with a full or limited NMC in all 5 years, while being 32 years old before he played a game under that contract, then Minnesota might've been a little desperate. Again, you need a clear mind when making decisions.
The question would be, did he turn down any money from an eastern team to do this? If so, that's why you can't let emotion dictate what you do. On the other hand, if he did only want to play in the West, and he still got $30m over 5 years, with a full or limited NMC in all 5 years, while being 32 years old before he played a game under that contract, then Minnesota might've been a little desperate. Again, you need a clear mind when making decisions.
Way to completely miss the point.
Love Hank and Zucc but we did everything to accommodate Hank until we were forced to rebuild. It was clear we weren’t going anywhere in the playoffs anymore so we had to break it down. As for Hank’s treatment, he was clearly outplayed by Shesterkin this year and Georgiev has been better for the last 2 years. This is the youngest team in the NHL making a playoff push, why exactly would we start Hank when he was brutal at the end of the season? Zucc was one of my favorite players but giving him that contract Minny gave him (or even any realistic contract) would’ve f’ed us because we have little cap space. It’s just business at the end of the day, and imo NYR did everything they could to try and have a happy ending for both guys. There was just no room for Zucc going forward
Kreider-Zib-Buch
Panarin-Strome-Kakko
Kravtsov-Chytil-Gauthier
Lemieux-Howden-Fast
Barron
Andersson
There may have been room for him this season, but imagine having him at 5-6 mil for at least 3 more years, we’re 1 year away from clearing all our bad contracts in Smith, Staal, and Hank and it’ll be the first time in a longtime where we don’t have a bad contract to an old vet
Kreider-Zib-Buch
Panarin-Strome-Kakko
Kravtsov-Chytil-Gauthier
Lemieux-Howden-Fast
Barron
Andersson
There may have been room for him this season, but imagine having him at 5-6 mil for at least 3 more years, we’re 1 year away from clearing all our bad contracts in Smith, Staal, and Hank and it’ll be the first time in a longtime where we don’t have a bad contract to an old vet
Uncle Dru
Formerly Kakk Addict
- Mar 12, 2012
- 645
- 494
Not really...Dallas gave up a good amount to acquire him and were willing to give up a ton more to keep him, he took the best contract offered to him.
Player did what's best for player while doing a good amount of bitching that his former team did what's best for team.
Stlblue50
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2019
- 685
- 503
If the Stars would have won game 7 last year then that 1st would have been sent
Uncle Dru
Formerly Kakk Addict
- Mar 12, 2012
- 645
- 494
2 1sts were in play, 1 on making the Conf Finals the other on him resigning
LMFAO
Registered User
- May 20, 2010
- 5,501
- 2,935
Bergevin is getting alot of heat on how he treated Markov but time kinda gave him reasons...
Bergevin was firm on a 1 year deal, Markov was firm on a 2 year deal... check Markov's KHL stats, his play completely felt off a cliff after his first year..
Did you even read the article? Zuccarello gave the Rangers a sweetheart deal at UFA expecting that loyalty repaid in some form on the backend. Instead, they traded him. Why would Zuccarello make the same mistake twice learning what he did the first go around?
Not to mention, how is Dallas being willing to give NY assets in any way beneficial to Zuccarello? Completely irrelevant to him. That's not loyalty, it's an assessment of value that they didn't back up in dollars.
JT Kreider
FIRE GORDIE CLARK
Maybe if Lundqvist didnt completely lose us the Ottawa series.. we could have had a decent chance against Pittsburgh and then Nashville.
I mean what more did Hank want? He gave up a crap goal from behind the net to lose Game 1, blew multiple 2 goal late leads in Games 2 and 5 giving up a combined 11 goals.
That was the end of the line right there, that core got like 6 kicks at the can while completely pillaging all future assets and just couldn't get it done.
And the contract that Zuccarello signed in 2015 was not really that much of a "sweetheart deal", it was completely fair for the player Zucc was at that time. If anything was a player friendly deal with the term that brought him to UFA young enough to cash in on another contract.
I mean what more did Hank want? He gave up a crap goal from behind the net to lose Game 1, blew multiple 2 goal late leads in Games 2 and 5 giving up a combined 11 goals.
That was the end of the line right there, that core got like 6 kicks at the can while completely pillaging all future assets and just couldn't get it done.
And the contract that Zuccarello signed in 2015 was not really that much of a "sweetheart deal", it was completely fair for the player Zucc was at that time. If anything was a player friendly deal with the term that brought him to UFA young enough to cash in on another contract.
Last edited:
The Nuge
Some say…
Yep. Basically the only players who should ever consider a discount are the mega stars. A guy like McDavid or Crosby can sign at a discount in their 20s because if they were to hit the open market, 31 teams will make an offer. If money becomes the most important thing during the next contract, SOMEONE would offer them basically league maximum. But the middle 6ers need to get themselves paid. Those are the guys asked to take team friendly deals, and one injury might slow them down enough to end their career.
Ryan Whitney is a prime example of why you take the money. He was a good like #2/3 dman for a number of years. He took the money, and proceeded to get dealt a couple times. He ends up in Edmonton and starts playing better after the trade, showing the offensive ability he had earlier once again. He comes in the next year and starts playing unreal hockey. He’s scoring at a 60+ point pace and playing the best defensive hockey of his career. He’s a 27 year old #1 dman who’s going to get PAID after his deal runs out. Then, he absolutely destroys his ankle. Suddenly, he can’t skate and he’s arguably not an NHL dman. If he took a team friendly deal to stay loyal to Pittsburgh, his big payday he was expecting during UFA would have been the 900k he got from Florida to play in the AHL.
Curtis Glencross on the other hand took a discount on a 4 year deal to help Calgary. He signed for like 2/3rds of what he should have got. But he’s 28 and coming off a 24 goal season. Everyone loves him, and he’ll have at least another like 4-5 years left as a gritty veteran presence after the deal right? Nope. Coming off a 13 goal, 35 point season at 31 years old, he couldn’t even find an NHL contract, let alone get his payday.
Whitney nearly doubled Glencross’ career earnings despite having a shorter career. Which seems like a good idea?
why would he be loyal to a team he played 15 games for to the point where he’d take a discount?Especially when he’s needing to take the money because he just took a discount and got burned. I’m sure loyalty would probably come into play if Dallas offered him the same contract Minny did.
You’ve got to think that that was the best offer. Signing 2nd liners until they’re 36 usually means you’ve been willing to give more term than other teams. Maybe he turned down like a 4 year deal at 6.5 or something, but that’s less money overall which matters a lot. But certainly, players need to take emotion out of contract negotiations.
Uncle Dru
Formerly Kakk Addict
- Mar 12, 2012
- 645
- 494
So NYR handcuffs themselves and signs a player into his lates 30s during a rebuild because he left some money on the table? That's not really smart...
They did what's best for the Org, including signing a player to a team friendly deal...a player who's NHL resume was light at the time btw. He may have wanted/expected to retire a Ranger but why should they have to oblige...it's a business at the end of the day.
And I bring up Dallas because Zucc has played the 'loyalty' card from the moment he was traded. Given what Dallas was willing to part with, that shows a lot of loyalty to a player.
sabresEH
Registered User
Was he eligible to get a NTC in his contract? If he wanted to stay, get a NTC. You didn't, you f***ed up.
JT Kreider
FIRE GORDIE CLARK
Or if he signed a longer deal he would have been heading into UFA within the next few years and since he would be older he sure as hell wouldnt be getting the contract he got last summer from Minny.
Zucc conveniently left that out.
I don't know why you think this is a rebuttal to what Zuccarello is saying. You're literally just reinforcing the point he's making.
This is still wrong. Dallas being willing to give the Rangers draft picks benefits Zuccarello in exactly zero ways.
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 37,547
- 10,824
I see what you're saying, but loyalty is earned, not bought. Zucc owed nothing to Dallas.
