Lanny Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 In a similar situation would you say the same thing about #12 and #14 in the 2012 NHL draft? I feel like the anger would more likely be directed at the team and it's management for allowing him to get to free agency. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 He is using the rules to his advantage. I can't blame him. He decided to stay at Wisconsin without a contract risking injury, I think that says a lot about him. He also stuck it to the team that used a highly valued asset to select him. Dick move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 He also stuck it to the team that used a highly valued asset to select him. Dick move. Why is it a dick move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ForTripping Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Why is it a dick move? Really??C'mon Hank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Really??C'mon Hank So wait...... A guy decides he doesn't want to work somewhere and puts himself into a position to choose where he'd like to work. And that's a DICK MOVE? :blink: I mean, really, it is beyond the pale when individuals start bashing a human being for taking control of their own future and running with it. Just my 2 pennies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 So wait...... A guy decides he doesn't want to work somewhere and puts himself into a position to choose where he'd like to work. And that's a DICK MOVE? :blink: I mean, really, it is beyond the pale when individuals start bashing a human being for taking control of their own future and running with it. Just my 2 pennies. Pro sports aren't really comparable to a real job. I don't have nearly the problem with it as some do, but at the same time, you really cannot generalize this and try to relate it to a typical person working where they want to since last I checked companies don't draft you, you go to them looking for work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 So wait...... A guy decides he doesn't want to work somewhere and puts himself into a position to choose where he'd like to work. And that's a DICK MOVE? :blink: I mean, really, it is beyond the pale when individuals start bashing a human being for taking control of their own future and running with it. Just my 2 pennies. no, it is a dick move because it cost the Ducks a draft pick to get him and then he decides he doesn't want to play for them and would rather go somewhere else. But for all we know, maybe the Ducks wanted him but didn't want ot pay him the max amount they could pay him under the rules and he felt he should be able to get that? Maybe the Ducks also said that they didn't think he was good enough to make the team and would be keeping him in the minors and not giving him a chance to make the team this year? Without knowing all the details its tough to say, but walking away and refusing to sign with the team that gave up an asset for you because you know you can create a bidding war for yourself is a bit of a Dick move Pro sports aren't really comparable to a real job. I don't have nearly the problem with it as some do, but at the same time, you really cannot generalize this and try to relate it to a typical person working where they want to since last I checked companies don't draft you, you go to them looking for work. True, BUT, a similar situation could be you get hired with a company, start there and they train you, then you go out and leave because you know that competing companies will all try and higher you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Pro sports aren't really comparable to a real job. I don't have nearly the problem with it as some do, but at the same time, you really cannot generalize this and try to relate it to a typical person working where they want to since last I checked companies don't draft you, you go to them looking for work. Ah, but a large portion of employers do actively seek talent, to state that pro sports is any different than fields outside of sports is generalizing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 So wait...... A guy decides he doesn't want to work somewhere and puts himself into a position to choose where he'd like to work. And that's a DICK MOVE? :blink: I mean, really, it is beyond the pale when individuals start bashing a human being for taking control of their own future and running with it. Just my 2 pennies. Same reason Jim Kelly going to the USFL and Manning saying he's never play for the Chargers. Part of the deal with getting millions to play sports is you don't get to choose where you start. otherwise there would only be sports teams in big markets and places with nice weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 no, it is a dick move because it cost the Ducks a draft pick to get him and then he decides he doesn't want to play for them and would rather go somewhere else. But for all we know, maybe the Ducks wanted him but didn't want ot pay him the max amount they could pay him under the rules and he felt he should be able to get that? Maybe the Ducks also said that they didn't think he was good enough to make the team and would be keeping him in the minors and not giving him a chance to make the team this year? Without knowing all the details its tough to say, but walking away and refusing to sign with the team that gave up an asset for you because you know you can create a bidding war for yourself is a bit of a Dick move True, BUT, a similar situation could be you get hired with a company, start there and they train you, then you go out and leave because you know that competing companies will all try and higher you 1. He didn't ask the organization to give up assets to get him, therefore, the risk is all on the organization and not on the individual. 2. I agree with you, we don't know the inside skinny, so the conversation itself is speculative at best. 3. I also agree in you last statement on corporations/companies have some invested time in employees, but wasn't Shultz drafted and property of the Ducks for a duration agreed to by the rules established within the industry? I believe so, and that being the case, both the Ducks and Shultz fulfilled that contractual obligation, he's earned the right to move on from them regardless of how "THEY" chose to utilize him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Ah, but a large portion of employers do actively seek talent, to state that pro sports is any different than fields outside of sports is generalizing to me. Yes, but they don't draft talent forcing you to go work there. And generally speaking, most people start at significantly less (and by significantly less, I mean to the tune of 1500% or so) than an NHL entry-level deal. And pro sports is different than fields outside of sports in just about every way. From starting wages, to maximum wages, to travel, to a government-sanctioned monopoly, to barriers to entry and exit, and so on. About the only way sports and non-sports fields are comparable is that they want to make a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Same reason Jim Kelly going to the USFL and Manning saying he's never play for the Chargers. Part of the deal with getting millions to play sports is you don't get to choose where you start. otherwise there would only be sports teams in big markets and places with nice weather. No one is speaking on where he starts, we are speaking on the position he is in now, which is that of someone who has some working conditions/location choices. Sounds like a sound working man to me. Yes, but they don't draft talent forcing you to go work there. And generally speaking, most people start at significantly less (and by significantly less, I mean to the tune of 1500% or so) than an NHL entry-level deal. And pro sports is different than fields outside of sports in just about every way. From starting wages, to maximum wages, to travel, to a government-sanctioned monopoly, to barriers to entry and exit, and so on. About the only way sports and non-sports fields are comparable is that they want to make a profit. Your missing the point on my end, the money is irrelevant in so far as I am concerned. The relevance lay in the fact that Shultz has the ability to choose where he goes to some extent and get the money he's going to get because he chose the path he did. That is no different than any other individual here in NA. You set your sails to make your own destiny, and he's done just that and I say job well done to an individual that does so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I feel like the anger would more likely be directed at the team and it's management for allowing him to get to free agency. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation. You and some others probably feel that way. I and others view this as not a reflection of management. The Ducks, since they drafted him quite high, probably made every effort to sign him. They, I assume, did not want to pay the maximum allowed, but I am sure it would have been millions. Off the top of my head I can't think of a player that has signed an entry-level contract at the maximum, maybe Crosby. The kids would just be happy to play in the NHL and be paid millions, even if they leave a few dollars on the table. If they prove themselves and even if they don't to a great extent (see Stafford ...) many more millions will be coming their way. This greedy punk, who has not even played a shift in the NHL, thinks he is above that. To bad under the CBA he becomes a free-agent, where some jerk-off GM will pay him. In my mind he should have been sent back into the draft and good luck to him. He screwed over the Ducks. Like Inky said ... dick move. I couldn't agree more. If I were a NHL GM I would not go anywhere near this guy and now he is dictating which teams he would be willing to play for. Just utter BS!! EDIT: After posting this reply I went back and read some of the recent posts in this thread. While everyone is entitled to their opinions and to express them, I just can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 No one is speaking on where he starts, we are speaking on the position he is in now, which is that of someone who has some working conditions/location choices. Sounds like a sound working man to me. Meh, I don't like the idea of first time contracts as free agents, could remove a lot of parity in sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Meh, I don't like the idea of first time contracts as free agents, could remove a lot of parity in sport. ah, now this we can agree on. I'm not in favor of the situation he is in, as it does, as others stated (and rightfully so, by the way) put the Ducks in a rough situation. I'm not for screwing the corporation (well, to be fair, anytime a corp. gets screwed, I'm happy, cause a majority of the large ones screw us daily), but I am for fair play, and in accordance with the rules established in the NHL, he had and has every right to do what he did. Hate the game, not the player! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ForTripping Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 So wait...... A guy decides he doesn't want to work somewhere and puts himself into a position to choose where he'd like to work. And that's a DICK MOVE? :blink: I mean, really, it is beyond the pale when individuals start bashing a human being for taking control of their own future and running with it. Just my 2 pennies. So wait, Hockey player gets drafted to play professional hockey his life long dream decides he doesn't like the team and refuses to play for them... hmmm toal dick move along with being a whiny bitchy cry effin baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 They traded Gardiner, or whatever his name is, to the leafs because they knew they had Shultz in the lune up. However, had they known he ahd no intention to sign there, then he should have requested a trade rather than slip through the net. Moreover, you would presume a standard question everyone asks their picks is "would you play for us?" so the fact they drafted him implies the answer was yes. Sports is not comparable to the real world jobs because in 99% of cases, you can simply find someone to replace them (especially blue collar jobs, no offence to those who do them, but the fact is a postman is a postman whereas a hockey player is nto simply a hockey player) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 So wait, Hockey player gets drafted to play professional hockey his life long dream decides he doesn't like the team and refuses to play for them... hmmm toal dick move along with being a whiny bitchy cry effin baby. Your opinion of the situation is duly noted. Now, let me give you a hypothetical and ask pertinent question as a follow up. Your 18, your looking for your first real job away from mommy and daddy's nest, you choose a company which has decided to further your education and interest. You go to work for them and do a 4 year degree in the very same field, all the while, working for them for, let's say 32k a year. You graduate with your degree, and 4 months later another company offers you a 3rd more to come to work for them. Your pay will go up to 42.3k a year, a substantial amount more than if you stay with your current employer, which by the way, you met all obligations to. What are you going to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Your opinion of the situation is duly noted. Now, let me give you a hypothetical and ask pertinent question as a follow up. Your 18, your looking for your first real job away from mommy and daddy's nest, you choose a company which has decided to further your education and interest. You go to work for them and do a 4 year degree in the very same field, all the while, working for them for, let's say 32k a year. You graduate with your degree, and 4 months later another company offers you a 3rd more to come to work for them. Your pay will go up to 42.3k a year, a substantial amount more than if you stay with your current employer, which by the way, you met all obligations to. What are you going to do? At that point you've worked for the company for 4 years, have shown your worth, and can take that job offer to management looking for a counter-offer to remain :P I think (?) the biggest problem people have is a kid who has proven absolutely nothing is looking for more money. It's the same problem people had with NFL rookies holding out....we don't begrudge them their money, but prove SOMETHING first. The CBA allows for it, which is why I'm not hating nearly as much as some others, but it always does miff me when somebody who has proven zilch thinks they deserve something more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Your opinion of the situation is duly noted. Now, let me give you a hypothetical and ask pertinent question as a follow up. Your 18, your looking for your first real job away from mommy and daddy's nest, you choose a company which has decided to further your education and interest. You go to work for them and do a 4 year degree in the very same field, all the while, working for them for, let's say 32k a year. You graduate with your degree, and 4 months later another company offers you a 3rd more to come to work for them. Your pay will go up to 42.3k a year, a substantial amount more than if you stay with your current employer, which by the way, you met all obligations to. What are you going to do? Well firstly you have already worked for them for four years and secondly you are replaceable very easily. A better situation would be: The military have made you a deal that they will pay for your university fees and then at the end of the course you will join them and they will train you to be a pilot. However, when you graduate you decide that you don't want to be a pilot for them, but instead want to be a pilot for a commercial firm, so you find a legal loop hole and get out of your contract. By your logic, that would be fine as you are controlling your destiny and have not screwed anyone over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 At that point you've worked for the company for 4 years, have shown your worth, and can take that job offer to management looking for a counter-offer to remain :P I think (?) the biggest problem people have is a kid who has proven absolutely nothing is looking for more money. It's the same problem people had with NFL rookies holding out....we don't begrudge them their money, but prove SOMETHING first. The CBA allows for it, which is why I'm not hating nearly as much as some others, but it always does miff me when somebody who has proven zilch thinks they deserve something more. Now that I can agree with (the bolded). But by all accounts from inside the industry (that being the NHL scouts, pundits, analysis from many sources) he has proven he's improved. Otherwise, he wouldn't be such a sought after commodity. :P Well firstly you have already worked for them for four years and secondly you are replaceable very easily. A better situation would be: The military have made you a deal that they will pay for your university fees and then at the end of the course you will join them and they will train you to be a pilot. However, when you graduate you decide that you don't want to be a pilot for them, but instead want to be a pilot for a commercial firm, so you find a legal loop hole and get out of your contract. By your logic, that would be fine as you are controlling your destiny and have not screwed anyone over As a veteran, that is correct, only, as a veteran, I also realize your analogy isn't logical, there are no loopholes in the service contract for the military. Barring any behavior modifications from the individual that sends his or her asset evaluation plummeting, your going to serve Uncle Sam. After all, you signed the "CONTRACT". Which in this case, is no different in all reality. Obligation in accordance with the NHL rules fulfilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Now that I can agree with (the bolded). But by all accounts from inside the industry (that being the NHL scouts, pundits, analysis from many sources) he has proven he's improved. Otherwise, he wouldn't be such a sought after commodity. :P As a veteran, that is correct, only, as a veteran, I also realize your analogy isn't logical, there are no loopholes in the service contract for the military. Barring any behavior modifications from the individual that sends his or her asset evaluation plummeting, your going to serve Uncle Sam. After all, you signed the "CONTRACT". Which in this case, is no different in all reality. Obligation in accordance with the NHL rules fulfilled. I don't get the veteran bit? Well it appears that the hockey world did not know about this loop hole, as firstly, no-one else has used it, and secondly it appears to have shocked people it existed. I am not sure about the lack of loop holes etc. in the military contract (especially the American one, what with being English and all) so i can't really comment, but i am speaking hypothetically, so it doesn't really matter. There is a difference with signing a contract vs a verbal consent, but many sports use verbal agreement as conformation prior to signing a contract. Once again, i'm not sure what you mean by the part in bold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I don't get the veteran bit? Well it appears that the hockey world did not know about this loop hole, as firstly, no-one else has used it, and secondly it appears to have shocked people it existed. I am not sure about the lack of loop holes etc. in the military contract (especially the American one, what with being English and all) so i can't really comment, but i am speaking hypothetically, so it doesn't really matter. There is a difference with signing a contract vs a verbal consent, but many sports use verbal agreement as conformation prior to signing a contract. Once again, i'm not sure what you mean by the part in bold? Ah, sorry ThirtyEight, here in America, when you join the service as a volunteer, you sign a contract with the US government. That is where the vet bit comes in, I signed a contract. You brought up military service as an example, but it wasn't iron clad in so far as a good analogy. I agree, verbal agreements are good, but unless they are documented, it's not a binding agreement. It's a he said she said scenario. I believe all teams are well aware and versed in NHL rules. The Ducks drafted this player, he refused to play for them (which is his right to do so), once he fulfilled the time obligation under NHL rules, he was allotted to do what he has done. I don't blame individuals for feeling like he slighted or offended the Ducks organization, but, he did what he did in accordance with the guidelines and rules set up by the NHL. So I see no reason to hate on an individual for wanting to take this route and better his or her over all position, financially, work environment or other wise. It was simply his right to do so. Stating that it is a DICK MOVE is pretty shallow in my eyes, that doesn't make my opinion right either, it's merely my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Ah, sorry ThirtyEight, here in America, when you join the service as a volunteer, you sign a contract with the US government. That is where the vet bit comes in, I signed a contract. You brought up military service as an example, but it wasn't iron clad in so far as a good analogy. I agree, verbal agreements are good, but unless they are documented, it's not a binding agreement. It's a he said she said scenario. I believe all teams are well aware and versed in NHL rules. The Ducks drafted this player, he refused to play for them (which is his right to do so), once he fulfilled the time obligation under NHL rules, he was allotted to do what he has done. I don't blame individuals for feeling like he slighted or offended the Ducks organization, but, he did what he did in accordance with the guidelines and rules set up by the NHL. So I see no reason to hate on an individual for wanting to take this route and better his or her over all position, financially, work environment or other wise. It was simply his right to do so. Stating that it is a DICK MOVE is pretty shallow in my eyes, that doesn't make my opinion right either, it's merely my opinion. Ah i see thanks for clearing that up. I think that he should have requested a trade rather than refuse to sign (maybe he did though?) especially as they did trade a young defenceman, that would have been an opportune time for Ducks management to get rid of him had he requested to move. It is more out of courtesy, the organisation put money, time and assets into him, so he should thank them for this and either return the favour by signing him or request a trade. If, however, he did request a trade and the ducks refused then i don't have a problem with this. However, why had the ducks not signed him to an entry level contract prior to now? If he has refused in the past then that would have suggested he didnt't want to sign, or can you only sign a contract once you have left university/college? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 <p> <br />Well firstly you have already worked for them for four years and secondly you are replaceable very easily.<br /> <br /> A better situation would be:<br /> The military have made you a deal that they will pay for your university fees and then at the end of the course you will join them and they will train you to be a pilot. However, when you graduate you decide that you don't want to be a pilot for them, but instead want to be a pilot for a commercial firm, so you find a legal loop hole and get out of your contract.<br /> <br /> By your logic, that would be fine as you are controlling your destiny and have not screwed anyone over<br /> <br /><br /> </p> The army pays for the pilot's schooling and the pilot gives xx number of months of their lives to the Army. Some get lucky and go to Hawaii, others go to Ft Campbell and spend 42 out of 60 months away from their family. Where you end up is more often than not the luck of the draw, but one thing a pilot cannot do is say "I Quit", and take their services elsewhere. Thats called desertion, and the army takes pretty seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.