Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Brawndo

Berglund on Waivers with Purpose to Terminate His Contract

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Weave said:

Of course it had to do with Buffalo.  Why was Buffalo on his and probalby 90% of the other NHLers no trade list?  Rhetorical.  We know why.  Because Buffalo isn't it.

Where does he specifically point to Buffalo as being the problem?  Maybe I missed it.  

In that narrative, they were careful to build up the fact that he was drafted by St. Louis, loved it there, and that his dream was to win a Cup there.  They also made sure we knew his agent didn't turn in his list of 20 teams he couldn't be traded to. Buffalo happened to be on this list, along with 19 other teams (Buffalo + 19 other teams = a list of 20 teams).

They said he was not happy from the moment he heard he was traded.  Any one of those 20 teams (and probably all other teams, frankly) would have had an uphill battle to make Berglund feel better about his life.  Berglund tainted the process from the very first second - there was nothing Buffalo could do. Phil wasn't playing Berglund likely because Berglund had demonstrated he wasn't a team player and that he didn't want to be there.

In my opinion, you're making it up in your mind that the Berglund situation has anything to do with the Sabres specifically. The only thing the Sabres could have done was have the perfect mix of everything that appealed to Berglund himself to prevent Berglund from doing what he did ultimately. Which is clearly ridiculous.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ... said:

Where does he specifically point to Buffalo as being the problem?  Maybe I missed it.  

In that narrative, they were careful to build up the fact that he was drafted by St. Louis, loved it there, and that his dream was to win a Cup there.  They also made sure we knew his agent didn't turn in his list of 20 teams he couldn't be traded to. Buffalo happened to be on this list, along with 19 other teams (Buffalo + 19 other teams = a list of 20 teams).

They said he was not happy from the moment he heard he was traded.  Any one of those 20 teams (and probably all other teams, frankly) would have had an uphill battle to make Berglund feel better about his life.  Berglund tainted the process from the very first second - there was nothing Buffalo could do. Phil wasn't playing Berglund likely because Berglund had demonstrated he wasn't a team player and that he didn't want to be there.

In my opinion, you're making it up in your mind that the Berglund situation has anything to do with the Sabres specifically. The only thing the Sabres could have done was have the perfect mix of everything that appealed to Berglund himself to prevent Berglund from doing what he did ultimately. Which is clearly ridiculous.

For all we know, Buffalo may not even have been on his list, and it’s just a convenient excuse for him to use after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SwampD said:

For all we know, Buffalo may not even have been on his list, and it’s just a convenient excuse for him to use after the fact.

He said it was in the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ... said:

He said it was in the video.

He actually said it “would have been” (I’m no body language expert, but it’s the only time in the video he crosses his arms and squirms a bit.) Almost like there was no list (well, we know that there wasn’t😀), and he can say whatever he wants to now to justify his actions.

I do agree, though, that it wasn’t a purely Because Buffalo thing. It doesn’t make me like him any more, knowing that a) he said we would even be on the list and b) the scene here wasn’t enough to change his mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SwampD said:

He actually said it “would have been” (I’m no body language expert, but it’s the only time in the video he crosses his arms and squirms a bit.) Almost like there was no list (well, we know that there wasn’t😀), and he can say whatever he wants to now to justify his actions.

I do agree, though, that it wasn’t a purely Because Buffalo thing. It doesn’t make me like him any more, knowing that a) he said we would even be on the list and b) the scene here wasn’t enough to change his mind.

You need to re-watch that moment in the video, it's at 2:57:

Q: "Buffalo would have been one of the 20 no-trade teams probably at the time?"
PB: "Yes, yes."

Berglund isn't agreeing to "would have been" as if the list never existed, rather "would have been" is another way of saying "was", or the past tense of "is". So, if this were a present tense question it's "Buffalo is one of the 20 no-trade teams?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SwampD said:

He actually said it “would have been” (I’m no body language expert, but it’s the only time in the video he crosses his arms and squirms a bit.) Almost like there was no list (well, we know that there wasn’t😀), and he can say whatever he wants to now to justify his actions.

I do agree, though, that it wasn’t a purely Because Buffalo thing. It doesn’t make me like him any more, knowing that a) he said we would even be on the list and b) the scene here wasn’t enough to change his mind.

I mean.. most nights this year (and most nights last year) it seems like a good portion of the people on here want to put the Sabres on their no watch list.  

I recall being lied to about a measly $2k raise at a job once.  I had been told it was in the works and by chance I inquired about it with the person who was above my boss and he told me had no idea what I was talking about.  I explained the situation.  Five minutes later I had a talk with my boss at the time.  At the end of the conversation I told him to Go F himself and walked away.  That was after 9 months of being on the job... a really bad job.

Berglund had spent 10 years in a city and he effectively had it all taken away from him because of the actions of two people.  The agent and the GM of the Blues who made the trade. I'm not sure I would have reacted any differently.

Oh.. and Buffalo sure as hell would have been on my list too.  If you are given a say in where you get to spend your life, you'd be pretty angry if someone else you paid and relied upon to make sure it happened screwed you over and it was taken away from you.

I can't even imagine being mad at Berglund. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LTS said:

I mean.. most nights this year (and most nights last year) it seems like a good portion of the people on here want to put the Sabres on their no watch list.  

I recall being lied to about a measly $2k raise at a job once.  I had been told it was in the works and by chance I inquired about it with the person who was above my boss and he told me had no idea what I was talking about.  I explained the situation.  Five minutes later I had a talk with my boss at the time.  At the end of the conversation I told him to Go F himself and walked away.  That was after 9 months of being on the job... a really bad job.

Berglund had spent 10 years in a city and he effectively had it all taken away from him because of the actions of two people.  The agent and the GM of the Blues who made the trade. I'm not sure I would have reacted any differently.

Oh.. and Buffalo sure as hell would have been on my list too.  If you are given a say in where you get to spend your life, you'd be pretty angry if someone else you paid and relied upon to make sure it happened screwed you over and it was taken away from you.

I can't even imagine being mad at Berglund. 

The whole point is Buffalo didn't screw him over.

Then he screwed Buffalo over, in the same fashion as he got screwed over.

Sabres and their fans are allowed to be just as upset.

Two wrongs never make a right has to be one of your classic Dad-isms you've even used before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, ... said:

You need to re-watch that moment in the video, it's at 2:57:

Q: "Buffalo would have been one of the 20 no-trade teams probably at the time?"
PB: "Yes, yes."

Berglund isn't agreeing to "would have been" as if the list never existed, rather "would have been" is another way of saying "was", or the past tense of "is". So, if this were a present tense question it's "Buffalo is one of the 20 no-trade teams?"

But the list didn’t exist, not official anyway.  If it did, he wouldn’t have been traded to Buffalo in the first place.  I’m not understanding the importance of the distinction here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, woods-racer said:

The whole point is Buffalo didn't screw him over.

Then he screwed Buffalo over, in the same fashion as he got screwed over.

Sabres and their fans are allowed to be just as upset.

Two wrongs never make a right has to be one of your classic Dad-isms you've even used before.

Well.. I'm not saying they can't be upset.  Just because I can't find fault with the guy doesn't mean others are not allowed to do so. I simply state why I don't.

That said, at the time, people didn't think he was producing, didn't want him on the roster, and were mad about the trade that brought him here.  His leaving helped the Sabres free up cap space.  So, if he had "stuck it out" would you have Brandon Montour now?  Seemingly not, and Berglund would be one of the contracts you'd still want off the roster.

So, I don't think Berglund screwed the Sabres over.  I think Sabres fans continue to be upset about two things regarding Partrick Berglund:

1. He said he didn't want to come to Buffalo, and people don't want to hear that, despite fans on here every night talking about how much this team sucks.  The classic, you can't diss my city and my team, but I can.

2. His face and name reminds them of one of the most controversial trades in Buffalo Sabres history and of another player who lost his love for the game while IN Buffalo and was traded, then found his love for the game again, but for some reason, Sabres fans give him a pass.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, woods-racer said:

The whole point is Buffalo didn't screw him over.

Then he screwed Buffalo over, in the same fashion as he got screwed over.

Sabres and their fans are allowed to be just as upset.

Two wrongs never make a right has to be one of your classic Dad-isms you've even used before.

But in the big picture, he actually did the Sabres a favor by opening up 3.5 seasons worth of ~$4MM in cap space.

It isn't his fault that Botterill decided to throw away the 0.5 season's worth of that space.  The Sabres are better off with Johansson and $1MM less of space than they were with Berglund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Curt said:

But the list didn’t exist, not official anyway.  If it did, he wouldn’t have been traded to Buffalo in the first place.  I’m not understanding the importance of the distinction here.

A. GM (St. Louis General Manager) negotiates no-trade list for PB (Patrik Berglund).

B. PB creates no-trade list negotiated as per section A (above).

C. PB submits list to his agent to pass along to GM.

D. PB's agent fails to submit list to GM; does not advise PB.

E. GM does not receive list agreed to in section A (above); does not advise PB he did not receive list.

F. PB assumes list is submitted; continues day-to-day normally.

G. PB is traded to the Sabres.

H. Per section F (above) PB is surprised, shocked, horrified to learn of section G (above).

I. Per sections A, B, C, F, G, and H (above) PB believes the trade is invalid; life is unfair; he is living in Hell.

J. Per section I (above) PB no longer can operate normally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ... said:

A. GM (St. Louis General Manager) negotiates no-trade list for PB (Patrik Berglund).

B. PB creates no-trade list negotiated as per section A (above).

C. PB submits list to his agent to pass along to GM.

D. PB's agent fails to submit list to GM; does not advise PB.

E. GM does not receive list agreed to in section A (above); does not advise PB he did not receive list.

F. PB assumes list is submitted; continues day-to-day normally.

G. PB is traded to the Sabres.

H. Per section F (above) PB is surprised, shocked, horrified to learn of section G (above).

I. Per sections A, B, C, F, G, and H (above) PB believes the trade is invalid; life is unfair; he is living in Hell.

J. Per section I (above) PB no longer can operate normally.

Agree completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LTS said:

Well.. I'm not saying they can't be upset.  Just because I can't find fault with the guy doesn't mean others are not allowed to do so. I simply state why I don't.

That said, at the time, people didn't think he was producing, didn't want him on the roster, and were mad about the trade that brought him here.  His leaving helped the Sabres free up cap space.  So, if he had "stuck it out" would you have Brandon Montour now?  Seemingly not, and Berglund would be one of the contracts you'd still want off the roster.

So, I don't think Berglund screwed the Sabres over.  I think Sabres fans continue to be upset about two things regarding Partrick Berglund:

1. He said he didn't want to come to Buffalo, and people don't want to hear that, despite fans on here every night talking about how much this team sucks.  The classic, you can't diss my city and my team, but I can.

2. His face and name reminds them of one of the most controversial trades in Buffalo Sabres history and of another player who lost his love for the game while IN Buffalo and was traded, then found his love for the game again, but for some reason, Sabres fans give him a pass.

 

How can you not find fault with a guy that takes absolutely no responsibility for his NHL career? It's everyone else's fault that he got traded and not at all his, not at least 50%?

It's his contract, HIS!

The Blue's GM fleeced the Sabres and Berglund. Then they won the Stanley Cup. Not the way I want the Sabres to ever handle any player and I hope that's not the mentality it takes to win it all. But that said, no party is not at fault here.  One just took the low road, all be it contractually correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Taro T said:

But in the big picture, he actually did the Sabres a favor by opening up 3.5 seasons worth of ~$4MM in cap space.

It isn't his fault that Botterill decided to throw away the 0.5 season's worth of that space.  The Sabres are better off with Johansson and $1MM less of space than they were with Berglund.

He did.

And I do believe that MoJO is a great pickup, a much better deal and a great teammate. I can't argue that and won't.

I will argue that Berglund is purely a victim and I need to feel sorry for him and show sympathy. 

I'm really happy that he found his safe space and he is happy again. It cost him 12 million to do it and he doesn't care, fine. I just don't like him trying to tell me he had absolutely no responsibility in making sure his contract was fulfilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, a contract is a contract. You want a no trade clause you negotiate that into said contract. You don't tough luck if you get traded somewhere you don't like. Millionaires and their whiney little problems. Couldn't care less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm uncomfortable with mental health being brought into this. Being bummed out that you got traded somewhere you didn't want to be is not evidence of a mental illness. In his interview, he talked about being anxious after a practice, and of course anxiety is a mental illness. Was he in Lehner territory? I have no way of knowing for sure. But if he was, he certainly hasn't been as open as Lehner was, which was an admirable way to be, because it surely helped a lot of people just like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, woods-racer said:

How can you not find fault with a guy that takes absolutely no responsibility for his NHL career? It's everyone else's fault that he got traded and not at all his, not at least 50%?

It's his contract, HIS!

The Blue's GM fleeced the Sabres and Berglund. Then they won the Stanley Cup. Not the way I want the Sabres to ever handle any player and I hope that's not the mentality it takes to win it all. But that said, no party is not at fault here.  One just took the low road, all be it contractually correct.

Where does he take no responsibility for it?  He hired a guy to do a job and the guy didn't do it.  He trusted a GM to not be a dick and the GM was a dick.  

I can fault Berglund for hiring his agent in the first place?  It's easy enough to say after the fact that I guess Berglund should have followed up with his agent, but I can think of plenty of times in my life where I trusted someone who was hired to do their job was going to do their job.  I'm not a micro-manager by any stretch.  Players trust in their agents and sometimes that does not pan out, but to say that the player is at fault for doing so is not somewhere I can get to.

6 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm uncomfortable with mental health being brought into this. Being bummed out that you got traded somewhere you didn't want to be is not evidence of a mental illness. In his interview, he talked about being anxious after a practice, and of course anxiety is a mental illness. Was he in Lehner territory? I have no way of knowing for sure. But if he was, he certainly hasn't been as open as Lehner was, which was an admirable way to be, because it surely helped a lot of people just like him.

I agree with you. There is a distinction to be made somewhere between a temporary mental health issue that can be brought upon by situational stressors and the mental health issues others suffer brought about by other more deeply seeded means.  Where that line would be drawn is beyond me.

I certainly can't see why he'd not want to come to work every day.  One could argue that he should have made the best of it, but I would counter that, in his eyes, he did make the best of it.  He chose to walk away from a lot of money.  That's something a lot of people would have a hard time doing.  I think it speaks to the level that the situation impacted him and certainly how much it worked against what he found important in life.  We can certainly see how much the situation still bothers him and how much he really doesn't want to discuss it anymore.  

I don't blame him.  Every time i think of that jackhole boss that lied to me about a raise I get angry.  Not so much at him but at the capacity for people to act in such a way that intentionally screws with someone else's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2019 at 11:02 AM, Weave said:

How many former Sabres saying they've lost their love of the game is it going to take before we can admit what the tank did to the environment here?

Agreed on the sentiment re: his agent.  The agent's malpractice opened up this possiblity.

Of course it had to do with Buffalo.  Why was Buffalo on his and probalby 90% of the other NHLers no trade list?  Rhetorical.  We know why.  Because Buffalo isn't it.

A lot of that is location. The Jets actually place lower than Buffalo on those "least desired team" polls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm uncomfortable with mental health being brought into this. Being bummed out that you got traded somewhere you didn't want to be is not evidence of a mental illness. In his interview, he talked about being anxious after a practice, and of course anxiety is a mental illness. Was he in Lehner territory? I have no way of knowing for sure. But if he was, he certainly hasn't been as open as Lehner was, which was an admirable way to be, because it surely helped a lot of people just like him.

There were plenty statements at the time indicating, without needing to read very far between the lines, that he was in a very bad place mentally and his loved ones were pretty concerned about him.  I think his decision to walk away from a huge percentage of his lifetime earnings says a lot about his level of desperation and unhappiness.

I agree that Lehner's openness about his condition was admirable, but I don't hold it against Berglund (or anyone else) for not wanting to be that public about his own struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

There were plenty statements at the time indicating, without needing to read very far between the lines, that he was in a very bad place mentally and his loved ones were pretty concerned about him.  I think his decision to walk away from a huge percentage of his lifetime earnings says a lot about his level of desperation and unhappiness.

I agree that Lehner's openness about his condition was admirable, but I don't hold it against Berglund (or anyone else) for not wanting to be that public about his own struggle.

Then he shouldn't have done the interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2019 at 10:28 AM, dudacek said:

I saw two potentially takeaways. Either:

a) a man with legitimate mental health issues made a brave decision to walk away from millions in order to get better.

b) a man with serious entitlement issues made a selfish decision to walk away from his responsibilities and exercised his privilege.

If it was mostly the former, good on him, but you cant blame the Sabres culture any more than if any other health issue arose. If it was mostly the latter, then ***** Berglund.

Also, ***** Berglund’s agent, who had one ***** job, ***** Armstrong for his lack of integrity with Berglund and with Botts, and ***** Terry for his stupid ***** deadline forcing us into a rushed deal for damaged goods.

So did Armstrong just tell Botterill that the Sabres weren't on his list? That he had no list? Missed that bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Then he shouldn't have done the interview.

He shouldnt have done the interview if he didn’t want to have in in depth public discussion about his mental health?  How bout we just let him live his life and make his own decisions instead?

I don’t know if Berglund has ever been diagnosed with a mental health issue, but he kind of got screwed over by his agent and GM.  It was something that wasn’t supposed to happen.  He had taken precautions to have control over where he would be.  I wouldn’t be surprised if privately Botterill feels horrible about putting Berglund in a position where he was so terribly unhappy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...