On the first page I quite clearly explained why I really don't care for this to be investigated. I think it's pretty stupid that team officials are not allowed to say that if a player were to make it to market, they would make a strong push for him. ...
Under the letter of the rules, you're right: this should be investigated and something should be done about it. I just don't like the rules. I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I don't think it'll be very productive for either one of us, so I'll leave it at that.
Not every player is Parise, and you can't have different rules for different players. If Parise, or anyone else, wants to know what other teams are willing to offer, then all he has to do is wait until the 1st and find out. While Parise specifically may know he'll have no shortage of offers, there are a lot of players who don't have that security. They have to choose between the security of getting a contract before there's extra competition from UFAs and possibly getting more money or a better opportunity on the open market.
In my opinion, "we will not be outbid" is basically the same as throwing out a specific number. Worse even, since a specific number could be lower than what someone else offers. Now Parise knows he should talk to Minnesota after any offer, and he can use those comments to push for a higher salary from anyone who makes an offer. Things can move fast on UFA day. If the Wings want to be aggressive, they won't necessarily want to wait around while Parise gets a counter-offer from the Wild. Doing so could mean they miss out on other players.
Would it have made any difference had the story not been released? Likely no one will ever know. But it's pretty simple rule: Don't talk about players under contract to other teams. It's not hard. And there's no reason for it other than to give yourself an advantage over all the teams who follow the rules.
This is how the world continues to get worse. Just keep letting people get away with whatever they want.
It confounds me how much people are defeated about things that can be fixed. You know every single rape case is hearsay. Might as well not try with those. ...
I agree with you in principle, but comparing this to rape makes you sound a little hysterical.
I don't give a s*** if someone jaywalks. Doesn't mean I'm indifferent to every crime. Some things just aren't worth getting worked up over. This specific case, where the potential damage caused is likely somewhere between none and very little, and the potential for actually proving any wrongdoing is virtually nil, is I think one of those things. Certainly not worth the time and expense of a court proceeding. I don't think it would warrant anything more than a fine anyway, even if it was proven (as much as I would like to see Minnesota prohibited from signing Parise, I don't feel that would be justified).