• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

kickazz

Should any of #91, #13, #40, #30 be retired? Poll/Discussion

Rate this topic

Should any of #91, #13, #40, #30 be retired?  

130 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

But to be strictly accurate, neither the Wings nor the NHL (nor, for that matter, any US court) could actually block a player from playing in the KHL, as none of them have any authority over the KHL. 

I'm can't say for sure, but I don't think this is true.  I thought there were legal agreements in place between the NHL and the KHL regarding this type of thing.

At the end of the day, technically, if he bailed on his contract, it wasn't with the Wings, it was with the Coyotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

I'm can't say for sure, but I don't think this is true.  I thought there were legal agreements in place between the NHL and the KHL regarding this type of thing.

At the end of the day, technically, if he bailed on his contract, it wasn't with the Wings, it was with the Coyotes.

Never forget

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toby91_ca said:

I'm can't say for sure, but I don't think this is true.  I thought there were legal agreements in place between the NHL and the KHL regarding this type of thing.

At the end of the day, technically, if he bailed on his contract, it wasn't with the Wings, it was with the Coyotes.

They have an understanding for sure, but I don't think there is yet any formal transfer agreement. However, formal or informal the only reason for any agreement is specifically because neither party has authority over the other. The NHL needs the KHL to agree to act on their behalf because the NHL cannot itself tell SKA St. Petersburg to do or not do anything. And even if there is a formal agreement, if the KHL were to say, "yeah, we're not going to honor that", what really could the NHL do besides start acting the same way? Ask the UN or WTO for help? 

But we're maybe getting too deep in the semantics, and also too far from the point. He obtained proper permission to play in the KHL, so there is no more contractual violation than there was in the Wings trading the contract despite his NMC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buppy said:

They have an understanding for sure, but I don't think there is yet any formal transfer agreement. However, formal or informal the only reason for any agreement is specifically because neither party has authority over the other. The NHL needs the KHL to agree to act on their behalf because the NHL cannot itself tell SKA St. Petersburg to do or not do anything. And even if there is a formal agreement, if the KHL were to say, "yeah, we're not going to honor that", what really could the NHL do besides start acting the same way? Ask the UN or WTO for help? 

But we're maybe getting too deep in the semantics, and also too far from the point. He obtained proper permission to play in the KHL, so there is no more contractual violation than there was in the Wings trading the contract despite his NMC.

He left the team, while under contract, to play for a different team

His heart wasn't with the Red Wings

And that's why he won't go up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2018 at 7:15 PM, Buppy said:

Both players acted in accordance with their legally protected rights, which is the closest thing we have to objectivity. So objectively, both situations are exactly equal. You are either considering some moral standard, or comparing the relative impact of the situations. Both of those are subjective.

I'm sure if I were to find an example of a player no one cared about going to play in the KHL, all it would do is get people looking for some other detail that makes Datsyuk different. Point is, all these arguments are bogus. Just attempts to do what you're doing here: trying to make a subjective situation objective. No one actually cares about the specifics, we care about the net result. The disappointment of losing followed by the perceived rejection in Fedorov's case. The perceived contribution to the decline of the team in Datsyuk's. Can't handle adversity without having a target to shake our fists at. Some villain to blame for all our woe. Can't be happy without something to hate. Can't even be happy just hating on our own; we have to convince everyone else to hate the same things. Sad.

What legally protected rights? Fedorov was a free agent. Datsyuk wasn't. Holland could have taken action in Datsyuk's case. Whether or not that would have worked is something none of us really know. Objectively within the bounds of contracts; it's pretty simple that one guy fullfilled his and the other didn't. You don't need to stretch it out to make your argument fit lol. I mean I guess you can. But Fedorov never walked out on any contract he was obligated to with the Wings. 

Either way on a note related to the main question asked in this thread. Clearly Illitch/Holland don't see it the way you do. If they did, then #91 would have long been on the rafters. Maybe you can e-mail your post to the Illitches and try to get that #91 retired. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2018 at 10:43 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

He left the team, while under contract, to play for a different team

Apparently to someones surprise that's not worse than a guy who finished his contract and went to go play for another team. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Apparently to someones surprise that's not worse than a guy who finished his contract and went to go play for another team. 

I just think this is getting way too bogged down in semantics at this point. It's quite simple. He left the team under contract and the team didn't like that. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I just think this is getting way too bogged down in semantics at this point. It's quite simple. He left the team under contract and the team didn't like that. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Player A finishes contract and goes to play for another team that went to the Cup finals that year.  

Player B does not finish contract and after a lot of back and forth leaves the team to play for another one. 

Wonder what's worse for the GM/Owner and then what's worse for the fan. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kickazz said:

What legally protected rights? Fedorov was a free agent. Datsyuk wasn't. Holland could have taken action in Datsyuk's case. Whether or not that would have worked is something none of us really know. Objectively within the bounds of contracts; it's pretty simple that one guy fullfilled his and the other didn't. You don't need to stretch it out to make your argument fit lol. I mean I guess you can. But Fedorov never walked out on any contract he was obligated to with the Wings. 

Either way on a note related to the main question asked in this thread. Clearly Illitch/Holland don't see it the way you do. If they did, then #91 would have long been on the rafters. Maybe you can e-mail your post to the Illitches and try to get that #91 retired. 

If you're going to respond to a week-old post at least have the decency to read the thread so you can offer something new to the discussion. You made me think I'd stumbled on to time travel, and now I'm sad. Jerk.

Also, if your intent is to ask if the Wings will retire a number, you should edit the title. As worded it is clearly asking for the opinion of the respondents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Buppy said:

Also, if your intent is to ask if the Wings will retire a number, you should edit the title. As worded it is clearly asking for the opinion of the respondents. 

Your e-mail can be titled “should it be retired”. It would be a catchy title and they would immediately open it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Holland: Y'know we'd really like to put #91 in the rafters. How would you like to have your name on the banner instead of Fedorov?

Tavares: Where do I sign, Ken?

Terrific, nevertheless it Quite is a damn humiliation that the owners couldn't just take in direction of honor a different higher echelon Corridor of Famer, Sergei Fedorov.

:hysterical: Sorry, couldn't resist that one! 

I sure hope we can get JT though, that response was not meant to say I do not want JT here! Just a partial sentence from the other weird thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

I'm torn.

Had Feds not left on such bad terms this would be a no brainer.

I recall an interview some years ago where there were rumors of Sergei returning to Detroit, and when asked he was rather coy which led me to believe he had regrets for how things played out.

 

Datsyuk left on worse terms. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

Damn right he did...Didn't get $$$ for his last year under contract.

On a more serious note - I don't recall Dats being anywhere near the 'frustration meter' that Feds was for this organization.

Feds off ice/in bed woes with Kornikova/Bure/etc probably led to his ultimate demise as a Red Wing.

By all means - Holland was a bit short-tempered in all of this, but having to deal with him back in 97/98 made Holland wary of how Feds went about his business.

Datsyuk was being a diva the minute he signed the contract extension in 2013. Holland basically said so himself. Kept wanting out every year since 2013 until Holland and Illitches finally gave in in 2016. 

Federov left after his contract ended. He never failed to honor a contract. Datsyuk wanted to walk out on a contract.

What Datsyuk did was worse for the organization. Imagine if he had left as soon as he signed the contract in 2013. We would have had dead cap space for 3 years. Thankfully Holland told him to f*** off and honor it for at least 2 more years, then he would let him go on the last year. 

If Datsyuk's jersey is getting retired, so should Fedorov's.  

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

I honestly didn't see things this way.

Feds held out until well into the 97/98 season, and only became a Red Wing after he signed a contract offered by the Canes in which Holland matched - thus retaining Feds services.

Holland offered 2 separate deals to Feds prior to him leaving (after Holland pulled them off the table).

I recall Dats wanting to go home his last few years while in Detroit, but I do not remember the level of drama  with Dats that we had seen with Feds - maybe selective memory?

Yeah - in the end one could argue that Dats cost us since we had to bribe the Yotes to take his contract off Hollan'd hands thus giving us cap space.

Just watch. Datsyuk and his agent wanted a 5 year deal lol. Holland brought it down to 3 years. Imagine if it had been 5 years and Datsyuk was like "I go to Russia"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2018 at 7:43 PM, kickazz said:

Honestly the cleanest slate of the 4 people is Zetterberg and he will likely get retired soon. 

really though, Ozzie is (going to be) the only one who never "left" the organization on his own. Feds left UFA, Dats quit on his contract, Hank (as honorable as he has been) even said recently that when he signed the 12 year deal, never intended on finishing the contract (and that was before his back problems.) Ozzie was waived because he made too much money (t the time) and then when he became a UFA out of St. Louis, he came right back. IMO, Ozzie has the cleanest slate.

 

 

 

Edited by LeftWinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

really though, Ozzie is (going to be) the only one who never "left" the organization on his own. Feds left UFA, Dats quit on his contract, Hank (as honorable as he has been) even said recently that when he signed the 12 year deal, never intended on finishing the contract (and that was before his back problems.) Ozzie was waived because he made too much money (t the time) and then when he became a UFA out of St. Louis, he came right back. IMO, Ozzie has the cleanest slate.

image.png.9e7c4456ede98ce1579b965556696dc1.png

 

 

No lol. Osgood was a diva and wanted out if they got Hasek.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/29/sports/hockey-islanders-stretch-budget-for-osgood.html?nytmobile=0

Unlike Howard who handled the situation well when Mrazek was given #1 spot.

Zetterberg didn’t say HE signed a 12 year contract without intention of playing, he said the organization planned it that way to reduce their own cap hit and cheat the system. Z did the organization a favor to sign it that long. 

Whats the point of a player signing a contract 2 years longer if he’s his full pay anyways? 

It’s the organization that prefers to stretch those contracts to reduce cap hit; doesn’t do the player any good. 

But as per usual you have you anti-Z bias.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kickazz said:

No lol. Osgood was a diva and wanted out if they got Hasek.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/29/sports/hockey-islanders-stretch-budget-for-osgood.html?nytmobile=0

Unlike Howard who handled the situation well when Mrazek was given #1 spot.

Zetterberg didn’t say he signed a 12 year contract without intention of playing, he said the organization planned it that way to reduce their own cap hit. Z did the organization a favor to sign it that long. 

Whats the point of a playing signing a contract 2 years longer if he’s his pay anyways? 

It’s the organization that prefers to stretch those contracts to reduce cap hit; doesn’t do the player any good. 

But as per usual you have you anti-Z bias.

No, I like Z, I was just going by what I read, really, I hope he plays until he cannot anymore and I am all for #40 going up as soon as possible. I just figured that with Osgood not leaving voluntarily, it seemed that he was the squeakier one. I believe he had more animosity for Legace than Hasek. Manny's Father-In-Law, whom I work with, can attest to that. He always said he and Ozzie never got along. But that doesn't mean Ozzie didn't have a problem with Hasek either, Maybe Ozzie is more of a drama queen than most realize...

But ya, I am a Z fan and want him to play and see his number retired.

Edited by LeftWinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feds was not a lifelong Wing. He won't get his jersey retired. He signed an offer sheet and later left via free agency when he was offered a contract to say. You wont get ur number in the rafters doing any of those things. Yzerman met the criteria, Lids met the criteria, Z will meet the criteria which is why he is the only one among the possibilities that will get it.

Share this post


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

Ugh.... #91 must go up where it belongs, no if's, and's or but's. It's an atrocity that it is not up there yet. When Stevie or Drapes takes over, we will see it happen.

It doesnt matter who the GM is, its an ownership decision. I agree he should be up though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

No, I like Z, I was just going by what I read, really, I hope he plays until he cannot anymore and I am all for #40 going up as soon as possible. I just figured that with Osgood not leaving voluntarily, it seemed that he was the squeakier one. I believe he had more animosity for Legace than Hasek. Manny's Father-In-Law, whom I work with, can attest to that. He always said he and Ozzie never got along. But that doesn't mean Ozzie didn't have a problem with Hasek either, Maybe Ozzie is more of a drama queen than most realize...

But ya, I am a Z fan and want him to play and see his number retired.

I want to know if you get what I'm saying.

Z gets $73 million regardless. But the organization wanted him to do it over 12 years rather than 10 to reduce his cap hit. It's the organization that cheated the system. Not Z. 

Z signing it is a favor he did for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now