do you really think thats the case? to me, its more of the typical example of wings loyalty. offer a guy a contract because its the 'right thing' to do, not necessarily because the player is still capable of producing at the nhl level. even when the contract was signed, holland was very clear that it was primarily going to be a grand rapids role. all 29 other gm's also had a shot at him on the waiver wire and none felt he could contribute at the nhl level either.
i am not trying to be all negative in the retirement thread, but just hoping to provide an objective opinion on why people were against the signing.
also, i am watching nhl live on the nhl network, and they mentioned that they are hoping to have maltby on the show later. if they get anything definite i will let you guys know.
Everyone has got to get over the "offer a guy a contract because of loyalty" crap.
Did Malts ever produce much at the nhl level? No, his career high was a 33 point season. Chelios was with us for 10 years, and has warranted just as much loyalty as Malts. Did they offer Chelios a two-way contract last year because it was the "right thing" to do? No they didn't. Holland flat out said that he wasn't offering Chelios a contract. Malts had a better season statistically this past season, than he did in the previous two, and he played his role of a 4th liner, penalty killer, agitator night in and night out. I'm not disagreeing that it was time for Maltby to retire and let the young kids move up and have their chance, but I don't believe Holland would offer any type of contract to a guy that he thought had no chance of fighting for a spot at camp. The point of my original post was for the previous poster to have a little respect for the guy, but I guess in this day and age, very few people have respect for others.
- 55fan likes this