Re: Jagr vs Iginla
posted at 2/6/2014 1:48 PM EST
In response to bostonfan191646's comment:
In response to JWensink's comment:
In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
In response to Bookboy007's comment:
2) You don't violate a contract provision, or mislead a player in order to violate that provision, which the club negotiated in good faith. The right to refuse a deal to Boston is part of Iginla's contract - it's compensation. Trying to weasel him out of it would be like choosing not to pay him his full salary. And the potential damage to the Flames? Totally disproportionate to what they'd gain no matter how much you might like Bartkowski.
Yeh I read it- I never claimed that Iginla didn't have the right to refuse to go to Boston.
But - for the last time you refuse to accept the scenario in which Calgary had no obligation what so ever to offer Iginla a deal to Pitt. A NMC does not mean any team has to trade you. That would be a movement clause - not a NMC.
And maybe, just maybe if they had been properly motivated to do just that, it might have turned out differently. Everyone believes that KoKo and Bart was some kind of great deal that Calgary couldn't possibly turn down. I think it was garbage then, and still do. Now, you could argue that it was slightly more enticing garbage than the Pitt offer, but still Krap IMO. And I think that a sharp GM would have been aware that he was dealing with the potential of Pitt swooping in a blowing up the deal - which is what happened. So it was no time to F around with the likes of Koko and Bart. Put Peverly on the table for arguments sake ,with those two, and maybe Calgary presents Iginla with two choices - stay in Calgary or go to Boston.
I think it's also laughable that Chiarelli stated that they had an agreement in place early in the day, and said the he waited by the phone all day and never followed up to see w-t-f was going on. There was no deal without it going to the NHL office. Maybe he could have at least tried to address it... but he just sat there like a dope while Pitt was not even giving him a reach around. Plain and simple, cut it any way you want, he got schooled , and looked like a dumbfounded fool who didn't see the writing on the wall.
Last time -
Iginla had every right to refuse Boston
Calgary had no obligation to offer him Pitt
Maybe Calgary would have done just that if they got something on the table other than Koko and Bartkowski for a 1st ballot HOF forward.
BTW - There is no bigger Bruin fan than me. The difference with you is you are incapable of criticism - that doesn't make you smarter, or more knowledgeable than anyone else. It does however diminish your opinions in some cases because your bias, although a bias filled with positive emotions, is still a bias.
Wensink, did you read this ?
Bookboy points out the reality of the Iginla saga.
Disagree or agree with him ?
K. So feaster refuses to trade iginla to Pittsburgh. Iginla gets irritated. Stays. Now feaster got nothing for his biggest asset. You lose again
You can't be older than 25.
Calagry got nothing anyway - maybe they could of had two prospects and Peverly. We'll never know because PC was busy staring at the phone while Pitt was busy at work.
And based on Feasters performance getting assets for that deal ... he's playing daily numbers somewhere - I didn't lose shyt ...now go finish your homework