Quote:
Originally Posted by Poe969
Funny you should bring this up. I own a contracting company and this does happen in the real world, a lot. Having a great work ethic only means that the owner is getting more for his money and that you'll probably never be out of work. Being someone who slacks off and complains means that you probably won't have a long career. Having a contract means it should be honoured either way. Now if the guy with a good work ethic all of a sudden says that he's holding out for more money or things that aren't in his contract, isn't that a bad thing? You can't say "I've honoured my contract so far, so I want more". I'm not going to use that phrase "by your logic" like you did because I don't want to assume you'd think this way but by condoning Kippers actions (if true) you're saying that anyone can negate a trade if they're willing to retire to avoid it. If an owner tried to do something like this to a player, the NHLPA would jump down their throat (just like the union would have sued me if I would have fired a guy under contract before his contract was up) but if a player does it to a team, he's somehow earned that right?
|
It's rare, but it happens. My mother was part of HSAA union back in the early 1990's. She still had 2 years left on her (unions) contract, but Klein started major rollbacks and she was laid off, despite having that contract. No severance, no site replacement. FIRED! But that was a rare situation, and so is Kipper's. Do you really think all of a sudden players are going to say "I know I have a contract, but pay me more or I'll retire". Not a chance because they want to keep earning money. Any player has the option to retire whenever they like, they just have to be okay with not getting paid anymore. This is a very rare situation, that will have no effect on the NHL or NHLPA as a whole.