Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
No you were stating it was "illogical" to honor a contract and I called you on that because it is utter bull####. I never once said it couldn't or shouldn't happen, you just were too fixated on arguing that I said it was logical to honor a contract.
|
This was my first comment on the issue of expiring contracts with NMCs:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
The most logical position is that NMCs for players with contracts valid for 2017-18 would have to be protected, but contracts expiring after 2016-17 would not.
|
Nothing in there about it being "illogical" to honor (sic) a contract. You responded by inventing the argument you are still pushing.
I replied with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Dude, there are no shortage of ways to legally implement the obvious solution.
Not the least of which is the NHL and NHLPA agreeing that pending UFAs on expiring contracts are simply exempt entirely.
Also, going to a dictionary definition like that is pretty much the ultimate "I've argued way too strongly for an extreme interpretation and I have no idea how to get out of this mess" admission.
|
In other words,
exactly what Bill Daly indicates is the reality.
But you go ahead and continue to pretend that you weren't in the wrong the entire time.