Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
There's a significant difference between sweating about actual dollars and caring about actual dollars. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that businesses do care about dollars. Murray Edwards has shown he isn't running a charity organization, and the ramification of offering any Tom, Dick or Bret a one-way as an RFA even if they aren't locks to make the team could be a bad precedent to set. Most importantly Kulak doesn't have much of any leverage. Either he accepts the Flames two-way contract offers, or he is given a near league minimum offer from arbitration. Not much reason for the Flames to offer a one-way contract, especially for a player they clearly don't care if he was claimed.
And it's just bizarre to say it wouldn't impact the bottom line. Of course Kulak at 650-850K playing in the AHL would have an impact compared to Kulak making 100K-250K playing in the AHL. There's no room to argue it wouldn't.
UFA contract where the player is (for whatever reason) lured into the organization is a poor parallel to make. And how can you say it wasn't a mistake they wouldn't want to avoid in the future? I can all but guarantee that the Flames do not want to be paying several one-way contracts in the AHL if they don't have to. And the Flames were willing to pay 4.5M for Brouwer, that doesn't mean they want to do it again.
I think it comes down to you not believing that the Flames like money, or Kulak if you suggest him taking the least amount possible is also good for him. It's nice that you're not materialistic and idealistic, but usually the cash in contracts are pretty significant point of contention.
|
Ok I give up.
You just don’t seem to get what I’m saying and I’m guessing our back and forth is boring the group to death.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk