Quote:
Originally Posted by Slanter
If I understand this correctly, the whole premise here is that RFA players who hold out for part of the season still expect to be paid their full annual salary in that season.
If that is what RFAs are expecting, I'd like everyone to acknowledge the colossal stupidity (to borrow an apt Burke quote) of what the Leafs did with the Nylander contract. By setting that precedent, they essentially eliminated a major point of pressure that a team could exert on an RFA: the loss of wages for, you know, not doing your job.
I think the way the Leafs handled that contract negotiation was horrible, spineless, and frankly an affront to all of us that work for their paycheck.
But there are some bonuses: gave me another reason to hate the Leafs, and so far it doesn't look like it's working out too well for them.
|
The real bottom line is that neither side can afford to have a hold out on an expensive RFA.
If a team has boat loads of cap space there is little change ot the landscape, and you can see that in Colorado and Columbus' case.
But for every other team/RFA negotiation there isn't much room before the whole contract has to be scrapped a new bridge deal discussed in order to fit this season.
Pressure on both sides to play less of a waiting game and get to a best offer in camp.