Quote:
Originally Posted by NegativeSpace
I don’t think it is fair to compare a situation of someone with indefinite employment to Oliver whose contract expired. I could see some people being upset if they chose not to tender an offer, which would be within their rights. The Flames were willing to make an offer and Oliver rejected it. I don’t see what part could be criticized of the Flames. They have to look at the agreement like it is any other negotiation and assign a value to the player. It sounded like Seravelli also thinks Oliver’s agent overplayed his hand so it’s not just Dino saying that. If this was a concussion that kept him out for 1.5 years then people would be very upset if he was signed long term. Look at everyone who said there were concerns with Tanev’s contract when he signed with Calgary or even the new one with Toronto. The ability of a player to sustain and provide value during the contract has to be part of the contract negotiation process.
|
THIS.
Yes, we want to 'treat this like an injury' and not come with bias toward mental health, sure. I think acknowledging and helping with mental health issues is an important and wonderful thing to do.
But if we're holding that same standard, would a player limited to 33 games in two years because of a lower back issue warrant a contract with immediate term? Not unless you see some insane upside, and with Oliver, it just isn't there.
They made an offer they felt made sense given the value and risk of the situation. Kylington said no.