Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutuu
I think you've made a great point here, however, I would argue there is some nuance.
Buffalo was against a NEW kind of surgery that the player was going to try over the old method. The players reasoning was that the new method would be better now and in later life. Buffalo countered that the old method was a known outcome. They blocked Eichel from getting the new surgery on a risk basis.
Both of the above structurally solved the problem.
In the case of Huberdeau, his alternative methods were not a structural fix. They were pain management and mitigation in hopes of solving or delaying a solve for the underlying issue. In a sport where father time is a big factor, as well as timing your rosters contention window or in our case draft window, I'd counter that the team mismanaged their risk of this asset by allowing him to play past November.
Blocking a pain mitigation attempt for a structural fix is different than blocking a structural fix for another structural fix. So I'd say we're more like Buffalo West for mismanaging this outcome.
|
Unfortunately this is a total irrelevant argument because you’ve missed the completely obvious aspect of players having protected rights under the CBA and protected rights as human beings.
You and anyone else who might forget should keep in mind that these are not “assets” in the same way a piece of equipment is an asset you can just shut down and repair however and whenever you want. Players are actually human beings.