[News] UPD: Berglund on waivers to terminate contract. Gives up ~$12.5 million.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Because he knew the risks of signing an NHL contract that didn’t protect him from a trade. There are very few downsides to making millions in the NHL, having to travel all year and being at risk to end up in any of the 31 NHL markets during your contract is one of them. His eyes were wide open to that when he accepted the dough.....honor your contract.

To your point about being a piece of meat, fair. But again NHL players are compansated very generously, and one of the reasons is they aren’t just simple employees, they are both assets to the teams and league and also the product. Again in my mind you can’t have your cake and eat it too, accept the downsides of your very lucrative job or don’t even bother in the first place.

Thank you for phrasing things with a lot less venom than I've laced through everything for the last hour

[Weitz]

I read a few tweets that I can't find now that a grievance from the NHLPA is coming.

Any word on that?

Maybe they were deleted if they were unfounded.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Muffins

True, but Berglund might not be the best example of what I was going after.
What's to stop a player from doing the same thing in order to get out of a team friendly contract, and sign a long term deal with another team?

His current team has to actually terminate his contract.

For example, let us say Gaudreau tries to pull this with the Flames so he can sign with another team for twice the money.

Well the Flames can suspend Gaudreau indefinitely. If Gaudreau misses enough games, the Flames can toll the contract for another year meaning that this year of the contract doesn't get used up and he still owes the year on the contract.

So in reality Gaudreau gains nothing and just prolongs his current contract. The Flames aren't going to let a productive player on a good contract walk away for nothing.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'm not sure anyone is attacking the player?


More like bewilderment at leaving that much green on the table simply because you aren't enjoying yourself. I would gladly pull an Oilers sweater over my head and smile about it for $12.5MM.

Perhaps Berglund understands the principle of "enough"

He's made over 20 million USD, this is enough money for him to retire in extreme comfort and to fund many future generations. An extra 12 million would be cool but...is it really necessary if he has to slog through something his heart isn't into?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Yes but to the point of the addition to my post, he kind of screws the team he got traded too. I have zero sympathy for NHL players who pick their ball up and go home after a trade, don’t jump in if you don’t like the risks.

We are constantly told that hockey is a business and good people get left behind/screwed over, and when a person whos subject to this takes matters into his own hand, we have no sympathy? I dont really subscribe to this myself

[Split98]

Originally Posted by stone hands

We are constantly told that hockey is a business and good people get left behind/screwed over, and when a person whos subject to this takes matters into his own hand, we have no sympathy? I dont really subscribe to this myself

I'm not too fond of the business chewing up good people either, but I've always thought the Flames did a good job of keeping good guys around IMO. We need a lot more of that in the league.

But... what matter is it, exactly, that you think Berglund is taking into his own hands?
I don't have sympathy for players who don't like trades, no.

I remember Jeff Carter being traded a few months after re-upping with the Flyers, and his new contract included a NTC. I thought that was a pretty poor move by Holmgren, but he doesn't exactly have a great reputation of being a 'good guy'. I think Armstrong will end up looking pretty scummy when this is all said and done as well (he damn well knew that Buffalo was going to be on that list) but Berglund held the cards in preventing this if it was so important to him.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Perhaps Berglund understands the principle of "enough"

He's made over 20 million USD, this is enough money for him to retire in extreme comfort and to fund many future generations. An extra 12 million would be cool but...is it really necessary if he has to slog through something his heart isn't into?

So if you hire a contractor for $17,000 to re-wire your home... and he decides that $10,000 worth of work was all he considered 'enough'... you're good if he decides that finishing the job just doesn't do it for him anymore?

"$10,000 is enough for me, and my heart really isn't into it anymore. Upstairs is also a little drafty... so I don't feel like slogging through the rest of it"

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'm not sure anyone is attacking the player?


More like bewilderment at leaving that much green on the table simply because you aren't enjoying yourself. I would gladly pull an Oilers sweater over my head and smile about it for $12.5MM.

Someone had said it was scummy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Any word on whether the Blues will have to give Buffalo compensation?

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Split98

So if you hire a contractor for $17,000 to re-wire your home... and he decides that $10,000 worth of work was all he considered 'enough'... you're good if he decides that finishing the job just doesn't do it for him anymore?

"$10,000 is enough for me, and my heart really isn't into it anymore. Upstairs is also a little drafty... so I don't feel like slogging through the rest of it"

Not the same situation at all.

I encountered a closer situation to this in my personal career, admittedly the money differs by a few factors of 10...

I started with a company in a position that had me at home almost every night. My contract ran through 2020. It was good work and I enjoyed it. The work location changed suddenly and I was then based out of a small town working a 5 days on 2 days off schedule living out of a hotel.

I still really enjoyed the work but in time the travel became something I could not manage, even though I was being more than fairly compensated for the work I was doing and wasn't going out of pocket to travel to and from work.

I found another job that had me home every night and terminated my contract. Should I have stuck it out until the contract ran out or was I fair in moving to a different company in the same industry that had a preferable living arrangement for me?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Split98

So if you hire a contractor for $17,000 to re-wire your home... and he decides that $10,000 worth of work was all he considered 'enough'... you're good if he decides that finishing the job just doesn't do it for him anymore?

"$10,000 is enough for me, and my heart really isn't into it anymore. Upstairs is also a little drafty... so I don't feel like slogging through the rest of it"

Not quite. Say you hire a nanny for your children on a three year contract for 50k a year. two years in she says "i'm moving away from Calgary, I can't be your nanny anymore" are you going to say "suck it up and fulfill your contract".

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Not the same situation at all.

I encountered a closer situation to this in my personal career, admittedly the money differs by a few factors of 10...

I started with a company in a position that had me at home almost every night. My contract ran through 2020. It was good work and I enjoyed it. The work location changed suddenly and I was then based out of a small town working a 5 days on 2 days off schedule living out of a hotel.

I still really enjoyed the work but in time the travel became something I could not manage, even though I was being more than fairly compensated for the work I was doing and wasn't going out of pocket to travel to and from work.

I found another job that had me home every night and terminated my contract. Should I have stuck it out until the contract ran out or was I fair in moving to a different company in the same industry that had a preferable living arrangement for me?

Was the location change and the hotel life a part of the contract you were agreeing to? If so, I get where you're coming from... but you know full well in hindsight that you were handsomely compensated for something you weren't willing to fulfill.

It was likely not something you or your employer were considering and forward about while you signed the contract... and such a change is a pretty good reason to need an adjustment. I've had contracts terminated and adjusted in work I've done as well, and only a handful of times was it 'scummy' and not just a change in plans we have to adjust for.

I'm only answering "NHL Player is a normal job" with an example. I personally don't think they're very relatable at all.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Split98

I'm not too fond of the business chewing up good people either, but I've always thought the Flames did a good job of keeping good guys around IMO. We need a lot more of that in the league.

But... what matter is it, exactly, that you think Berglund is taking into his own hands?
I don't have sympathy for players who don't like trades, no.

I remember Jeff Carter being traded a few months after re-upping with the Flyers, and his new contract included a NTC. I thought that was a pretty poor move by Holmgren, but he doesn't exactly have a great reputation of being a 'good guy'. I think Armstrong will end up looking pretty scummy when this is all said and done as well (he damn well knew that Buffalo was going to be on that list) but Berglund held the cards in preventing this if it was so important to him.

What he's taking into his own hands is his own personal freedom. If he has enough money in the bank to not need to work ever again, and is in a situation where he is working doing something he doesn't enjoy, why would he keep working? It makes no sense for him to be forced to play out a situation that doesnt benefit him in any way, and doesn't benefit the team or his teammates to have a guy around who clearly does not value playing for the franchise

This + the pretense that he is in a performance based industry where people can lose their livelyhoods on a whim, and I have no sympathy for the teams, especially when the terms surrounding his playing in buffalo is based on a clerical error(regardless of who is at fault)

[Split98]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Not quite. Say you hire a nanny for your children on a three year contract for 50k a year. two years in she says "i'm moving away from Calgary, I can't be your nanny anymore" are you going to say "suck it up and fulfill your contract".

It sounds like I'd have been hiring that nanny to work in that home, no?

If we asked Berglund to play in South Africa, that might be a similar example. But the National Hockey League has included Buffalo as long as Berglund has been in the NHL.

In your example, the kids didn't normally want to play in the living room... but now they do, and the nanny refuses to watch them in the living room.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by stone hands

What he's taking into his own hands is his own personal freedom. If he has enough money in the bank to not need to work ever again, and is in a situation where he is working doing something he doesn't enjoy, why would he keep working? It makes no sense for him to be forced to play out a situation that doesnt benefit him in any way, and doesn't benefit the team or his teammates to have a guy around who clearly does not value playing for the franchise

This + the pretense that he is in a performance based industry where people can lose their livelyhoods on a whim, and I have no sympathy for the teams, especially when the terms surrounding his playing in buffalo is based on a clerical error(regardless of who is at fault)

Because he signed a contract.

[stone hands]

the penalty for breaking the contract is he doesnt get paid

he's very clearly okay with this

would you want to keep a player on your roster who hates playing for you so much he would rather burn 12 million dollars than eat popcorn? i sure wouldn't

[transplant99]

No organization wants a guy on their team that doesn't want to be there, regardless of the reason/circumstances.

In these cases usually a trade is agreed upon to rectify the situation.

Buffalo likely tried this route and why Berglund was out with "illness", they didn't find any bites for the player, so have mutually agreed to part ways.

Seems reasonable on all fronts.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by stone hands

the penalty for breaking the contract is he doesnt get paid

he's very clearly okay with this

would you want to keep a player on your roster who hates playing for you so much he would rather burn 12 million dollars than eat popcorn? i sure wouldn't

Whole separate issue entirely IMO. I don't have much time for players who sulk their way throught the season either.

To be clear: if I was a Buffalo fan, I'd be happy he's leaving. But Berglund, IMO, is not in the right doing what he's doing.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Legally probably very difficult to enforce, but I think there should be a term in the collective agreement that protects the teams from this type of move from a player (understood the players would have 0 motivation to agree to such a thing). I think rather than be forced into the stalemate pissing match of simply not releasing the player and getting into a who will blink first on wasting years, just make it like an offer sheet.

In scenarios where a team terminated a players contract because of failure to report or the players request, the next NHL team that signs him has to deal with offer sheet type compensation based on the size of the contract. Gives the team some compensation for the asset loss, but likely makes it risky for the player to walk away from the NHL contract he signed knowing the teams that are going to sign him will have assets to give up on top of salary, likely driving his next contract way down. Making the decision to pull something like this versus working with your team and either staying or allowing them to trade for close to fair value far more likely.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Legally probably very difficult to enforce, but I think there should be a term in the collective agreement that protects the teams from this type of move from a player (understood the players would have 0 motivation to agree to such a thing). I think rather than be forced into the stalemate pissing match of simply not releasing the player and getting into a who will blink first on wasting years, just make it like an offer sheet.

In scenarios where a team terminated a players contract because of failure to report or the players request, the next NHL team that signs him has to deal with offer sheet type compensation based on the size of the contract. Gives the team some compensation for the asset loss, but likely makes it risky for the player to walk away from the NHL contract he signed knowing the teams that are going to sign him will have assets to give up on top of salary, likely driving his next contract way down. Making the decision to pull something like this versus working with your team and either staying or allowing them to trade for close to fair value far more likely.

Is this significant enough of a problem to make changes to the CBA? I don't recall another instance like this occurring in recent memory, if ever.

I am mystified that some people are as upset as they are about Berglund's decision here.