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

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Split98

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.

So you think he should be forced to work for someone in some place he doesn't want to?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

I doubt it is enough of an issue to warrant a CBA change. I’ll agree there. I don’t like his move because IMO players know the risks of the job (granteed Sureloss educated me on the nuisance of this particular situation) and don’t think they should get to dictate where they play in the NHL unless they properly negotiate and execute on tgat right. I don’t like the idea of haves and have nots in the league and I feel like California based teams, the New York’s of the world already have enough advantages attracting talent within the rules, let alone when players just start deciding not to honor contracts when they know someone else will just sign them should they choose to screw their existing team.

[Shazam]

Hell I'd work in Buffalo for $12.5 million. But not Edmonton.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Hell I'd work in Buffalo for $12.5 million. But not Edmonton.

You won't have to worry about only getting 12.5... It's Edmonton, they'll pay you 6x6.

[Erick Estrada]

Chris Drury was pretty miserable in Calgary but at least he played out 80 games. He must have really hated Buffalo not to even make it through a season. Kind of crazy he would turn down that money just because he doesn't like the city but I suppose he feels this is what's best. Sucks for Buffalo to lose an asset they traded for.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So you think he should be forced to work for someone in some place he doesn't want to?

In this situation, yes.

Edit: Forced? no. Should he play for the NHL team that acquired him? yes.
I haven't once said anyone should force him to do anything.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So you think he should be forced to work for someone in some place he doesn't want to?

No he shouldn’t have to work in Buffalo if he doesn’t want. But he shouldn’t get to work elsewhere in the NHL then. He can go play in another league if he’s not willing to deal with the realities of the NHL,

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

No he shouldn’t have to work in Buffalo if he doesn’t want. But he shouldn’t get to work elsewhere in the NHL then. He can go play in another league if he’s not willing to deal with the realities of the NHL,

This I can agree with. He shouldn’t be able to play in the league without Buffalos approval.

[Enoch Root]

^ I agree with that.

If he wants to stop playing and go home, that's his choice. But suddenly becoming a free agent, and being able to then sign with any team, that is not fair to Buffalo. If you walked away from your contract, you should be done with the league for the remainder of that contract, or you can rejoin the original team.

[spuzzum]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So you think he should be forced to work for someone in some place he doesn't want to?

I'm not a fan of forcing anyone to do anything against their will. The NHL has a set of business and work rules in place. If he chooses not to accept those rules, he can resign and go play elsewhere around the globe.

Your comment had me thinking - the only real role where you are forced is if you join the military. I don't think you can resign or quit on the spot. Results in jail time for going A-WOL.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Once the contract is terminated it won't count against the cap.

Teams can terminate contracts for breach or for mutual termination.

Some are reporting this as mutual termination meaning the player and the team both agree to terminate the contract. It is rare for a contract with this much value left to get terminated because players usually don't want to walk away from this much money or at least try to force a buyout where they can still get most of the value back.

The Sabres are also in the right to terminate the contract for breach. Failure to report to the team is clear breach of contract. However, in the case of failure to report they have to give the player reasonable time to report after suspending them otherwise it gives the NHLPA a strong grounds to file a grievance.

Wow interesting! Very odd situation, I’m sure this isn’t the last of it

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

^ I agree with that.

If he wants to stop playing and go home, that's his choice. But suddenly becoming a free agent, and being able to then sign with any team, that is not fair to Buffalo. If you walked away from your contract, you should be done with the league for the remainder of that contract, or you can rejoin the original team.

Buffalo isn't being forced to terminate the contract, as far as I can tell. Could they not simply suspend him without pay for refusing to report and not terminate his contract? Would put them in the position of potentially having to accept him back should he decide to show up, but would also let them keep control of whether he can join another team. He's not suddenly becoming a free agent without their consent. They have agreed to terminate his contract.

[sureLoss]

Yes Buffalo can keep him suspended without pay. In that scenario he wouldn't count against the cap nor would the Sabres have to pay him salary. While suspended without pay he can't play for another NHL team nor the IIHF would approve a transfer to a pro European league. He would be locked out of pro hockey until he settles the matter with the Sabres, the contract runs out (assuming the Sabres do not toll the contract), or plays somewhere the IIHF doesn't have authority.

And as Superfraggle points out, if he were to return to the Sabres in this scenario, they would have to resume paying him and take on his cap hit again.

[Geeoff]

It takes a lot of balls to leave that much money on the table. But money isn't everything.


I'd take it as a personal insult if I were the mayor of Buffalo LOL

[Travis Munroe]

Once the contract is terminated, is he not free to sign with another team and recover much of the money being left on the table?

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Once the contract is terminated, is he not free to sign with another team and recover much of the money being left on the table?

Why didn’t luongo do this to get out of his van contract?

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by morgin

Why didn’t luongo do this to get out of his van contract?

He likes money more.

[FlamesAddiction]

It sounds like Buffalo doesn't mind seeing him go. Sucks that they gave up a lot to acquire him though.

[868904]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It sounds like Buffalo doesn't mind seeing him go. Sucks that they gave up a lot to acquire him though.

I really don’t think Buffalo wanted him that bad, he was included probably to offset ROR’s cap hit. The key pieces in the deal for Buffalo were the young assets. Maybe that’s another reason Berglund is upset, a bruised ego.

[Mr.Coffee]

This is going to be a decision Berglund regrets in the long run.