[Rumour] UPD: Flames are done for the day. Zucker deal does not go through

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Screwing up this deal and the Lucic signing has certainly tarnished Treliving’s resume.

With who? Fans on a message board? Fact is, it takes 2 to make a deal. Zucker is on record saying

a) he didn't want to leave
b) he's glad the trade never happened

For all we know he sulks his way to Calgary and becomes a distraction. We'll never know, but why bring over a player who has zero desire to be here?

If this Zucker thing and the Lucic deal tarnish his resume, then guiding a team to a 2nd overall place in the entire league certainly counter that. I'm willing to live with the occasional mishaps here and there (like all GMs have) if it means the team is good on the ice.

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by Bingo

By fans ... it comes up a lot here and on twitter about being healthy scratched all season, and Peters didn't like him, etc.

It was two games ...

In total ice time for the season he was sixth for forwards. If you look at January 1st on he was 3rd in total ice time, and 5th in ice time per game.

Fair enough. I get the impression that for most fans, the agent response was the bigger issue than the scratches themselves, but your description of events focussed on the hockey decisions without mentioning the agent response.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

Fair enough. I get the impression that for most fans, the agent response was the bigger issue than the scratches themselves, but your description of events focussed on the hockey decisions without mentioning the agent response.

His agent is a tool ... no doubt about it. Frolik seems to be a good guy that looks to have been disappointed with his deployment and likely was shocked when his agent blew things up.

But yeah I was speaking more to the suggestion that Frolik was scratched often etc.

Wasn't the case.

[Freeway]

I guarantee you, Frolik spoke with the coach about usage, then his agent talked to the GM about usage and when neither worked, Frolik allowed the agent to go public. No way Walsh sneezes without his client's say-so.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I guarantee you, Frolik spoke with the coach about usage, then his agent talked to the GM about usage and when neither worked, Frolik allowed the agent to go public. No way Walsh sneezes without his client's say-so.

Hmm, you're suggesting the agent works for frolik?

I dunno, frolik seems like a nice guy.

[shogged]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Zucker is on record saying

a) he didn't want to leave
b) he's glad the trade never happened

Ok but everyone says that lol. It’s not like he’s gonna come out and trash the team he still has a contract with.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Hmm, you're suggesting the agent works for frolik?

I dunno, frolik seems like a nice guy.

I wish we had the opposite of a "thanks" button sometimes.

Or even just a "pissy" buzzer that we can apply to certain posts from time to time.

So tiresome.

I have little doubt how the chain of command works, but there is certainly room to wonder how much of what Walsh, one of the most bombastic agents ... who am I kidding, the most bombastic agent in the circuit was told to say and what he decided to put out there.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I wish we had the opposite of a "thanks" button sometimes.

Or even just a "pissy" buzzer that we can apply to certain posts from time to time.

So tiresome.

I have little doubt how the chain of command works, but there is certainly room to wonder how much of what Walsh, one of the most bombastic agents ... who am I kidding, the most bombastic agent in the circuit was told to say and what he decided to put out there.

Yes. As a lawyer I can tell you that sometimes I am told exactly what to say and how to say it, but most of the time I can use my own methods to express my client's point of view. And agents have more distinct advantages over their clients than I often do. My clients are often as educated as me, but that's usually not the case with players. I suspect they accept their agents advice unquestioningly.

ETA: some posters say "it's his job to advocate for his client". Yes, but I doubt going to twitter is an effective means of advocating. Twitter readers have no decision making power and I seriously doubt his tweets caused some sort of fan backlash in favour of Frolik.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I wish we had the opposite of a "thanks" button sometimes.

Or even just a "pissy" buzzer that we can apply to certain posts from time to time.

So tiresome.

I have little doubt how the chain of command works, but there is certainly room to wonder how much of what Walsh, one of the most bombastic agents ... who am I kidding, the most bombastic agent in the circuit was told to say and what he decided to put out there.

So then when he did it again less than a week after frolik and Peter's commented publicly on it, it was just more rogue agent stuff?

There is looking at something 'glass half full' and then there is what you're doing here.

When a guy's agent blasts off, the media interview the guy who says you'll have to talk to my agent, and then the agent blasts off again and continues to represent the player, what do you think that means, man?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So then when he did it again less than a week after frolik and Peter's commented publicly on it, it was just more rogue agent stuff?

There is looking at something 'glass half full' and then there is what you're doing here.

When a guy's agent blasts off, the media interview the guy who says you'll have to talk to my agent, and then the agent blasts off again and continues to represent the player, what do you think that means, man?

I don't have a clue, and won't pretend to.

But we do have a player that has a pretty good demeanour and seems to be a team player who has an agent that picks fights almost daily and likes to see himself in the news.

Is it really a stretch that Frolik's suggestion and Walsh's actions weren't perfectly coordinated?

[Flash Walken]

Lol, ok man.

[Strange Brew]

What’s the point of trying to come up with reasons that his agent may have acted without Frolik’s consent? Is it so bad to believe that Frolik was absolutely not happy with how he was used?

As far as I know, he hasn’t replaced his agent nor publicly rebuked him so I’m just going to go ahead and believe that everyone in that locker room can put their big boy pants on and deal with it should Frolik be back.

[cupofjoe]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Lol, ok man.

Take an extra arrogance pill today? Coming off like this doesn't add much to the discussion or your reputation.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Lol, ok man.

When are you going to stop with these arrogant short one liner responses?

You're not really laughing out loud, and if you are you're insane.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What’s the point of trying to come up with reasons that his agent may have acted without Frolik’s consent? Is it so bad to believe that Frolik was absolutely not happy with how he was used?

As far as I know, he hasn’t replaced his agent nor publicly rebuked him so I’m just going to go ahead and believe that everyone in that locker room can put their big boy pants on and deal with it should Frolik be back.

Not trying to come up with reasons at all.

But internally it's a bid divider between bringing him back if you can't find a Brodie for a winger deal and not.

Case A - Frolik very very unhappy and disgruntled in the dressing room.
Case B - Frolik unhappy, mentions that to his agent, and the agent takes it further than he intended.

[Flash Walken]

Case C) what actually happened: frolik unhappy with usage, complains to team, agent talks to tre, no positive outcome for client, agent blows up org on twitter suggest coach trying to run him out of town, media ask player, player refers to agent, agent does the same thing again a few days later, organization tries but fails to move disgruntled player off roster at trade deadline, subsequently rumoured to be moved during the off-season.

BUT guy who owns fan message board considers player demeanor 'good', so not sure whether to take reality at face value or concoct scenario absolving player while vilifying agent. Unexplained why player would still have rogue agent as representative after publicly going off message twice, but deemed unimportant.

[SportsJunky]

Can’t it be both? Maybe it was on message and then Frolik changed his mind and wanted to be a good soldier. Remember when George Costanza quit his job and then showed up for work the next day?

[cupofjoe]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Case C) what actually happened: frolik unhappy with usage, complains to team, agent talks to tre, no positive outcome for client, agent blows up org on twitter suggest coach trying to run him out of town, media ask player, player refers to agent, agent does the same thing again a few days later, organization tries but fails to move disgruntled player off roster at trade deadline, subsequently rumoured to be moved during the off-season.

BUT guy who owns fan message board considers player demeanor 'good', so not sure whether to take reality at face value or concoct scenario absolving player while vilifying agent. Unexplained why player would still have rogue agent as representative after publicly going off message twice, but deemed unimportant.

Not sure why you have it out for the 'guy who owns fan message board', I find Bingo quite reasonable in his opinions and for his responses to those who have contrarian views.

[MikePatton]

Can you guys *feel* the sexual tension in this discussion?

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Case C) what actually happened: frolik unhappy with usage, complains to team, agent talks to tre, no positive outcome for client, agent blows up org on twitter suggest coach trying to run him out of town, media ask player, player refers to agent, agent does the same thing again a few days later, organization tries but fails to move disgruntled player off roster at trade deadline, subsequently rumoured to be moved during the off-season.

BUT guy who owns fan message board considers player demeanor 'good', so not sure whether to take reality at face value or concoct scenario absolving player while vilifying agent. Unexplained why player would still have rogue agent as representative after publicly going off message twice, but deemed unimportant.

When did it get so personal for you. Man do you have pictures of me on a dart board?

I was just asking a question ... you're inferred the rest.

If he hates the team and wants to move you have to move him. If he was disappointed in the change to his role, handled it with class, the players are good with it, and his agent made it a little bigger than he intended ... there is still a soft landing spot.

The guy with message board paragraph is just puzzling.

"considers" "take reality" "concoct" "absolving" "vilifying" "rogue"

All pretty loaded language and a lot more than I said or am saying. As I said ... getting pretty personal.