Anonymous player upset with how Blues handled Nick Leddy situation

[b-a-a-a-rclay]

Reportedly DA and Monty talk about every player move. Wouldn't a reasonable person think that Monty has his finger on the pulse of the locker room? Do you think a young player like Tucker has a problem with Leddy being moved? It's probably not a bummer for younger players seeing declining players being moved out to make more opportunity for the next wave.

[a smell of green grass]

Armstrong would have waived his mother. And his grandmother.

No doubt. The only person that gets a pass around here is Army.

[a smell of green grass]

Reportedly DA and Monty talk about every player move. Wouldn't a reasonable person think that Monty has his finger on the pulse of the locker room? Do you think a young player like Tucker has a problem with Leddy being moved? It's probably not a bummer for younger players seeing declining players being moved out to make more opportunity for the next wave.

I can't imagine that Saad being "sent down to the minors" to push him out caused any distrust among the players.

I can't imagine that Leddy having a no-trade, but not a no-move caused any distrust either.

Truth:
The players distrust Army as much as ASOGG.

[SRV1990]

Armstrong would have waived his mother. And his grandmother.

And I'd be absolutely fine with either or both moves if it meant improving the team, which is his job. Bye bye granny!

[b-a-a-a-rclay]

Army is a horrible GM because he brings in vets. Army is also a horrible GM when he moves out vets to make room for younger talent. Army is horrible any time he does anything. And he is horrible when he doesn't do anything. This is a reasonable way to think and if you don't agree, you are blind.

[b-a-a-a-rclay]

Reportedly DA and Monty talk about every player move. Wouldn't a reasonable person think that Monty has his finger on the pulse of the locker room? Do you think a young player like Tucker has a problem with Leddy being moved? It's probably not a bummer for younger players seeing declining players being moved out to make more opportunity for the next wave.

I can't imagine that Saad being "sent down to the minors" to push him out caused any distrust among the players.

I can't imagine that Leddy having a no-trade, but not a no-move caused any distrust either.

Truth:
The players distrust Army as much as ASOGG.

Obviously the culture around the team tanked after Saad was let go.

[DawgDad]

...this is a business first, doug has a responsibility to the team not the individual....

Army to the team:
It's business first around here, guys, and I got into the business first. You're last. You get the short leash, the shaft, and the blame.

So just when the "team culture" was up-ticking in the locker room, Army takes a pee on one of the lockers.

Smellyass its a business first is that way for all teams. WHy do you cry like a baby.

Don't kill the messenger. I'm just making sure that BluesTalkers don't lose sight of the fact that this is the players talking. Leddy is gone, and he may not even care that much. But there are a lot of guys in the locker room that are now asking their agents to read all the fine print in their contracts. Just relying on what Army tells you is not the whole story.

You KNOW this HOW?

Sheesh, this is precisely the kind of thing that underlies my view on anonymous sources (see my post above).

[a smell of green grass]

Not a day goes by that I am not amazed by the size of the PASS that Army gets on BluesTalk.

Today, a player being upset about a contract backstab is nothing but a nothing-burger.

[Hooking]

Why do people get upset when:

Team + Player agree to contract.
Team executes contract.
Player upset.


It's like if you sign a contract with a bank that says you get your monthly maintenance fee waived on your account for one year then after that one year you get upset that they started charging you a fee.


I rarely ever feel bad for a player in this kind of situation. I really like Leddy too and bummed he is gone because I am a fan of the stay-at-home D-man and think it really fits the Blues style of play. However the contract is what the contract is. Now he can go get millions to play hockey in California.

Sorry but not sorry?

[LGB73]

I would guess said player probably isn't upset when a player exercises their contractual rights. Not too concerned on this one, if players don't want this to be an option for a team then negotiate a no move clause. If that costs them dollars on what a team will risk, then thats the player's decision to weigh dollars vs control.

[DawgDad]

Why do people get upset when:

Team + Player agree to contract.
Team executes contract.
Player upset.


I rarely ever feel bad for a player in this kind of situation. I really like Leddy too and bummed he is gone because I am a fan of the stay-at-home D-man and think it really fits the Blues style of play. However the contract is what the contract is. Now he can go get millions to play hockey in California.

Sorry but not sorry?

Yeah. The only thing I would add is a player shouldn't be running to Elliotte Friedman with a grievance, IF that really ever happened.

[a smell of green grass]

Why do people get upset when:

Team + Player agree to contract.
Team executes contract.
Player upset.


I rarely ever feel bad for a player in this kind of situation. I really like Leddy too and bummed he is gone because I am a fan of the stay-at-home D-man and think it really fits the Blues style of play. However the contract is what the contract is. Now he can go get millions to play hockey in California.

Sorry but not sorry?

Yeah. The only thing I would add is a player shouldn't be running to Elliotte Friedman with a grievance, IF that really ever happened.

ASOGG feels the players pain today.

They thought they had a no-trade, but that is not the same as a no-move.

I thought that I was hanging with Blue Collar guys, and I'm in here with Management types.

[Hooking]

Why do people get upset when:

Team + Player agree to contract.
Team executes contract.
Player upset.


I rarely ever feel bad for a player in this kind of situation. I really like Leddy too and bummed he is gone because I am a fan of the stay-at-home D-man and think it really fits the Blues style of play. However the contract is what the contract is. Now he can go get millions to play hockey in California.

Sorry but not sorry?

Yeah. The only thing I would add is a player shouldn't be running to Elliotte Friedman with a grievance, IF that really ever happened.

Very much agree!

[STL fan in MN]

This was already discussed a week ago when Friedman actually said it but here’s the crux of it:

"This particular player was kind of bothered that that end-around still existed."

This tells me this player doesn’t like that this mechanism within the CBA still exists. And he’s not furious. He’s “kind of bothered” by it.

So maybe a player a little disgruntled with the new CBA and was hoping the PA would’ve gotten more concessions? Idk. But to me, this is also a player most likely just complaining and not actually thinking about it logically. I mean, what would the actual solution be to prevent this “end-around”? Only teams not on a player’s NTC can claim him if he’s put on waivers? That’d effectively give every player with a NTC a NMC. The league would never ever ever ever agree to something like that. To me, this complaint doesn’t really even make any logical sense…but it’s also not uncommon for our grumbles to be nonsensical sometimes.

Don’t like it? Then negotiate a NMC into your contract. Or don’t let your game deteriorate to where you’re replaced and the GM wants to waive you.

Army did his job. Didn’t do anything wrong. Leddy still gets his $3M and gets to live next to the ocean. He’ll be fine. Tons and tons of players bounce around a lot at the end if their careers.

[DoneLurking]

Why do people get upset when:

Team + Player agree to contract.
Team executes contract.
Player upset.


I rarely ever feel bad for a player in this kind of situation. I really like Leddy too and bummed he is gone because I am a fan of the stay-at-home D-man and think it really fits the Blues style of play. However the contract is what the contract is. Now he can go get millions to play hockey in California.

Sorry but not sorry?

Yeah. The only thing I would add is a player shouldn't be running to Elliotte Friedman with a grievance, IF that really ever happened.

ASOGG feels the players pain today.

They thought they had a no-trade, but that is not the same as a no-move.

I thought that I was hanging with Blue Collar guys, and I'm in here with Management types.

The pretend hill that you're dying on today is that Leddy didn't know that his no-trade clause meant he could be waived?

This forum needs better trolls.

[sdaltons]

There is no indication this player is on the Blues. Obviously they could be, but it could be any player upset about the "loophole" as it were. I agree with MN that they are upset/bothered/whatever with the rule as written in the CBA.

But honestly if you agree to a deal that doesn't include a NMC, you should understand you could get moved. Be better and you'll probably earn the NMC in the future. If you then use your NTC to block a trade, be better and it will stick.

I am guessing the Blues were getting basically nothing from the Sharks in the agreed upon trade, which made just giving him away easier to swallow. If you are good enough that a trade would bring a serious return, the team isn't going to opt for this path once you block the deal.

And it's fine if players find this loophole bothersome. They and their agents also work any loopholes they can find, sometimes to the detriment of their team. Just like anything in life, the sides can work to eliminate this possibility in a future CBA, but someone will inevitably come up with a new one.