23Likes
mmmcammy
my favorite part about this was all of the tweets calling Parise and Suter "traders"
sigh.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
How so? He didn't necessarily go for the money grab or even the easiest path for a chance at the Stanley Cup but instead made the decision to build something with his home state and exercised his right as a free agent to go where he and his family was most comfortable with. He also reportedly tried to recruit Suter to join him with the Devils.Originally Posted by DRice
He didn't try to force a trade or even went out of his way to prevent his former team from getting assets for him. To compare him to Blake, Cammalleri, or even Kovalchuk is just lazy accusation.
Charley Walters, Pioneer Press (7/7/12)
Suter had just chatted with Parise about the possibility of the pair signing with Nashville, Suter's previous team. But Parise didn't want to go to the Predators.
Parise in turn asked Suter if he would be willing to play for Parise's former team, New Jersey. But Suter said that didn't interest him.
Then Suter and Parise discussed the possibility of signing long-term deals with Minnesota and trying to make the Wild a bona fide Stanley Cup contender.
Suter told Sheehy about their new mind-sets. Parise and Suter, both 27, no longer were thinking about going separate ways. They were thinking about going to Minnesota together.
Their agents went to work on deals that would end up as 13-year guaranteed contracts for $98 million each that included $10 million signing bonuses.
The contracts, including the signing bonuses, average $7.5 million
annually. Had the agents for Suter and Parise pressed for more individually, it's a good bet they could have driven up the price to an average of nearly $9 million apiece over 13 years.
Those deals would have approached $117 million. But with the NHL's $70.4 million salary cap, they would have made it nearly impossible for the Wild to acquire an adequate supporting cast on the ice.
Also, believe it or not, Suter and Parise actually wanted their contracts to be under $100 million so as to avoid the stigma of becoming nine-figure personalities. Ninety-eight million dollars, they figured, is plenty for anyone.
So according to that article their loyalties were only with themselves. They didn't care where they went as long as it was together. So at the molecular level, it's the same: Selfish decisions made for selfish reasons.
And you say they didn't force their former teams from getting assets? What exactly did NJ and Nashville get out of them walking? If anything it's WORSE than Blake and Cammalleri. They both completely screwed their former teams out of ANY assets. At least the Kings got something out of Blake and Cammalleri.
Did you see the title of the article? They didn't start out wanting to do that but decided to make the most out of their respective situations. If you had paid attention to his interviews leading up to his decision, he said a lot of factors went into his decisions including what was best for his family. So you're saying his fulfilling his obligations to his family over his loyalty to his first NHL club makes him selfish? He even took less money to do what he felt was the right thing. You certainly have a skewed definition of selfish.
He told the Devils upfront during the season that he was going to follow-through with his free agency so you can't blame him for the Devils' unwillingness to deal him when they had the chance especially when there were plenty of suitors. He exercised his earned right to pursue free agency. Blame the Devils for not reading the signs. Meanwhile Rob Blake left the Kings the first time because he wanted to be paid like Chris Pronger, who had proven himself more than Blake at the time, then returned only to refuse to waive his no-trade clause that prevented the Kings from getting reportedly Evgeni Nabokov from San Jose, where he eventually signed in the off-season. This eventually led to DL's ill-advised gamble on Dan Cloutier.
Cammalleri weaselly sulked his way out of L.A. while he was contractually obligated to the Kings to get an overpaid contract extension from Calgary that he's never lived up to, whereas Parise just helped lead his now former team as captain to the Stanley Cup Finals.
Yet you can't see the difference between them and Parise? If you're going to hate the man without reason, admit it, but how he handled his situation was much better than how the aforementioned former Kings handled their respective departures.
Of course, it's easier for me to say since Parise didn't leave the Kings but I think I'm being fair in my assessment. After all, you won't see me holding a grudge against Luc Robitaille.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
