Jonathan Marchessault feels burnt by Vegas

[HanSolo]

Yeah I think in the realm of reasonability I think it's fair that Vegas didn't want to offer a contract to a guy that will pay him into age 39. Marchessault is at an age where he's probably going to start regressing as early as this year.

As is, I think with the exodus of so many core players and the utter lack of futures, the days of the VGK being the same cutthroat team they have been are numbered.

 

[Waterbuf]

Players almost never show loyalty and take less, why should teams.

 

[Sega Dreamcast]

"There's definitely no loyalty but, at the same time, you're there to win. I don't mind that mindset, personally," Marchessault said.

Does that sound like someone who "feels burnt"?

OP is pushing a nonsense narrative.

 

[Machinehead]

I understand why Vegas gets criticism for some of their dealings in the past, but in this case, the player was out of a contract and they elected not to sign a new one. What did they do wrong?

 

[WhataKnight]

Losing March hurt as much as it did because he was an impact player for us……but I can understand Foley not wanting to have someone occupying $5M that close to age 40.

 

[JPT]

Yet another instance of something said on podcast being taken out-of-context for clickbait and forced controversy.

Marchessault sheds light on failed contract talks with Golden Knights

Jonathan Marchessault has revealed more about his final discussions with the Golden Knights before the two sides parted ways in July.

www.sportsnet.ca

Sports "journalism" is almost always nothing more than finding a storyline to push.

 

[Caps8112]

"There's definitely no loyalty but, at the same time, you're there to win. I don't mind that mindset, personally," Marchessault said.

Does that sound like someone who "feels burnt"?

OP is pushing a nonsense narrative.

not really. He clearly didnt take the high road. He can be right and still gain a negative image by saying that. Do you think Patrice Bergeron would have said that or just stay classy and move on with your life.

 

[First Line]

"There's definitely no loyalty but, at the same time, you're there to win. I don't mind that mindset, personally," Marchessault said.

Does that sound like someone who "feels burnt"?

OP is pushing a nonsense narrative.

Sounds like my wife when she says: “I don’t mind, it’s fine!” Thats how I know I’m sleeping on the couch tonight.

 

[BagHead]

The only way I have a problem with them letting him walk is if they strung him along and made him think he'd be staying. I need that qualifier because of the next paragraph.

I wish the Wild would start operating the way VGK does. I understand these guys are people, but if a team wants to be viable it needs to win (more true for some franchise locations than others), and to win it needs to not get too tied to its players. Bill Guerin, I'm talking to you directly. It can't overpay its players, it can't keep players past their expiration dates, and it can't get overly hopeful about its prospects.

This isn't a family, it's a team.

 

[1specter]

Players almost never show loyalty and take less, why should teams.

bit of a chicken and egg scenario here me thinks

 

[Nogatco Rd]

I got burnt by Vegas once, antibiotics cleared it up though

 

[Voight]

Dudes been there since day one and seen them do this to countless other players including fellow misfits so did he really think it wasn't going to happen to him?

 

[Super Cake]

Guy who already made millions complains about not making more millions.

I would love to see some of these hockey guys get placed into the shoes of a worker who makes a little more than minimum wage. I swear some of them wouldn't last a day.

 

[NotTheRocketman]

LeopardsEatingFaces.jpg

 

[Anglesmith]

The owners installed the salary cap, not the players. The players job is not to manage the cap. They have no say in how any extra cap space from their "hometown discount" is spent. It's all theoretical that giving up millions of dollars will somehow benefit them.

You can make an emotional argument that owners and GMs do owe players something for all their sacrifice and you can make an emotional argument that giving up millions of dollars benefits players. But ultimately it's a business. That works both ways.

It's silly for fans to hold players to some extra obligation to do what's best for the team and not the ownership and management.

Fans do hold owners and management to the obligation to do what is best for the team. That is basically all fans care about.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Fans do hold owners and management to the obligation to do what is best for the team. That is basically all fans care about.

They expect players to sacrifice personal income for "the good of the team." They mostly expect owners and management to do their jobs well.

 

[Suntouchable13]

They expect players to sacrifice personal income for "the good of the team." They mostly expect owners and management to do their jobs well.

They should know that they need to sacrifice some if they want to win. This is a team sport, not an office job. It’s not like fans expect them to play for league minimum either.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

They should know that they need to sacrifice some if they want to win. This is a team sport, not an office job. It’s not like fans expect them to play for league minimum either.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[BLONG7]

There’s something funny about Marchessault being surprised at this. He’s watched Vegas do this to his teammates for years. Why would he be surprised it happened to him next?

Honestly I don’t even blame Vegas. Marchessault is turning 34 in December and wanted a 4 year deal? It’s reasonable to walk away from that.

This.....................someone should let him know the aging process is a privledge.
Poor guy.....

 

[Tie Domi Esquire]

The owners installed the salary cap, not the players.

The players had a say in the matter. Still do.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Win the Vezina in Vegas and get your ass shipped out that same summer.
Win the Conn Smythe in Vegas and you walk out the door as if you're an easily replaceable part.

I wonder what's next.

 

[JPT]

There are still a bunch of people posting their opinions despite clearly not having read the remarks that were actually made.

 

[Neutrinos]

Last night's candlelight vigil for Marchessault's feelings...

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

The players had a say in the matter. Still do.

right and were vehemently opposed to it. Now some people expect them to give up their already artificially restricted salary "for the good of the team."

It's the GM's job to manage the cap, not the players. if they have an issue with it they should take it up with the owners to lobby for some sort of soft cap.

 

[Tie Domi Esquire]

right and were vehemently opposed to it. Now some people expect them to give up their already artificially restricted salary "for the good of the team."

It's the GM's job to manage the cap, not the players. if they have an issue with it they should take it up with the owners to lobby for some sort of soft cap.

They weren't vehemently opposed or else they wouldn't have agreed to it. Or they would've done something about it in the 20 years since.

It's objectively true that taking less money gives the team a better chance to win, arguing otherwise is ignorant. The GM's job is to win, just like the players.

You're asking fans to do the job of the players. Next you'll want the fans to score the goals too. If the players have a problem with the cap, as you pretend they do, then they can do something about it. You know, the people with actual incentive and power to do something. Surely the NHLPA reps like Frank Vatrano and Connor Murphy can rally the boys to fight the power like you.