Jonathan Marchessault feels burnt by Vegas

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

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.

It took losing an entire season of hockey to get them to agree with it. And then another half season when the owners racheted down the cap. Your reasoning does not hold up.

And someone stating things that are "objective facts" that actually aren't, phrases like "arguing otherwise is ignorant," and strawmen about fans scoring goals, isn't worth having a discussion with.

Enjoy your "facts."

 

[Tie Domi Esquire]

It took losing an entire season of hockey to get them to agree with it. And then another half season when the owners racheted down the cap. Your reasoning does not hold up.

And someone stating things that are "objective facts" that actually aren't, phrases like "arguing otherwise is ignorant," and strawmen about fans scoring goals, isn't worth having a discussion with.

Enjoy your "facts."

They lost a season and then chose to agree to lose the salary cap. It's called the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It's a negotiation that the players aren't willing to win, crying about it and doing nothing about it is pointless.

It's like when you said, "if they have an issue with it they should take it up with the owners to lobby for some sort of soft cap." That's not in any way the responsibility of fans. It's not a strawman or a stretch to say that you would also expect the fans to score goals. You want them to act like NHLPA members, so why not?

And yes, players having a lower cap hit gives their team a better chance to win. Objective reality seems like a tough topic for some folks.

 

[PaulD]

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.

Heard his Gm on Gord Stellick radio show. Marsh wanted 4 years. Knights offered 3.
He found 4 year deal elsewhere and left.
Wtf is anyone dumping on the Knights for.
I'll tell you why .....pure envy. Of a great
championship winning organization!

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Players signing with Vegas simply have to accept it isn't some family market but a business relationship. They'll pay you handsomely but cast you aside should it helps the business. Plenty of guys are going to be okay with that because money. If they aren't, you have 31 other teams to chose.

As for Marchessault, specifically. Dude's 34 and essentially wanted a retirement contract at top dollar. There's no reason for Vegas to sign him to that outside "loyalty".

 

[TheBeard]

Vegas is going to have to honesty think about changing how they do business, not because of the sour taste it leaves in players mouths but because it's an unsustainable business model for success. It worked as long as it did because of the plethora of picks they were able to use to build a core, but that core is aging and there's very little in the pipelines to compensate. The fact all they could do this offseason is buy low on lotto scratchers like Holtz is pretty indicative of the early stages of that change. It's gonna get worse before it gets better, Knights fans.

 

[Shocker]

Rather misleading title and the OP.

Look, i don't like the Golden Knights, like any normal person, but this is a nothingburger.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Players signing with Vegas simply have to accept it isn't some family market but a business relationship. They'll pay you handsomely but cast you aside should it helps the business. Plenty of guys are going to be okay with that because money. If they aren't, you have 31 other teams to chose.

As for Marchessault, specifically. Dude's 34 and essentially wanted a retirement contract at top dollar. There's no reason for Vegas to sign him to that outside "loyalty".

For a guy who had been there from the jump and saw how they conduct business over the last 6 years - to be salty now is the height of hypocrisy. Did they "take care" of MAF? Reilly Smith? Schmidt? All those guys were cut loose when it was necessary because the organization felt they had a better option to compete, but the Knights should treat you like a special snowflake. IMO, offering JM a 3 year deal was doing him a solid. If felt like had to leave to get a 4th year guaranteed now - that's a "JM" issue - not a LV issue.

 

[shakes the clown]

Getting burnt in Vegas is no joke. I once went there late May for a weekend. Being young and dumb at the time I decided to fast track the sun tan process by applying sun tan oil. Needless to say, it didn't take long for 2nd degree sun burn to show up complete with bubbled skin. Not a fun way to finish the weekend.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

They lost a season and then chose to agree to lose the salary cap. It's called the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It's a negotiation that the players aren't willing to win, crying about it and doing nothing about it is pointless.

It's like when you said, "if they have an issue with it they should take it up with the owners to lobby for some sort of soft cap." That's not in any way the responsibility of fans. It's not a strawman or a stretch to say that you would also expect the fans to score goals. You want them to act like NHLPA members, so why not?

And yes, players having a lower cap hit gives their team a better chance to win. Objective reality seems like a tough topic for some folks.

It's not that it's a tough topic. It's that there's really no point in discussing things with people who are under the delusion that their opinion is "objective reality."

 

[Zalos]

Was kind of weird to see Vegas trade the player I most associate with their team. I wonder what impact this will have on them this season.

 

[Fatass]

Was kind of weird to see Vegas trade the player I most associate with their team. I wonder what impact this will have on them this season.

Wasn’t he a UFA? I think they just didn’t want him so he left to another club. All Vegas got was cap space. Which, of course, has value.

 

[Tie Domi Esquire]

It's not that it's a tough topic. It's that there's really no point in discussing things with people who are under the delusion that their opinion is "objective reality."

Each team has the same amount of limited dollars to pay players. Spending less on individual pieces is better than spending more. I guess this is an alien concept in the land of sunshine and rainbows where the salary cap will go away if the fans ask nicely.

 

[Anglesmith]

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

Both owners and players are expected to invest in the success of the team. I don't think there is an imbalance there. Owners get criticized if they run a team to maximize profit. Players get criticized if they attempt to squeeze their team for the biggest possible party paycheque.

While there are some cases where players benefit financially from having played for a winning team, the more likely return on investment for players is non-financial, and comes in the form of fulfilment, job satisfaction and renown. While owners certainly benefit to an extent in these ways, the much more apparent benefit to them would be financial.

 

[Mr Positive]

I'm on Vegas' side here. Every fanbase wants a winner. Are the Knights supposed to sign a loyalty contract at the expense of fan enjoyment?

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I'm on Vegas' side here. Every fanbase wants a winner. Are the Knights supposed to sign a loyalty contract at the expense of fan enjoyment?

Agree 100%. Vegas made a fair offer with a 3 year market value contract. JM was able to get a 4th year elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that LV was trying to "screw" him like he making it out to be. An example of an attempted screw job would have been Stamkos' offer in TB.

 

[PaulD]

Team owned by a guy who worships the military and runs the team like the military and the player is shocked he is treated like a soldier

shocked? nah
pouting a little because he didn't get what he wanted more like it.

Agree 100%. Vegas made a fair offer with a 3 year market value contract. JM was able to get a 4th year elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that LV was trying to "screw" him like he making it out to be. An example of an attempted screw job would have been Stamkos' offer in TB.

Yep. Marsh is the one sounding non too bright here

 

[Oilslick941611]

shocked? nah
pouting a little because he didn't get what he wanted more like it.

exactly what im saying.

 

[JPT]

shocked? nah
pouting a little because he didn't get what he wanted more like it.


Yep. Marsh is the one sounding non too bright here

He literally said he was disappointed, that there's definitely no loyalty, but everyone is there to win and he doesn't mind that.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

McCrimmon would have been very happy to keep Marchy around for a couple more years on a contract that made sense according to the Vegas metrics, and that's what they offered Marchy. However, Marchy saw that he could take his Conn Smythe pedigree and get more money elsewhere, and apparently expected that he could stay in Vegas and McCrimmon would match that .... but McCrimmon was not willing to match what he viewed as an overpayment as it pertained to Vegas' larger picture.

From this Vegas fan's perspective, sorry to see Marchy go and we wish him well, but power to McCrimmon for standing his ground and not saddling us with a potentially bad deal out of nostalgia.

 

[Sol]

Players signing with Vegas simply have to accept it isn't some family market but a business relationship. They'll pay you handsomely but cast you aside should it helps the business. Plenty of guys are going to be okay with that because money. If they aren't, you have 31 other teams to chose.

As for Marchessault, specifically. Dude's 34 and essentially wanted a retirement contract at top dollar. There's no reason for Vegas to sign him to that outside "loyalty".

Every business needs to operate this way. A teams viability is the most important element. I think any person who thinks any professional sports organization should be loyal to the players while sacrificing their competitive viability is delusional and should never run a business. Blind loyalty kills.

 

[PaulD]

He literally said he was disappointed, that there's definitely no loyalty, but everyone is there to win and he doesn't mind that.

offered him three year deal .... that's sounds pretty loyal. He said no thanks.
Marsh's loyalty is to his career, family and security.
Knights loyalty is to team, fans, and winning another cup.
Agree to disagree.

 

[JPT]

offered him three year deal .... that's sounds pretty loyal. He said no.....
you could ask him where his loyalty is too?
GM said they were disappointed he didn't accept, but they understand it.
Two way street.
Marsh's loyalty is to his career, family and security.
Knights loyalty is to team, fans, and winning another cup.

You agreed with someone else who has only read the title of this thread and some headlines elsewhere when they said he is trying to make it out like Vegas screwed him, and then you added that he's the one sounding "non too bright." I pointed out what he said, which doesn't even come close to implying that they screwed him over. I have no idea what any of this reply to me is supposed to prove, but OK I guess.

 

[PaulD]

You agreed with someone else who has only read the title of this thread and some headlines elsewhere when they said he is trying to make it out like Vegas screwed him, and then you added that he's the one sounding "non too bright." I pointed out what he said, which doesn't even come close to implying that they screwed him over. I have no idea what any of this reply to me is supposed to prove, but OK I guess.

I challenged loyalty quote
"that there definitely is no loyalty"
Cheers

 

[sr edler]

Is Bill Karlsson the only original left?

 

[hangman005]

Is Bill Karlsson the only original left?

McNabb, Theodore and Wild Bill