Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
I really don’t understand people saying they’ll wait for the facts before they judge. Judge what? They put a $10m, 55 pt d-man on f***ing waivers.
They didn’t do that for fun.
It doesn’t matter if you think it’s fair. Even if stories come out, it will incomplete, without full context. Especially when it comes to something like being a problem to the chemistry and locker room. You could sit there and sat “oh that’s not a big deal, that’s overblown” but it doesn’t matter a bit.
I really don’t know how else to say this other than this is a rare occasion where there isn’t much debate. They decided he was such an issue he had to be gone. You don’t get to be the judge of whether what he did rises to the level of waivers.
While I like your post as it's logical, whatever he did apparently did not raise to the level of contract termination. Therefor whatever happened also could not have been on the level of some other stuff that we have seen contracts terminated for. That is not to defend him in any way, more so just logically if they had grounds to terminate they would have gone that route instead it seems.
Which then leads to the next question, if the Rangers had any inkling this may turn out as it did, why did they go two years when they could have forced a one year deal this past off-season? Heck they could have just not qualified him let him walk and used that cap space elsewhere.
I don't have any answers, yet this has always seemed to be a building situation rather than an improving one, they seemed to have handled this up until this point in about the most wishy washy way possible.