What happened to Dustin Byfuglien?

[Nucky]

I see a lot of people mention he didn't like/enjoy hockey. Is that true? I don't know if I'd believe that. You'd think if he didn't enjoy hockey, he wouldn't put in the time to become as great as he was, or play in leagues like Da Beauty League during the offseason.

Perhaps he didn't enjoy the off-ice preparation to get into hockey playing shape, or the injuries that came with playing professional hockey. But the actual playing of the game itself? From the looks of it when he did play, he seemed to enjoy it very much.

I think you hit the nail on the head

 

[Unspecified]

Dude was starting to look like Defensive End.

 

[oldunclehue]

Rumour going around....not sure how true it is, but the combo of Sheifele/Wheeler also factored in Buff deciding to call it quits.

I guess Sheifs/Wheeler are very much into using every advantage fitness wise to be the best they can be, and it wears on guys who aren't the same mentality. Buff was known to pretty much turn off his phone and not answer to anyone from end of season until camp. This pissed guys off who were working their butts off to be better.

All in all, I wish we had him in our line up, hes what the Jets need as a playoff identity. But I think hes enjoying his life on a lake and with his family.

Enjoy Buff

 

[Jeune Poulet]

Now you're moving the goal post. Your issue was with the fact that "players can swiftly cut ties at the most inopportune time without any warning".

This will always be the case unless you forbid them from not playing hockey.

We have a misunderstanding. My issue, expressed in the original, unedited post you responded to, is that the risks incurred and the financial penalties are not fairly balanced between both parties. While I can understand how you may have seen it differently, I think it's a bit of an uncharitable read. Nobody wants to force players to do anything.

As for your position that payment forfeiture is enough... why can't owners just cut ties this easily?

I've worked contractually in the past and both parties were asking certain guarantees. And failure to deliver the services would have consequences. And that was for far less money than NHL players. I don't think asking for a player to deliver the services he agreed to deliver or barring that, incurring some consequences is particularly inhumane.

Or else I'd be OK for teams to be able to cut ties with players with no buyout penalties. Less binding contracts, but for both parties.

 

[Bevans]

We have a misunderstanding. My issue, expressed in the original, unedited post you responded to, is that the risks incurred and the financial penalties are not fairly balanced between both parties. While I can understand how you may have seen it differently, I think it's a bit of an uncharitable read. Nobody wants to force players to do anything.

As for your position that payment forfeiture is enough... why can't owners just cut ties this easily?

I've worked contractually in the past and both parties were asking certain guarantees. And failure to deliver the services would have consequences. And that was for far less money than NHL players. I don't think asking for a player to deliver the services he agreed to deliver or barring that, incurring some consequences is particularly inhumane.

Or else I'd be OK for teams to be able to cut ties with players with no buyout penalties. Less binding contracts, but for both parties.

What incentive would you give to players in a new CBA to encourage them to forfeit the guaranteed contracts they negotiated under past CBAs? And would you be willing to lockdown the league to force them to accept it?