Let's Go Blues

That article stirred emotions - both the fondness for the times and the anger and disappointment that the could screw things up that much.

I'm thoroughly depressed now.

That article just pisses me off more than depresses me. How many franking times do you have to acquire a player from a team who is going to get compensated before you get the (Franking) message that it hurts more than it helps. Jesus f*cking Christ.

And if Adam Oates is setting up Brett Hull for 86 goals a year, the proper response when he asks for more money is.... trade him for Craig. Janney!?!? Fukiddy fuk I hate that article. Burn it.

(Frank)

WaukeeBlues wrote:That article just pisses me off more than depresses me. How many franking times do you have to acquire a player from a team who is going to get compensated before you get the (Frank) message that it hurts more than it helps. Jesus f*cking Christ.

And if Adam Oates is setting up Brett Hull for 86 goals a year, the proper response when he asks for more money is.... trade him for Craig. Janney!?!? Fukiddy fuk I hate that article. Burn it.

(Frank)

In defense of the Oates thing. Oates was a dick. He wanted to negotiate a contract for a 3rd time. The second time was because Stevens made more $ than him. The Blues negotiated and even gave him a bonus. The 3rd time was because Shanny came in and was paid more than him.

He thought he should always be paid the 2nd highest on the team (next to Hull) and wanted the contract to state as such. And this was to a Blues ownership that treated the players, fans, and the team like gold. (Frank) him and his demands. He fucked it up...not the Blues.

Ugh...now I'm pissed.

I started hating Hull (and still do) because of the whole Oates thing. Prick had the nerve to say anyone booing his butt buddy was a loser. (Frank) both of them.

northwest dave wrote:

WaukeeBlues wrote:That article just pisses me off more than depresses me. How many franking times do you have to acquire a player from a team who is going to get compensated before you get the (Frank) message that it hurts more than it helps. Jesus f*cking Christ.

And if Adam Oates is setting up Brett Hull for 86 goals a year, the proper response when he asks for more money is.... trade him for Craig. Janney!?!? Fukiddy fuk I hate that article. Burn it.

(Frank)

In defense of the Oates thing. Oates was a dick. He wanted to negotiate a contract for a 3rd time. The second time was because Stevens made more $ than him. The Blues negotiated and even gave him a bonus. The 3rd time was because Shanny came in and was paid more than him.

He thought he should always be paid the 2nd highest on the team (next to Hull) and wanted the contract to state as such. And this was to a Blues ownership that treated the players, fans, and the team like gold. (Frank) him and his demands. He (Frank) it up...not the Blues.

Ugh...now I'm pissed.

I guess the part I don't get about him wanting more money or being a pain in the ass is this: Okay- So what?! Was he or was he not tearing $hit up? I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm sure that wasn't the first time in the history of professional sports that a player felt like he should be making more money than god and actually had the stats to back it up. Obviously Hull was probably making him look better than he was at lot of the time but when you got a lethal one-two punch like that, teams kill for that. I'd go through hell and high-water to keep those two together if I'd been calling the shots.

It's all hindsight though and I think I was like 7 years old when this was going on so it's well before the time I started to follow the Blues so I also don't understand the intricacies of it because I wasn't around. From the outside looking in, that's just IMHO

Well, I was a bit older than 7, and I think Oates was a douche.

the team renegotiated his contract twice (when it didn't need to at all), both with significant gains in Oates' favor and not much in return. Basically the team wouldn't do it a third time, so Oates went all whineybitch on them and thus the trade to attempt to capture value.

A contract is a franking contract. You sign it then you live with it. if you think you need to do better you can get a better contract when your current contract is done. I hardly blame the organ-eye-zation on this one.

WaukeeBlues wrote:
I guess the part I don't get about him wanting more money or being a pain in the ass is this: Okay- So what?! Was he or was he not tearing $hit up? I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm sure that wasn't the first time in the history of professional sports that a player felt like he should be making more money than god and actually had the stats to back it up.

At what point do you draw the line?

Do you revisit his deal each year?

Does it work both ways? As his skills deteriorate does his salary reduce despite the fact that he still has a contract?

Now do you everyone knocking on the door stating "I've got better stats then player x and player y and should make more money?

I understand what you were saying, but I also get where management was coming from.

Oates was my favorite player when he was here. I started playing hockey around that time and he's who I styled my game after, he's why I wore #12 playing hockey and he's why I have #12 in my username here.

But Oates and his agent were in the wrong here. Not even close really. The organization bent over backwards for him, twice. They had to draw the line somewhere and they couldn't just keep renegotiating whenever he wanted.

northwest dave wrote:

WaukeeBlues wrote:That article just pisses me off more than depresses me. How many franking times do you have to acquire a player from a team who is going to get compensated before you get the (Frank) message that it hurts more than it helps. Jesus f*cking Christ.

And if Adam Oates is setting up Brett Hull for 86 goals a year, the proper response when he asks for more money is.... trade him for Craig. Janney!?!? Fukiddy fuk I hate that article. Burn it.

(Frank)

In defense of the Oates thing. Oates was a dick. He wanted to negotiate a contract for a 3rd time. The second time was because Stevens made more $ than him. The Blues negotiated and even gave him a bonus. The 3rd time was because Shanny came in and was paid more than him.

He thought he should always be paid the 2nd highest on the team (next to Hull) and wanted the contract to state as such. And this was to a Blues ownership that treated the players, fans, and the team like gold. (Frank) him and his demands. He (Frank) it up...not the Blues.

Ugh...now I'm pissed.

I whole heartedly agree that Oates was a royal dick. I remember going to the Blues bowling charity even they used to do when I was like 7 and talking to every player there. Most players just stayed down in their lanes and signed autographs on the counter which was fine. Hell, Shanahan even came up to the main area, squated down and took pictures with me and my sister. But the one guy I really wanted to meet was Adam Oates. But not once did that asshole even turn around and acknowledge the fans.

Having said that. When you look at things from a hockey/business point of view, there's no reason why he shouldn't have been the 2nd highest paid player on the team. For christs sake, look at what him and Hull did on the ice! I think if I were in his shoes, I'd have the same reaction as well. But for management to NOT meet his demands and instead trade him to Boston for some ass clown who was maybe 1/2 as good was just a shame. That trade was the genesis of the mid-90's collaspe when you look at the ripple effects that eventually led to the Shanny/Janney debacle. Berry being dumped in favor of Keenan and the eventual shit storm that he brought with him.

The article overall was a nice look back. It was nice to hear from those guys on the subject. Makes you sick to think what could have been though...

He wanted the flexibility of a 1 year contract with the security of a long term deal. Was he gonna give money back if he had an off year? Hell no. You play out the contract then cash in on the next one. Just like every other player in every other sport. The fact that Caron got screwed in the deal is a separate issue. Or maybe no one would give fair value because they were taking on a problem. People forget that Shanahan's best years were with Janney setting him up, though. Kinda surprising how far/fast he fell after Coach K got ahold of him.

A team can't give in to unreasonable salary demands of a player, or their future dealings with ALL their players will be ruined. Oates was given a good and perfectly fair contract. I think Stevens was worth more to The Blues than Oates. But, even if they were equal value or Stevens slightly less, this was a contract in a later year, which should reflect current player values. The increase in player value due to inflation or added experience should have been factored into Oates' contract agreement for that period of years. He and his agent agreed to it. No one put a gun to their heads to sign it. Oates asked for the rules to be changed to benefit himself -to the relative loss for everyone else. That is wrong. He did it twice, successfully. That is already getting much more than he deserved. The Blues were right to not give in the third time.

As to management of player assets,...-The Blues were TERRIBLE in those days. Their junior drafting under Ted Hampson was miserable. That caused the cupboard to be bare, and forced them to need to trade away draft choices and young players for mediocre or washd-up veterans, or problem players, or to trade away good players in their primes for quantity of lesser players, to help fill out the roster. They made a revolving door of players coming in and leaving. No group ever played together long enough to gel and build around.

That's what we hope they'll be avoiding with Checketts' and JD's "build from within" philosophy. Let's hope they bite the bullet and fire Murray soon, so they can continue with the high-skilled youth rebuild.