Let's Go Blues

This thing is beyond dumb. Either commit to coming back or stay in the KHL. I don't care. Just make a decision.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nh ... /90419246/

Not surprised at all. I'd prefer they try to get Adam Musil into the lineup.

What kind of "issues" is he having? Issues like being under contract with a team in one league and wanting to go to the other league? I can see how that would be a problem. I mean, we had a guy like that once. Let's call him Vladimir S. He bolted to the KHL without any "issues" despite a contract. Maybe he should ask that guy how to do it.

cardsfan04 wrote:What kind of "issues" is he having? Issues like being under contract with a team in one league and wanting to go to the other league? I can see how that would be a problem. I mean, we had a guy like that once. Let's call him Vladimir S. He bolted to the KHL without any "issues" despite a contract. Maybe he should ask that guy how to do it.

Ding, ding, ding.

cardsfan04 wrote: Let's call him Vladimir S. .

No, that's too obvious. Let's say, V. Sobotka

He can't pull Dougie around by teasing the tip if he were just to come out and say he's not coming back. Tit for tat. Childish?

cprice12 wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:What kind of "issues" is he having? Issues like being under contract with a team in one league and wanting to go to the other league? I can see how that would be a problem. I mean, we had a guy like that once. Let's call him Vladimir S. He bolted to the KHL without any "issues" despite a contract. Maybe he should ask that guy how to do it.

Ding, ding, ding.

He wasn't under contract when he signed with the KHL. He was a restricted free agent which went to arbitration. Having never signed the arbitration contract awarded, he technically was not under contract until that contract is actually signed. The limitation, because of the RFA abritration thing, he has to return to St Louis or be traded by St Louis and will still be stuck with the 2.7 whatever 1 year abritration deal.

theohall wrote:

cprice12 wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:What kind of "issues" is he having? Issues like being under contract with a team in one league and wanting to go to the other league? I can see how that would be a problem. I mean, we had a guy like that once. Let's call him Vladimir S. He bolted to the KHL without any "issues" despite a contract. Maybe he should ask that guy how to do it.

Ding, ding, ding.

He wasn't under contract when he signed with the KHL. He was a restricted free agent which went to arbitration. Having never signed the arbitration contract awarded, he technically was not under contract until that contract is actually signed. The limitation, because of the RFA abritration thing, he has to return to St Louis or be traded by St Louis and will still be stuck with the 2.7 whatever 1 year abritration deal.

You're kind of right, but it's also kinda semantics and depends on each league's definition of under contract. A team in the NHL owned his rights and he left the NHL which I think is the relevant part. In the KHL, an RFA is considered under contract. So, by the KHL's standard, Sobotka was under contract with the Blues when they accepted him into their league.

cardsfan04 wrote:

theohall wrote:

cprice12 wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:What kind of "issues" is he having? Issues like being under contract with a team in one league and wanting to go to the other league? I can see how that would be a problem. I mean, we had a guy like that once. Let's call him Vladimir S. He bolted to the KHL without any "issues" despite a contract. Maybe he should ask that guy how to do it.

Ding, ding, ding.

He wasn't under contract when he signed with the KHL. He was a restricted free agent which went to arbitration. Having never signed the arbitration contract awarded, he technically was not under contract until that contract is actually signed. The limitation, because of the RFA abritration thing, he has to return to St Louis or be traded by St Louis and will still be stuck with the 2.7 whatever 1 year abritration deal.

You're kind of right, but it's also kinda semantics and depends on each league's definition of under contract. A team in the NHL owned his rights and he left the NHL which I think is the relevant part. In the KHL, an RFA is considered under contract. So, by the KHL's standard, Sobotka was under contract with the Blues when they accepted him into their league.

That's where the KHL does not agree with you. They were arguing with the NHL about this at the time and, AFAIK, there still is isn't a clear agreement, which is why Sobotka is having trouble implementing the supposed out-clause in his KHL signed contract, compare to the un-signed Blues contract.

People need to realize Sobotka's arbitration ruling only matters IF he decides to play in the NHL again. Bottom line is, he makes more money in the KHL and that's more important to him. He's an athlete and he needs to make as much money as he can in that time before wear and tear on his body and mounting injuries cause his retirement, like most players. I can't fault him or blame him. Much as I love the Boat, Army should have traded his rights away on Day One. At this point, those rights are less than worthless.

Army isn't as much an idiot for saying no to his demands than he is hanging out hope that Sobotka might return and allowing players like Backes to leave without having a solid plan to replace his production (David Perron is literally half the man stats-wise as Backes and I would argue he's more the replacement of Sobotka at this point -- But how can you not do better when Perron is replacing someone who isn't there?).

In a Conference as packed as ours, where a handful of points can make the difference between fourth place and out of the playoffs, we need as many guns as we can put together and I daresay Bergy will outperform Perron on every level. I see it as a useless acquisition and with us spent almost to the Cap ($3.9m in space), I really must question the abilities of this front office and in Army. No team on Earth waits for a single player to decide what they're going to do or not do. For some reason, ours constantly defies logic (Rushing to sign Mike Yeo, of all people, has to rank pretty high on the WTF scale.)

Then again, maybe expectations are just that low. Far too much stock is being put into our emerging youth core at a time we should be investing on a proven veteran presence to help develop and instill the values we need them to have to help take the next step. This core has done all it can in that area and we are reaching a point where players, like Backes, will "Max out" due to age or salary. I am curious to see what this team will do in the light of all of this.

theohall wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:

theohall wrote:

cprice12 wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:What kind of "issues" is he having? Issues like being under contract with a team in one league and wanting to go to the other league? I can see how that would be a problem. I mean, we had a guy like that once. Let's call him Vladimir S. He bolted to the KHL without any "issues" despite a contract. Maybe he should ask that guy how to do it.

Ding, ding, ding.

He wasn't under contract when he signed with the KHL. He was a restricted free agent which went to arbitration. Having never signed the arbitration contract awarded, he technically was not under contract until that contract is actually signed. The limitation, because of the RFA abritration thing, he has to return to St Louis or be traded by St Louis and will still be stuck with the 2.7 whatever 1 year abritration deal.

You're kind of right, but it's also kinda semantics and depends on each league's definition of under contract. A team in the NHL owned his rights and he left the NHL which I think is the relevant part. In the KHL, an RFA is considered under contract. So, by the KHL's standard, Sobotka was under contract with the Blues when they accepted him into their league.

That's where the KHL does not agree with you. They were arguing with the NHL about this at the time and, AFAIK, there still is isn't a clear agreement, which is why Sobotka is having trouble implementing the supposed out-clause in his KHL signed contract, compare to the un-signed Blues contract.

This is what I was referring to (from puck-daddy):

The "free agent" is not really defined as both sides treat restricted free agents differently, especially those who file for arbitration. This difference was first brought up a few years ago when Jiri Hudler(notes) signed a contract in the KHL while also filing for arbitration in the NHL. Hudler's KHL contract was signed before his NHL arbitration hearing. It would be interesting to see how an arbitration decision will affect a player who may fall in the category of a "free agent." Additionally, the KHL treats its restricted free agents a lot different than the NHL. While the NHL may consider a player a "free agent," the KHL may still argue that the player is under contract, which was the case of Panthers' Yevgeni Dadonov. For more on the KHL restricted free agency check out my piece from a couple of years ago.

If the KHL considers an RFA to be under contract and Sobotka was an RFA when he went to the KHL, the KHL accepted a player into its league that, by its own interpretation, was under contract.

I haven't really looked at it beyond that snippet. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it or maybe it's more complicated than that (well, not maybe, it definitely is more complicated). But reading that paragraph makes me think that the KHL would have considered Sobotka under contract whereas the NHL didn't.

cardsfan04 wrote:

theohall wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:

theohall wrote:

cprice12 wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:What kind of "issues" is he having? Issues like being under contract with a team in one league and wanting to go to the other league? I can see how that would be a problem. I mean, we had a guy like that once. Let's call him Vladimir S. He bolted to the KHL without any "issues" despite a contract. Maybe he should ask that guy how to do it.

Ding, ding, ding.

He wasn't under contract when he signed with the KHL. He was a restricted free agent which went to arbitration. Having never signed the arbitration contract awarded, he technically was not under contract until that contract is actually signed. The limitation, because of the RFA abritration thing, he has to return to St Louis or be traded by St Louis and will still be stuck with the 2.7 whatever 1 year abritration deal.

You're kind of right, but it's also kinda semantics and depends on each league's definition of under contract. A team in the NHL owned his rights and he left the NHL which I think is the relevant part. In the KHL, an RFA is considered under contract. So, by the KHL's standard, Sobotka was under contract with the Blues when they accepted him into their league.

That's where the KHL does not agree with you. They were arguing with the NHL about this at the time and, AFAIK, there still is isn't a clear agreement, which is why Sobotka is having trouble implementing the supposed out-clause in his KHL signed contract, compare to the un-signed Blues contract.

This is what I was referring to (from puck-daddy):

The "free agent" is not really defined as both sides treat restricted free agents differently, especially those who file for arbitration. This difference was first brought up a few years ago when Jiri Hudler(notes) signed a contract in the KHL while also filing for arbitration in the NHL. Hudler's KHL contract was signed before his NHL arbitration hearing. It would be interesting to see how an arbitration decision will affect a player who may fall in the category of a "free agent." Additionally, the KHL treats its restricted free agents a lot different than the NHL. While the NHL may consider a player a "free agent," the KHL may still argue that the player is under contract, which was the case of Panthers' Yevgeni Dadonov. For more on the KHL restricted free agency check out my piece from a couple of years ago.

If the KHL considers an RFA to be under contract and Sobotka was an RFA when he went to the KHL, the KHL accepted a player into its league that, by its own interpretation, was under contract.

I haven't really looked at it beyond that snippet. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it or maybe it's more complicated than that (well, not maybe, it definitely is more complicated). But reading that paragraph makes me think that the KHL would have considered Sobotka under contract whereas the NHL didn't.

Sobotka's case is identical to Hudler's. He filed for arbitration and signed the KHL deal before the arbitration hearing.

cardsfan04 wrote: If the KHL considers an RFA to be under contract and Sobotka was an RFA when he went to the KHL, the KHL accepted a player into its league that, by its own interpretation, was under contract.

The difference is that if it works in Russia's favor, Russia doesn't care about "definitions." If Russia is going to get the short end of the stick, then hey, dude's under contract and not allowed to leave.

gaijin wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote: If the KHL considers an RFA to be under contract and Sobotka was an RFA when he went to the KHL, the KHL accepted a player into its league that, by its own interpretation, was under contract.

The difference is that if it works in Russia's favor, Russia doesn't care about "definitions." If Russia is going to get the short end of the stick, then hey, dude's under contract and not allowed to leave.

This. The NHL isn't going to do anything that'll force or cause players to choose one or the other. If that's the case, the KHL is a no-brainer for these guys.

Oaklandblue wrote: He's an athlete and he needs to make as much money as he can in that time before wear and tear on his body and mounting injuries cause his retirement, like most players.

Oh boo flippin' hoo. If I made a couple years of a professional athlete's salary and didn't go ahead and blow it on extravagant, unnecessary nonsense like a 90 foot yacht and a car for every day of the week, I wouldn't be whining. I hate the argument about trying to squeeze as much money out of a limited career. By my rough calculations, from 2007 to 2014, Sobotka has made AT LEAST 6 million dollars. I'm not doing exact math, but it's definitely higher than that, I just rounded the wrong way to make it easier. That's 6 million dollars over a period of less than a decade, and I'm not factoring in the money he's made since then--NHL or KHL. In what's going to amount to a 31 year career for me, I'll never sniff that kind of money. If I were making top salary my entire career, which I'm not and can't, I would make probably 3 and a half mil over 3+ decades of my life. The real amount is probably closer to 2 and a half mil for an entire career and I have to make it work on that. I'm supposed to feel bad for any of these guys who have to "squeeze as much money out of a short career"? Screw that. They make plenty of money, they just don't know how to manage it.

glen a richter wrote:

Oaklandblue wrote: He's an athlete and he needs to make as much money as he can in that time before wear and tear on his body and mounting injuries cause his retirement, like most players.

Oh boo flippin' hoo. If I made a couple years of a professional athlete's salary and didn't go ahead and blow it on extravagant, unnecessary nonsense like a 90 foot yacht and a car for every day of the week, I wouldn't be whining. I hate the argument about trying to squeeze as much money out of a limited career. By my rough calculations, from 2007 to 2014, Sobotka has made AT LEAST 6 million dollars. I'm not doing exact math, but it's definitely higher than that, I just rounded the wrong way to make it easier. That's 6 million dollars over a period of less than a decade, and I'm not factoring in the money he's made since then--NHL or KHL. In what's going to amount to a 31 year career for me, I'll never sniff that kind of money. If I were making top salary my entire career, which I'm not and can't, I would make probably 3 and a half mil over 3+ decades of my life. The real amount is probably closer to 2 and a half mil for an entire career and I have to make it work on that. I'm supposed to feel bad for any of these guys who have to "squeeze as much money out of a short career"? Screw that. They make plenty of money, they just don't know how to manage it.

First off, stop being a prick.

You take your average hockey player and you figure coming up they spend what, five days a week, six to eight hours a day, give or take in practice for the majority of their younger years. They go from city to city and play in various leagues against various teams over the course of time, sleeping in cars or shacked up with friends or more likely teammates with no guarantee of anything. They might get drafted, they might walk on somewhere, they might end up spending their life in the beer leagues, again, nothing is certain. These guys spend their waking hours and time on watching reels, playing and practicing, practicing, practicing. Some may finish college, some may use it to hone their skills and maybe, possible, get picked up by a team, again, none of this promised.

Anywhere along the line, a single injury can either end their career, possibly cripple them or cause an injury that nags them into retirement. You're sitting here talking about hindsight and no one knows, not even Boat. He could have been injured out of the league and made 500k, 700k or less...or more. Ask Chris Pronger if those millions are helping him live in dim rooms without the hope of ever being able to stand in sunlight again without the fear of migraines. Every single athlete I have ever known training in any system is told up front get as much as you can and try to save it as best as you can, because once you're out, that's all you're going to get. Just because it's more than you or someone else makes isn't their problem, it's the problem of the people running your business or job. This is one of those rare situations where the money DOES match up with the situation: These guys give up their lives for a shot, their reward, if it comes, is deserved; They put the time in.

And if this is one of those "Players make millions but Ambulance drivers, Teachers, etc. are paid a small fraction of that, I agree with you but at the same time it's really petty to be jealous of someone else's success when they've spent their every waking moment on their dream or goal. To be a professional hockey player, you MUST at the very least do that and ANYONE who does the same, in ANY profession, deserves nothing less than that.

And if you feel you've done that and have gotten nowhere by it, then you're in the wrong place. Look elsewhere and do like these guys did; don't give up.

gaijin wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote: If the KHL considers an RFA to be under contract and Sobotka was an RFA when he went to the KHL, the KHL accepted a player into its league that, by its own interpretation, was under contract.

The difference is that if it works in Russia's favor, Russia doesn't care about "definitions." If Russia is going to get the short end of the stick, then hey, dude's under contract and not allowed to leave.

Exactly. The difference in contract status is just semantics. There's essentially a double standard in place which is what I was getting at.

Oaklandblue wrote:

glen a richter wrote:

Oaklandblue wrote: He's an athlete and he needs to make as much money as he can in that time before wear and tear on his body and mounting injuries cause his retirement, like most players.

Oh boo flippin' hoo. If I made a couple years of a professional athlete's salary and didn't go ahead and blow it on extravagant, unnecessary nonsense like a 90 foot yacht and a car for every day of the week, I wouldn't be whining. I hate the argument about trying to squeeze as much money out of a limited career. By my rough calculations, from 2007 to 2014, Sobotka has made AT LEAST 6 million dollars. I'm not doing exact math, but it's definitely higher than that, I just rounded the wrong way to make it easier. That's 6 million dollars over a period of less than a decade, and I'm not factoring in the money he's made since then--NHL or KHL. In what's going to amount to a 31 year career for me, I'll never sniff that kind of money. If I were making top salary my entire career, which I'm not and can't, I would make probably 3 and a half mil over 3+ decades of my life. The real amount is probably closer to 2 and a half mil for an entire career and I have to make it work on that. I'm supposed to feel bad for any of these guys who have to "squeeze as much money out of a short career"? Screw that. They make plenty of money, they just don't know how to manage it.

First off, stop being a prick.

You take your average hockey player and you figure coming up they spend what, five days a week, six to eight hours a day, give or take in practice for the majority of their younger years. They go from city to city and play in various leagues against various teams over the course of time, sleeping in cars or shacked up with friends or more likely teammates with no guarantee of anything. They might get drafted, they might walk on somewhere, they might end up spending their life in the beer leagues, again, nothing is certain. These guys spend their waking hours and time on watching reels, playing and practicing, practicing, practicing. Some may finish college, some may use it to hone their skills and maybe, possible, get picked up by a team, again, none of this promised.

Anywhere along the line, a single injury can either end their career, possibly cripple them or cause an injury that nags them into retirement. You're sitting here talking about hindsight and no one knows, not even Boat. He could have been injured out of the league and made 500k, 700k or less...or more. Ask Chris Pronger if those millions are helping him live in dim rooms without the hope of ever being able to stand in sunlight again without the fear of migraines. Every single athlete I have ever known training in any system is told up front get as much as you can and try to save it as best as you can, because once you're out, that's all you're going to get. Just because it's more than you or someone else makes isn't their problem, it's the problem of the people running your business or job. This is one of those rare situations where the money DOES match up with the situation: These guys give up their lives for a shot, their reward, if it comes, is deserved; They put the time in.

And if this is one of those "Players make millions but Ambulance drivers, Teachers, etc. are paid a small fraction of that, I agree with you but at the same time it's really petty to be jealous of someone else's success when they've spent their every waking moment on their dream or goal. To be a professional hockey player, you MUST at the very least do that and ANYONE who does the same, in ANY profession, deserves nothing less than that.

And if you feel you've done that and have gotten nowhere by it, then you're in the wrong place. Look elsewhere and do like these guys did; don't give up.

Perhaps glen was a bit acerbic in his comment, but there is some truth to it and I think it's at the root of alot of the disenchantment that some have with modern athletes. You are correct in that they work hard to get where they are but remember, they work hard at playing a game. We're not talking about the soul-crushing drudgery of cubicle life; they are doing something they love to do nd get paid truly mind boggling amounts to do it. Yes they have to travel . . . but many would say they GET to travel, so that's a wash. They talk about "short careers" like that's an inherently bad thing, but it's only bad for those of us not making literally millions a year.

I remember seeing a interview when I was young with Reggie Jackson right after he had signed some huge (for the time) contract in which he was asked what he thought about being so well paid and he replied with something like, "I think they're crazy, I'm getting to live out my childhood dream every day. If they stopped paying me tomorrow I'd still show up".

Nolan Ryan was the first player to make $1m per year--and that was in 1980. That same year the average salary in MLB was $145k. Today A-Rod is getting $29 mil nd the average salary is just shy of $4m. Who here can say the average salary in their chosen field has increased 2759% in the last 36 years?

Many fans get very emotional about their favorite players, so hen they see their heroes bolt for a hated rival and plead poverty only to retire at 39 years old with many times more money than 90% of the fans will earn over a lifetime, it is a bit off-putting.

evil roy wrote:

Oaklandblue wrote:

glen a richter wrote:

Oaklandblue wrote: He's an athlete and he needs to make as much money as he can in that time before wear and tear on his body and mounting injuries cause his retirement, like most players.

Oh boo flippin' hoo. If I made a couple years of a professional athlete's salary and didn't go ahead and blow it on extravagant, unnecessary nonsense like a 90 foot yacht and a car for every day of the week, I wouldn't be whining. I hate the argument about trying to squeeze as much money out of a limited career. By my rough calculations, from 2007 to 2014, Sobotka has made AT LEAST 6 million dollars. I'm not doing exact math, but it's definitely higher than that, I just rounded the wrong way to make it easier. That's 6 million dollars over a period of less than a decade, and I'm not factoring in the money he's made since then--NHL or KHL. In what's going to amount to a 31 year career for me, I'll never sniff that kind of money. If I were making top salary my entire career, which I'm not and can't, I would make probably 3 and a half mil over 3+ decades of my life. The real amount is probably closer to 2 and a half mil for an entire career and I have to make it work on that. I'm supposed to feel bad for any of these guys who have to "squeeze as much money out of a short career"? Screw that. They make plenty of money, they just don't know how to manage it.

First off, stop being a prick.

You take your average hockey player and you figure coming up they spend what, five days a week, six to eight hours a day, give or take in practice for the majority of their younger years. They go from city to city and play in various leagues against various teams over the course of time, sleeping in cars or shacked up with friends or more likely teammates with no guarantee of anything. They might get drafted, they might walk on somewhere, they might end up spending their life in the beer leagues, again, nothing is certain. These guys spend their waking hours and time on watching reels, playing and practicing, practicing, practicing. Some may finish college, some may use it to hone their skills and maybe, possible, get picked up by a team, again, none of this promised.

Anywhere along the line, a single injury can either end their career, possibly cripple them or cause an injury that nags them into retirement. You're sitting here talking about hindsight and no one knows, not even Boat. He could have been injured out of the league and made 500k, 700k or less...or more. Ask Chris Pronger if those millions are helping him live in dim rooms without the hope of ever being able to stand in sunlight again without the fear of migraines. Every single athlete I have ever known training in any system is told up front get as much as you can and try to save it as best as you can, because once you're out, that's all you're going to get. Just because it's more than you or someone else makes isn't their problem, it's the problem of the people running your business or job. This is one of those rare situations where the money DOES match up with the situation: These guys give up their lives for a shot, their reward, if it comes, is deserved; They put the time in.

And if this is one of those "Players make millions but Ambulance drivers, Teachers, etc. are paid a small fraction of that, I agree with you but at the same time it's really petty to be jealous of someone else's success when they've spent their every waking moment on their dream or goal. To be a professional hockey player, you MUST at the very least do that and ANYONE who does the same, in ANY profession, deserves nothing less than that.

And if you feel you've done that and have gotten nowhere by it, then you're in the wrong place. Look elsewhere and do like these guys did; don't give up.

Perhaps glen was a bit acerbic in his comment, but there is some truth to it and I think it's at the root of alot of the disenchantment that some have with modern athletes. You are correct in that they work hard to get where they are but remember, they work hard at playing a game. We're not talking about the soul-crushing drudgery of cubicle life; they are doing something they love to do nd get paid truly mind boggling amounts to do it. Yes they have to travel . . . but many would say they GET to travel, so that's a wash. They talk about "short careers" like that's an inherently bad thing, but it's only bad for those of us not making literally millions a year.

I remember seeing a interview when I was young with Reggie Jackson right after he had signed some huge (for the time) contract in which he was asked what he thought about being so well paid and he replied with something like, "I think they're crazy, I'm getting to live out my childhood dream every day. If they stopped paying me tomorrow I'd still show up".

Nolan Ryan was the first player to make $1m per year--and that was in 1980. That same year the average salary in MLB was $145k. Today A-Rod is getting $29 mil nd the average salary is just shy of $4m. Who here can say the average salary in their chosen field has increased 2759% in the last 36 years?

Many fans get very emotional about their favorite players, so hen they see their heroes bolt for a hated rival and plead poverty only to retire at 39 years old with many times more money than 90% of the fans will earn over a lifetime, it is a bit off-putting.

For someone not making a million dollars, it sure is off-putting. But no one here is talking about the one ill that plagues anyone making a check: Taxes.

If Sobotka played in the NHL, like any other professional player, he would be subject to state taxes in EVERY STATE HE PLAYS IN. So if he plays a game in Dallas and makes say, 50K and tomorrow night he plays in New York for 50K, he owes state taxes in BOTH states -including- the state the team he plays on is based in. Did you know that? Probably not.

For another, Federal taxes on One Million Dollars is roughly $330K and that's for a SINGLE person. One could argue a smart person would put their money in various IRA and other plans that don't tax out, and a lot of players, with SOLID accounting, do that or try to. Frankly, I hear more stories about a professional athelete getting screwed over by their accountants than I do about hearing one going broke unless you play professional sports before the contracts went skyhigh.

On that note, how many players really make skyhigh money? The NHL has 7-800 active players and a lot of them don't make over league minnimum.

Hell, probably pays his accountant 5-6 digits every tax year just to keep his taxes straight. Boat made what did Glen say, 7 Million in the past decade? That's 700K a year.

On another note, what is the 'life expectancy' of an NHL player? Believe it or not, it's pretty damn short:

Average Length of an NHL Player Career? Over half of all NHL players play less that 100 games during their career and for approximately 5 percent of players, their first NHL game is also their last. If we look at this from a different angle, long careers are extremely rare. Only 4 percent of players (that's 1 out of 25) dress up for more than 1000 games.

(Clickable: http://www.quanthockey.com/Distribution ... ngthGP.php. Got some nice graphs as well.)

For Boat, it just makes more sense financially to play overseas; the tax rate is fixed and he, in the end, would take home more money than if he played in the NHL. Simple as that.

And if anyone here spent an extreme amount of time in their daily life, from age 5-7 to 18/19 training and playing hockey for a shot at the big time, and it comes, who is anyone here to say they don't deserve the money? I am one of those who believe anyone doing anything they put their time into should be paid well, including teachers, EMTs, people who caretake for a disabled/elderly person and so on. Saying 'they make alot for just slapping around a puck' really misses the point of it. Don't use some problem you got to attack someone who has paid their dues and is being rewarded for their tenacity, abilities and sticking with it. If you don't like the situation another is in, or you are in, find a way to change it or help initiate change. Don't sit there angry because things are bad right now. REMEMBER, IT WAS VERY BAD FINANCIALLY FOR PROFESSIONAL PLAYERS UNTIL RECENTLY -- THEY DEMANDED CHANGE AND GOT IT. You can get it too, if you band together, demand it and don't stop until you get it.

Retiring at 39 years old sounds wonderful, but when you sit down and list the series of injuries they have sustained in that time, injuries that most likely will or are developing health issues for them as they get older. Think about being 39 with a body that's the equivalent of a 60 or 70 year old, where every day you wake up with pains that won't go away and you need to take medication every day for the rest of your life to battle the pain and make your body serviceable enough to use and do things with. Conditioning in major sports is true luxury for an older player; it keeps them playing longer. Think how expensive that is outside of professional sports for a pro player, including the medical with it. Think about enjoying lounging on some yacht somewhere as the previous post quipped, having those issues. Ask Bobby Orr how his knees are doing or how it feels to try and squat or kneel to pick up something he dropped. Or ask Pronger how it feels to go out in the daytime and NOT get a sudden Migraine from it. He might remember. It's easy to discount these kinds of things when you aren't going through them. Many, after the fact, may honestly say they'd trade the money for their health back.

Saying all of that, I'm not going to get into the argument of if Boat or KHL or anyone else is breaking any contracts (The answer to that is pretty damn obvious), but if the NHL isn't enforcing it, that's their fault, no one elses and any ire should be aimed in their direction. My personal opinion is that I think if they seriously enforced it, it might shut doors for them.

Oaklandblue wrote: For someone not making a million dollars, it sure is off-putting. But no one here is talking about the one ill that plagues anyone making a check: Taxes.

If Sobotka played in the NHL, like any other professional player, he would be subject to state taxes in EVERY STATE HE PLAYS IN. So if he plays a game in Dallas and makes say, 50K and tomorrow night he plays in New York for 50K, he owes state taxes in BOTH states -including- the state the team he plays on is based in. Did you know that? Probably not.

Which was a major reason for Stamkos staying in Florida - no state tax, no ridiculous Canadian taxes either. That's half his games and many of his playoff checks with no state taxes. Same thing applies to Dallas.