If you call yourself a Wild fan at all, you've probably been at least attempting to follow the progress on Marian Gaborik. Heck, if you're a hockey fan in general, you've probably been trying to keep one eye on this story. After all, Gabby has one year remaining on his contract, so it seems logical that either the Wild are going to try to sign him, or they're looking to avoid a Hossa-like situation and see what they can possibly get in a trade. Either way, one of the most electrifying players in the league should be getting plenty of attention this off-season.
For those that don't know, Wild honchos met with Gaborik in Slovakia, talked about the direction of the team, and made it clear that they think the best fit for Marian is Minnesota. This doesn't necessarily mean that Marian agrees, but we at least can get a good handle on what the Wild bosses would like to see. And, well, seeing that kind of dedication and pursuit of the franchise's number one player is nice, especially in an off-season that saw some productive (and some potential) pieces jump around the NHL like oil on a hot pan.
The Wild are looking ahead towards Oct. 11, and their season opener. Obviously, the team would like to get Gaborik inked to an extension before that first puck drops. Meanwhile, Gabby may be getting intrigued by the potential lure of high dollars from other teams as a UFA in one season. Will he sign with the Wild? We have to think that he will, if the money's right (and the rumors have him getting an offer that would be right around fourth-highest in the league). If he doesn't sign by Oct. 11, will the Wild abandon hope and start looking at trades? We have to think that the team would be willing to try at least through the end of November to attempt to keep their star. But you can bet that if Gabby hasn't signed by Christmas, he will not be finishing this season in Iron Range Red.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
About retirement
So there's a whole gigantic mess in the sporting world right now. And, unless you've been living under a rock, or just outside of North America, you're probably quite versed in many of the inner workings of Brett Favre and his decision to come out of retirement. Living where we do, we've been hearing plenty about how he's showing himself to be a destructive personality, that it's all about his ego, and that he should have just faded off into the sunset.
The biggest problem, so far as we can tell? The guy decided that, at 38, he wasn't as done playing the game as he thought he was. It's not like it's never happened before where players have come out of retirement. In fact, more often than not, when it's someone of a similar pedigree in their chosen sport, they are welcomed with open arms.
Just last year, the Anaheim Ducks had two different players that had hung up their skates decide to lace them on again. Colorado saw Peter Forsberg back on the ice. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. These teams were forced to move on without their respective pieces, and then shuffled things when the player wanted to come back. In the meantime, the Minnesota Wild were dealing with Wes Walz, an on-ice leader, trying to decide if he still loved the game enough to put himself through the physical punishment.
Green Bay had moved on from Favre. Favre obviously had not completely moved on from the game. Scott Neidermayer and Anaheim had moved on from each other, until Scott decided that he just couldn't be done as a hockey player. When he made his announcement, the Ducks cleared a space on their roster, inserted him back into his old role, and let the transition happen as it should. And many other sports have done the same with key players (Roger Clemens ring a bell? Admittedly, not completely fair because of the financial element, but still somewhat apt). Why should the Packers not being willing to take Favre back, when it's clear that he rushed into his decision to leave football behind?
It seems like, largely, this is coming down to a matter of pride, and that pride is not the pride being displayed by Brett Favre. He simply wants to play again, and originally hoped to do it with the team that made him a Hall of Fame player. It was clear a month ago that he couldn't do that, because the Packers management was too proud to admit that their heir apparent wasn't ready to helm a college team, let alone a team that was one win away from the Super Bowl.
Is Brett innocent in this? No. Not in the slightest. But then, neither are any of the other players that have decided that they just want one more shot at the big time. The onus falls on the team that owns the rights. Either accept them with open arms from the get-go, and force them to prove that they still deserve the job they left behind, or cut them loose from the beginning, saving hard feelings, and give them that chance to make their mark elsewhere.
But when a player wants to reverse his decision to retire, never offer them a financial settlement to keep them off of the field. It's just a slap in the face.
The biggest problem, so far as we can tell? The guy decided that, at 38, he wasn't as done playing the game as he thought he was. It's not like it's never happened before where players have come out of retirement. In fact, more often than not, when it's someone of a similar pedigree in their chosen sport, they are welcomed with open arms.
Just last year, the Anaheim Ducks had two different players that had hung up their skates decide to lace them on again. Colorado saw Peter Forsberg back on the ice. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. These teams were forced to move on without their respective pieces, and then shuffled things when the player wanted to come back. In the meantime, the Minnesota Wild were dealing with Wes Walz, an on-ice leader, trying to decide if he still loved the game enough to put himself through the physical punishment.
Green Bay had moved on from Favre. Favre obviously had not completely moved on from the game. Scott Neidermayer and Anaheim had moved on from each other, until Scott decided that he just couldn't be done as a hockey player. When he made his announcement, the Ducks cleared a space on their roster, inserted him back into his old role, and let the transition happen as it should. And many other sports have done the same with key players (Roger Clemens ring a bell? Admittedly, not completely fair because of the financial element, but still somewhat apt). Why should the Packers not being willing to take Favre back, when it's clear that he rushed into his decision to leave football behind?
It seems like, largely, this is coming down to a matter of pride, and that pride is not the pride being displayed by Brett Favre. He simply wants to play again, and originally hoped to do it with the team that made him a Hall of Fame player. It was clear a month ago that he couldn't do that, because the Packers management was too proud to admit that their heir apparent wasn't ready to helm a college team, let alone a team that was one win away from the Super Bowl.
Is Brett innocent in this? No. Not in the slightest. But then, neither are any of the other players that have decided that they just want one more shot at the big time. The onus falls on the team that owns the rights. Either accept them with open arms from the get-go, and force them to prove that they still deserve the job they left behind, or cut them loose from the beginning, saving hard feelings, and give them that chance to make their mark elsewhere.
But when a player wants to reverse his decision to retire, never offer them a financial settlement to keep them off of the field. It's just a slap in the face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
