Re: Jagr vs Iginla
posted at 2/7/2014 12:33 PM EST
In response to stevegm's comment:
First of all, I didn't ignore it. If you remember, 'I' wasn't asked that question.
I will answer it for you though.
No, Calgary was not obligated to trade Iginla due to his NMC. That has no relevance to anything within this thread. They could have kept him, and gotten zilch in return a few weeks later, when he signed a new deal elsewhere. It was a foregone conclusion he wasn't coming back to Calgary in 13/14, and it was also obvious the Flames weren't making last years playoffs.
So...what does that have to do with Chiarelli and the Bruins. Boston made the best offer, and Calgary agreed to the deal, without realizing Iginla had to "legally" sign off to a deal with Boston, as opposed to insinuating such earlier. He decided he was only interested in going to Pittsburgh, so Calgary decided their offer was better than paying Iginla for another few weeks, and getting squat in return.
They are two separate issues.
I was told many times by just about all on this board to go read what a NTC means. There are even some, who sadly, even went to tortured lengths to show it to me in writing from some website.
All I've ever have been screaming about is that for all those who state that he was traded to Pitt due to a NTC is not an accurate statement.
I completely understand how Iginla and Crosby blew up the boston deal by forcing Calgary's hand in employing his NTC.
Feaster and Calgary were under no obligation to trade Iginla to Pitt due to a NTC !
And amazingly enough almost a year later and they still don't get it
If anyone wants to discuss why I feel IMO Chiarelli deserves some of the blame, I'm fine with that.
But they are two separate conversations.
How anyone with an IQ above room temp could disagree with that is beyond comprehension