Re: Timmy Time?
posted at 7/2/2013 3:32 PM EDT
In response to Fletcher1's comment:
In response to stevegm's comment:
There's not a whole lot of ways to look at this folks. Thomas didn't renege on anything. He didn't "break" the contract. Had he done so, the Bruins would have rightfully sued his azz off. If they had even a remote shot at winning....this would have ended up in the courts. The only thing bizarre about this, is that virtually no player enjoying such current success, ever left several million on the table, and headed for the woods.
He didn't work, and he didn't get paid, plus he left a fortune on the table which he'll never, ever be able to earn back. Doesn't make him Al Capone.
Thomas legally turned his back to the Bruins. Dozens have done it before, and will do it again. The Bruins have also turned their backs on deserving warriers. It seems to be a business of screw and let screw....
I was just as ticked as anyone, but only because of my own "me first attitude". I didn't give a hoot about him, just my Bruins, and whether Rask could do as well. I know jack for sure about Tim Thomas, and some of the things I thought about him as a person and teamate appear to be wrong.
What I do know, is that he did what "he" wanted, and about 99% of the rest of them do what "they" want. It's just that the other 99% couldn't stand being away from the limlight, and the money. Worse things than that.
I'm not sticking up for Thomas at all. Only questioning the logic that's skewering him.
I'm not sure about the information in the first 3 paragraphs, but also feel that we may be reaching closure on this thread, so I don't want to upset that. The contract was broken in that he didn't play for the final year as stipulated in the contract and agreed to by both sides. That doesn't make it a legal issue, as you can walk away from a contract, be suspended, and not be paid. It's breaking the agreement in the contract though, and suffering the consequences. The bad part is not so much changing your mind or breaking an agreement -- it is leaving your team and teammates handicapped with a lower salary cap than the other 29 teams in the league because of your change of heart. That was always the issue for me. Not so much a 'me first' reaction as a 'team first' reaction.
Also the Bruins cannot actually do this the other way. They are bound by the contract. The only option is the buyout, and the only relief is towards the salary cap. They can only 'turn their backs' on guys once the contract has been satisfied.
I like bigskyes take on it though. I think that is a final word we can probably all agree on.
A contract is a legal document. If that document is breached as you suggest, the B's would have had several options to force Thomas to play, or else sue, big time. The fine print gave TT the opportunity, and both sides live and die by those little caveats.
Had Thomas retired, there wouldn't have been nearly as much venom, and many would abandon the "contract" argument. Can't have it both ways.
If "handicapping your team mates" is indeed the bigger issue, it happens in varing degrees all the time.
Not arguing Fletch, just pointing out that darn few of these people give a hoot about the brand. Appears Horton kinda blindsided the team too. Since neither are illegal, I don't see that as more positive. Thomas decides he doesn't want to play right now. Horton does, he's just made the concious decision, he doesn't want to play for the Bruins.
We all usually frown on those who stand us up. My point is merely that TT is just one of many. Certainly no worse, because he didn't spurn us, for another.
And yeah, I'm ready to move on. Maybe he did us a favour. Maybe one more year of TT, and Rask would have wanted out.