What's up with stars wanting out?

[Tciso]

Matthew and Brady (and Walt in his day for that matter) can all play for me any day of the week.

Sure. But that’s not an endorsement of their intelligence.

...looking for a Cup.

Not a professorial.

And yet you are a Canucks fan.

[UWSaint]

So when I initially started this thread about the starts wanting out, I had written out a long argument that was determined to be "forbidden." Due to the post-bot attack controls, I am sure.

But without explaining in depth my first reason (which I think are the dominant reasons) (I think the thread hit on these) here's what I think they are:

(1) NHL Team incompetence, not Team USA affiliation, is the primary driver of players wanting to leave. One thing Winnipeg, Ottawa, Vancouver, Detroit, and Columbus have in common is there's no real prospect of truly winning anytime soon and they've been exercising futility for quite some time. One thing these teams don't have in common is being Canadian.

The second point I wanted to make is (2) Quinn Hughes is closer to Zack Werenski and neither are like B. Tkachuck, Larkin, and Hellebuyck.
. Since I started this thread, I've actually softened a little bit on Hellebuyck for the third reason.... But the big point I wanted to make here is that there's a big difference morally speaking between telling a team that you don't intend to stay beyond your contract period and demanding a trade. What's the moral obligation to stay past the time period that you agree to sign? Zero -- and if the team isn't fulfilling its end of the bargain (see the first point), well, Hughes and Werenski did their teams a favor. (And I am assuming both were asked what their intentions were: the "problem" was created by asking a question (or volunteering information) that has no actionable item directly tied to the purpose of the question. Teams can't resign players two years out, and they can't negotiate contracts two years out (though I am sure they do.....). The TEAM is the one who has an interest in knowing what a player is thinking two years out -- the player (especially Hughes who didn't have a NTC) is likely better off with their cards closer to their chest.

As an aside, what did Hughes learn? Keep the cards closer to the chest -- and that's not working out well for the Wild or Hughes' reputation. But it will work out fine for his contract.....

The third point I wanted to make is a bit more controversial for the board: (3) Take Some Responsibility, My Canadian Friends. There's this theme, of course, that Americans won't play in Canada, that they will take the first train out, etc. And if this theme is correct (and I am not sure it is since the dominant factor to me is competitive players with a taste of success (that's where the Team USA thing is strongest) and a finite career playing in situations with only remote chances of being seriously competitive in their remaining peak years), the evidence suggests that it *wasn't* correct when Hughes, Tkachuk, and Hellebuyck all signed contracts that wouldn't have them out of Canada as soon as possible. And that suggests that there may be changed circumstances.

Surely USA winning gold is one changed circumstance. But another is the fact that booing the US National Anthem. It is frequent, it is excessively discourteous, it is unwelcoming. And its intended to be those things because to the booing fans, this political statement (which will have ZERO effect on US-Canada relations) is more important to the boo birds than making a foreign player who wins games for your team and is part of your community feel welcome. Or maybe just more important than the mutual respect that we should have towards individuals respecting their nations. How many of you booed the anthem? How many of you didn't turn to your booing neighbor at a game and say, "knock it off, you dick."

Tkachuk may have had it is worst in the Canadian press. Criticized for celebrating with his teammates. For being either a Trump supporter or at least acting as EVERY American athlete before Trump, whether Republican or Democrat, would act when the President of the United States invites you to the White House or calls your team after winning a medal or trophy. And Tkachuk strikes me as particularly proud to represent the United States (and to be an American -- I am sure there are Canadian Olympians similarly moved to wear the red and white (or black....)). There's a part of me that thinks "suck it up, buttercup" when the media and fans slag a player (or even their country). But there's a part of me that says, if my friends and community don't support me in my successes, f*** them. Its actually a pretty good measure of whether a person is worth spending your time with and supporting -- are they included to drag you down or lift you up.

But the attacks on Hellebuyck, it appears, went even deeper to threats against him and his wife. I don't know the veracity, and I don't know their seriousness, and I can't adjudicate that, but it does seem that Hellebuyck had a reasonable fear for his family's safety. One doesn't have to be an American to have this be a motivator for moving out of Canada (Marner) -- and I don't think Canada is the only place where athletes may get threats, but the broader point is that there's no way to make a person feel more unwelcome in a community than to feel a lack of safety. Even if its not directed at the individual, whether there's general public order or not is a primary reason (in the US, and I assume maybe Canada) why people leave cities for the suburbs, why they leave declining areas for places who aren't managing decline but promoting growth. But when it is personally directed... well, you have to stack up your duty to your family vs. your duty to your employer.

Now that Hellebuyck appears to have been the target of directed threats does not implicate Canadians generally with the individuals directing the threats. But I would say that when you direct threats, due to your nationality, are combined with general widely held grievances about your nationality, it is far more likely to have someone on edge.

I don't know that this (anti-US sentiment) didn't also effect Hughes. And Jewish to boot...are your Vancouver leftists all anti-Semites as it seems like they are in the "progressive" cities of the United States?

The last point on Americans wanting out of Canada -- though this also applies to Canadians wanting out of Canada -- is taxes. Communities make choices with their tax policy. We all know that taxes discourage activity. Don't want people to smoke? Tax the hell out of it, disincentivize it. But the disincentive effect doesn't require the taxing authority's intent; it is baked into the fact of a tax. And so if you tax the hell out of high income earners, you disincentivize rich people working in your community when they can work elsewhere. Its not just tax policy, of course, it is also monetary policy and regulatory policies that effect how far the buck can go.

Of course, not raising revenue has other tradeoffs -- maybe there's worse social services, maybe there's worse public education. But the tradeoff for that is a better chance at landing (or poaching) really good athletes or other successful people. Sounds like a funny tradeoff (for those who want the government to do more), and yet what city/state/province (and nearly all cities lean left, the question is how much) doesn't subsidize their professional sports teams in one way or another when the promises of increased economic activity are somewhat dubious?

Again, I don't think this stuff is #1 -- #1 is the desire to play with a competitive franchise -- though it could be #1 for Hellebuyck if he truly feared for his family's safety. But as with all things, individuals make binary decisions (stay or go) based on multifactorial inputs.

[rats19]

While I don’t believe we all think that way there is enough of it around to raise this perception…

I agree with you UW… Canadians need to be better…

[Madcombinepilot]

I agree with you UW… Canadians need to be better…

We used to be.

[Cornuck]

First off, I'm glad you could post a long post!

And I agree (with some points) that being competitive is likely the main reason a player will stay or leave a team. Also agree on the moral differences between wanting out when a contract ends, vs demanding a trade - huge difference.

One other thing you didn't touch on was the 'working environment' - I think that even if a team is very competitive, a coach or the management could make the workplace unsuitable for a player, who will then want to leave. On the flipside, a team that is working great together, a coach that builds that environment, and management that supports it, could also lead to a player wanting to stay, even if the team isn't on the road to the Cup.

As for the booing of the anthem, I would hope that American players understand the political undercurrents that led to it, and understood it was not directed at them - although they would take some offense to it. At the time (I don't think it's still going on, is it?), it was a public reaction to threats made against Canada.

In the end, all of us have left jobs for some reason - and stayed longer at others that may not have been the best situation - and hockey players are still human.

[UWSaint]

One other thing you didn't touch on was the 'working environment' - I think that even if a team is very competitive, a coach or the management could make the workplace unsuitable for a player, who will then want to leave.
...
In the end, all of us have left jobs for some reason - and stayed longer at others that may not have been the best situation - and hockey players are still human.

Agreed, and while I agree this is distinct from being on a noncompetitive team, there seems to be some correlation between poorly run franchises and poorly performing franchises. Not a perfect correlation -- see the 2010 era Blackhawks for what must have been an, umm, uncomfortable workplace. But in a bad workplace, effort usually starts to diminish before the decision is ever made to leave, no? I'm not sure the post-Sedin Canucks ever had the environment that had players giving it their all, working for one another, etc. The exception to all of it was the Boudreau bounce, which could never last forever and the negative tradeoffs were sure to catch up, but I think there was a lot more than taking the reins of player creativity that unleashed a 2/3 of a season of really good and entertaining hockey. This group today doesn't have anywhere close to the necessary talent for culture shift to translate into short term success in the standings, but with a better foundation, they may have a better chance pulling out of mediocrity than the post-AV era Canucks had.

As for the booing of the anthem, I would hope that American players understand the political undercurrents that led to it, and understood it was not directed at them - although they would take some offense to it. At the time (I don't think it's still going on, is it?), it was a public reaction to threats made against Canada.

But it *is* directed at them, literally. The fans are in a circle around the ice, their voices are directed towards the ice, the players are on the ice.... Not trying to be glib -- there's just a vast difference in crowd noise "in the building" and "on the field/ice." I get that the people who boo likely aren't intending their boos to be intended for the players themselves. But if you've ever been a foreign national (and that's not a hypo for you, is it Cornuck), you are aware of that status to the point where it becomes much more of your identity (by choice or by attribution) than it is when you are in your own country.

Look, I don't generally like the mingling of politics and sport -- I've written about that on this board in various threads. Its ineffective as a political tool, and it diminishes the sport. (E.g., keep Russia out of the IIHF juniors -- is it a better sporting event?). In fact, the best political value of national sports or international pro sports (like the NHL) is that it is cooperatively competitive; something we enjoy together and we can pull for our boys in a simulacrum of violence that makes the real thing a little bit less likely.

[Lancer]

I agree with you UW… Canadians need to be better…

We used to be.

They used to be as well. Then a significant majority of them voted for a man who has stated his intent to vassalize us.

Will the real America please stand up??

[Lancer]

As an aside, what did Hughes learn? Keep the cards closer to the chest -- and that's not working out well for the Wild or Hughes' reputation. But it will work out fine for his contract.....

In light of Quit's shenanigans with Billy Guerin, I have likewise altered my viewpoint on him. It's not so much his anti-Canadianism - he's just a 'me-first' mercenary looking for his perfect scenario in which to plop himself and win on a contender. Good thing for him the salary cap is rising and smart contenders may only have to jettison so many players to fit his salary in.

The third point I wanted to make is a bit more controversial for the board: (3) Take Some Responsibility, My Canadian Friends. There's this theme, of course, that Americans won't play in Canada, that they will take the first train out, etc. And if this theme is correct (and I am not sure it is since the dominant factor to me is competitive players with a taste of success (that's where the Team USA thing is strongest) and a finite career playing in situations with only remote chances of being seriously competitive in their remaining peak years), the evidence suggests that it *wasn't* correct when Hughes, Tkachuk, and Hellebuyck all signed contracts that wouldn't have them out of Canada as soon as possible. And that suggests that there may be changed circumstances.

Surely USA winning gold is one changed circumstance.

Yup. The Four Nations and the Olympics were a turning point for them. The timing doesn't align quite nicely with Hughes, but nobody can tell me that there's no smoking gun or two in those experiences.

But another is the fact that booing the US National Anthem. It is frequent, it is excessively discourteous, it is unwelcoming. And its intended to be those things because to the booing fans, this political statement (which will have ZERO effect on US-Canada relations) is more important to the boo birds than making a foreign player who wins games for your team and is part of your community feel welcome. Or maybe just more important than the mutual respect that we should have towards individuals respecting their nations. How many of you booed the anthem? How many of you didn't turn to your booing neighbor at a game and say, "knock it off, you dick."

Easy thing for you to say; when was the last time any of America's neighbors made public noises about economically subjugating and vassalizing them??? When was the last time you had a neighbor and ally unleash an unprovoked tariff war on America with the express purpose of breaking your economy?? Mutual respect has been in scarce supply - and it starts with your nation's leaders. What's worse is the seal-like clapping from his base. The amount of colleagues of mine posted to the States - working alongside their American uniformed co-workers - who have described their daily life as Canadians living and working (Legally, I might add, though that only means so much down there) in the States as 'unpleasant' would surprise you. Some have had to move their families back 5to Canada because of all the harassment their wives and kids have received from good, upstanding Americans.

If you were shocked and disappointed by Canadian hockey fans booing your anthem - something we just don't do otherwise - you may ask yourself, "What would drive these people to do such things that are, frankly, out of character?" Maybe some American players may have asked themselves the same question - maybe not.

Blaming Canadian fans for booing your national anthem just smacks of Trump-esque gaslighting in the face of what's gone on politically. This isn't about some political issue in a country across an ocean or two - like people booed the South African anthem back in the Apartheid days. This is your President who has uttered 51st state, musing about using military force against Canada - and Greenland while he was at it. Americans voted him in; they own him when he shits on the neighbor's lawn; and shouldn't complain when the neighbors fling his shit back at them.

But the attacks on Hellebuyck, it appears, went even deeper to threats against him and his wife. I don't know the veracity, and I don't know their seriousness, and I can't adjudicate that, but it does seem that Hellebuyck had a reasonable fear for his family's safety. One doesn't have to be an American to have this be a motivator for moving out of Canada (Marner) -- and I don't think Canada is the only place where athletes may get threats, but the broader point is that there's no way to make a person feel more unwelcome in a community than to feel a lack of safety. Even if its not directed at the individual, whether there's general public order or not is a primary reason (in the US, and I assume maybe Canada) why people leave cities for the suburbs, why they leave declining areas for places who aren't managing decline but promoting growth. But when it is personally directed... well, you have to stack up your duty to your family vs. your duty to your employer.

Now that Hellebuyck appears to have been the target of directed threats does not implicate Canadians generally with the individuals directing the threats. But I would say that when you direct threats, due to your nationality, are combined with general widely held grievances about your nationality, it is far more likely to have someone on edge.

The Helleybuck situation is its own level. Going after his wife and kids is offside, no matter what. If he and his family don't feel safe, or the atmosphere has them all stressed-out, I don't blame him for going. That's a safety and peace-of-mind issue as opposed to whatever latent anti-Canadianism he may harbor.

[Lancer]

As for the booing of the anthem, I would hope that American players understand the political undercurrents that led to it, and understood it was not directed at them - although they would take some offense to it. At the time (I don't think it's still going on, is it?), it was a public reaction to threats made against Canada.

But it *is* directed at them, literally. The fans are in a circle around the ice, their voices are directed towards the ice, the players are on the ice.... Not trying to be glib -- there's just a vast difference in crowd noise "in the building" and "on the field/ice." I get that the people who boo likely aren't intending their boos to be intended for the players themselves. But if you've ever been a foreign national (and that's not a hypo for you, is it Cornuck), you are aware of that status to the point where it becomes much more of your identity (by choice or by attribution) than it is when you are in your own country.

Look, I don't generally like the mingling of politics and sport -- I've written about that on this board in various threads. Its ineffective as a political tool, and it diminishes the sport. (E.g., keep Russia out of the IIHF juniors -- is it a better sporting event?). In fact, the best political value of national sports or international pro sports (like the NHL) is that it is cooperatively competitive; something we enjoy together and we can pull for our boys in a simulacrum of violence that makes the real thing a little bit less likely.

Aaaaahhhh.... but, politics have ALWAYS played a role in sport. Why do you think governments spend stupid amount of bucks just to hold an international tournament? If it didn't, we wouldn't be cheering national teams; we'd be cheering for collections of all-stars here and there - a global super-league vice an international tournament. Nationalism is ALWAYS politically-charged. Why do you think world leaders go to these things?!?

Like it or hate it, politics will be a part of sports - especially when it meshes with international play. Are you totally cool with Ovechkin shilling for Putin while making his millions in DC??? Come to think of it, getting rich while shilling for Putin in DC is something Ovechkin has in common with a good lot of others in that town.

Players get booed all the time - whether they think it's justified or not. As for how fair it is for American players to feel personally booed because of what their President has done, I would offer that if they voted for Trump they should just have the self-awareness to realize that they voted themselves into that situation and wear that red hat comfortably; if they didn't, they could more usefully use the experience as motivation to do better the next election.

[UWSaint]

Lancer, thanks for making the unhinged, catastrophic, sky is falling, politics-is-everything case. I don’t know if you’ve ever bitched about Americans not wanting to play in Canada, but if you have, at least you have your politics.

[donlever]

Lol.....

Bitch might be a tad strong but Lancer indeed has that notch in his CC gunbelt.

[Meds]

I'm glad that Lancer doesn't speak for the majority of Canadians.

He rather outs himself here.

[Lancer]

Lancer, thanks for making the unhinged, catastrophic, sky is falling, politics-is-everything case. I don’t know if you’ve ever bitched about Americans not wanting to play in Canada, but if you have, at least you have your politics.

As long as it's comfy where ya live.

Risk mitigation being all the age these days, it makes sense to factor in inherent risk with some players.

[Lancer]

I'm glad that Lancer doesn't speak for the majority of Canadians.

He rather outs himself here.

Quite happy to speak for myself, all-told.

But, as those "nasty Canadians" UW has bemoaned lately (funny the timing of that too - got a red hat in your closet, Dub?) would indicate, I'm far from alone. In fact, Mëds, you may want to have a gander at the polling numbers before you start characterizing the majority of Canadians.

But on to hockey matters...

[UWSaint]

Risk mitigation being all the [r]age these days, it makes sense to factor in inherent risk with some players.

That's the (third) claim in my post -- which you are free to disagree with -- the risk is not *inherent* but is instead partly mutable based on the attitudes of a significant enough sample of Canadians (Mëds says minority; you suggest majority) towards the American foreign nationals.