So I read some version of this about 1000 times last night: The Lightning and other NHL teams will now refuse to trade Drouin and make it even harder to make a trade.
And in general, people applauded.
So let me get this straight: a 20 year old kid, who is among the best in the world at his chosen profession (literally, at worst, top 1000 out of 7.6 billion. Do the math.) is being objectively treated badly by his employer - a billionaire hedge fund manager who owns a hockey team for a novelty - and is supposed to just shut up and go along with it?
I own a Weird Al CD for a novelty.
Now, I may be wrong because I am no financial expert. However, as far as I can tell, hedge funds exist to make it less risky for millionaires to become billionaires while staying safely out of the reach of regulators. Essentially, they are a serious problem to anyone concerned with insignificant matters like income disparity and 20% poverty.
Now, I don't know Tampa's owner, and I am not judging him. I only bring this up to say that people judging the "character" of Jonathan Drouin for going against hockey's BS convention of silence and submission, are not thinking this situation through.
Mainly, why is a 20 year old kid held to rigid moral standards but a Harvard billionaire who put his not unimpressive brainpower to work making more money for greedy rich people in a legal-but-only-because-rich-people-run-everything-and-poor-people-assume-they-will- one-day-be-rich-so-don't-pay-any-attention sort of way, is not?
Let's just point out here that NHL owners make millions - that they don't really need - by exploiting the unbelievably rare talents of people who have next to no choice but to buy into their system.
And yet, I am supposed to label Jonathan Drouin a traitor, a locker room problem and a piece of crap, essentially, because he chose to rock the boat of a system that rewards the best of the best at the expense of younger players?
Drouin entered the NHL and was instantly above average - putting up some of the best assist numbers in the game and out-performing the possession metrics of the rest of his team, which is unanimously considered one of the best in the game.
Despite proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he belongs in the NHL, his team is really good and doesn't want to play him too much. The NHL routinely treats young players like crap, so it's no surprise it happened or that he'd be angry about it.
So sure, he signed a contract. But he had no choice. That contract is not even that negotiable since the Players Association bargained away the rights of players who might need just that one single contract, in favor of more money for veterans who are already likely millionaires.
So because Drouin wants to play in the best league for his abilities, he has no choice but to sign a contract that allows the Lightning to own him until he is passed his prime at age 26. Or, depending on how you want to define "prime" almost certainly passed his best seasons.
No matter what, hockey players have a limited career. Each game they play is a massive injury risk. Given these unassailable facts, Drouin is being reasonable when he says he doesn't want to play in the minors before being traded because he might get injured.
He is being reasonable as an extremely rare and gifted talent to want to utilize his talent before it goes away.
Who else - and age shouldn't matter - who is the best at something would willingly "wait their turn" and go work somewhere worse for 90% less money?
I mean, sure, he's a lucky guy who's set for life, but that isn't the point. Why is he held to standards that - for instance - the guy who signs his cheque isn't?
Why is the hockey worlds near unanimous response to suggest that Steve Yzerman not trade him out of spite?
Whether or not you like how he's gone about it, Drouin has a legitimate complaint. And suggesting that it's no OK for Yzerman to act immaturely and, out of spite, 'teach him a lesson' is absolutely insane.
Serious professionals and grown adults are suggesting that Yzerman act like a child, take his ball and go home. Drouin could be out of the NHL until he's 26 if Yzerman wanted him to be. And while I don't know or really even think Drouin is making the best decision here, I question the culture of the NHL for almost unanimously vilifying him without asking why he might have made this decision. I also question how rational, supposedly mature adults can, with a straight face, suggest that Yzerman respond like a five year old.
Yzerman's team is on the verge of being one of the best teams in the league. Yet people seriously think he should spite this kid, even though giving him what he wants would help both parties?
NHL GMs actually called Yzerman and told him NOT to make a move? And we accept the childish behavior of these middle aged men, while condemning a kid who just wants to play hockey in the best league during his extremely short window for doing so?
Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»