Tim Panaccio: Did Hartnell Do the Right Thing?

What would've happened if he went back to 15g-20a?

they are whining about Hart's contract?

Did these same folks complain about Cindy's new contract?. He should have taken MAX and didn't.

So if they didn't whine about that deal they should just keep their mouths closed.

I think it's important for a player to do what he feels is best for himself. Sometimes that makes the team mad. Sometimes it makes the union mad. But in the end, the person who most has to live with the consequences is the player. If he's happy, I'm happy.

I think it's important for a player to do what he feels is best for himself. Sometimes that makes the team mad. Sometimes it makes the union mad. But in the end, the person who most has to live with the consequences is the player. If he's happy, I'm happy.
- bodiva88

This is a game that is about the fans. Hartnell has ALWAYS been about the fans. He is a fan favorite in this town and now he will be beloved. I for one always have an extra appreciation when a player takes less money to stay and play where he wants to be. It tells me he realizes that an extra million here or there is really not what it is about when talking about family, being where you want to be, and playing who you want to play with.

Kudos to Hartnell, and woe to any player, when and if the fans find out, that criticizes him for doing what he felt was best for him and his family.

Did Hartnell do the right thing for taking less for a bigger contract? Did Homer & Snider do the right thing offering another 6 year deal while supporting idea that they are killing the NHL? The Answer? As a Fan I don't care about either. I like what Hartsy brings and if he can bring that at around the same rate he's been charging for another 4 years, the deal is sure worth it to me.

this is the silliest thing i have heard out of panaccio's mouth in a while. this is a made up debate.

it's a good. solid. contract.

just ask a guy like visnovsky who makes well beyond his worth at 5.5 million in his middle 30's. can you say with a straight face that he wouldn't have taken a million or so a less on a 5 or 6 year deal with a no movement clause as he currently attempts escape from long island?

This is a game that is about the fans. Hartnell has ALWAYS been about the fans. He is a fan favorite in this town and now he will be beloved. I for one always have an extra appreciation when a player takes less money to stay and play where he wants to be. It tells me he realizes that an extra million here or there is really not what it is about when talking about family, being where you want to be, and playing who you want to play with.

Kudos to Hartnell, and woe to any player, when and if the fans find out, that criticizes him for doing what he felt was best for him and his family.
- MBFlyerfan

THIS. Well said.
He took a little extra money to lock himself in long term and give his team and its fans a little more money to play with in regards to the cap. I wish more players did this and showed this kind of devotion to their team and city.
I was never a big John Elway fan, but in his final year he took a massive paycut to give his team extra money to bring in some free agents, they did, and he won a Super Bowl in his final year...always respected him after doing this.

I think it's important for a player to do what he feels is best for himself. Sometimes that makes the team mad. Sometimes it makes the union mad. But in the end, the person who most has to live with the consequences is the player. If he's happy, I'm happy.
- bodiva88

AMEN

Scott hartnell should only worry about scott hartnell & what makes him happy. He has zero responsibilty to the union except to pay his dues.

I don't think he signed for much less and it's not uncommon for players to take less money to stick with a team (unless the NHLPA had issues with Nick Lidstrom not signing for league max for YEARS).

The contract length is longer than the NHL's proposed length-cap, so in that case he's "sticking it to the Man" in the NHLPA's eyes.

I think it's another deal where people on both sides will say "this is acceptable" and wonder why the rest of the contracts aren't like this. If they were, I believe the CBA wouldn't be as much of an issue as it is.

this is the silliest thing i have heard out of panaccio's mouth in a while. this is a made up debate.

it's a good. solid. contract.

just ask a guy like visnovsky who makes well beyond his worth at 5.5 million in his middle 30's. can you say with a straight face that he wouldn't have taken a million or so a less on a 5 or 6 year deal with a no movement clause as he currently attempts escape from long island?
- murdoch

I've been a critic of Tim in the past, but this really isn't his goof. He's just putting it out there that NHLPA members are upset, which I agree they shouldn't be. It's a good contract (as you said), and the player got what he wanted. Negotiations aren't always about flexing the full extent of one's leverage. To those members who argue it makes the NHLPA look weak, I'd counter that dissenting against a player getting what he wants makes the union look weak.

I've been a critic of Tim in the past, but this really isn't his goof. He's just putting it out there that NHLPA members are upset, which I agree they shouldn't be. It's a good contract (as you said), and the player got what he wanted. Negotiations aren't always about flexing the full extent of one's leverage. To those members who argue it makes the NHLPA look weak, I'd counter that dissenting against a player getting what he wants makes the union look weak.
- BulliesPhan87

I'm not surprised they ARE, but I don't think Hartnell, who has been front and center throughout the summer with the NHLPA, should be concerned about it.

I think if you are happy somewhere, why chase more money to go somewhere you may not be happy. Hartnell obviously loves this city, organization and is awesome with charity work here. He took less for a longer contract that he could get next year and the protection of a NMC. Good for him. Who cares how much you make if you hate going to work everyday.

If the NHLPA is mad at Hartnell for his contract it's really a moot point. He did what he felt was right for himself and his family.

He signed a relatively standard contract. There's plenty of players that have decided to add extra years to help their teams mitigate the cap hit, as several other posters have pointed out.

Next year, under a new CBA, Hartnell's deal may well be seen as a good bench mark, especially if the cap drops.

they are whining about Hart's contract?

Did these same folks complain about Cindy's new contract?. He should have taken MAX and didn't.

So if they didn't whine about that deal they should just keep their mouths closed.
- Pelle31

Why would Sid have to take the max? He hasn't played a ton of games the last two years and has concussion problems. Not like he gave them a huge brake.

I'm not surprised they ARE, but I don't think Hartnell, who has been front and center throughout the summer with the NHLPA, should be concerned about it.
- bodiva88

Totally agree.

Did Hartnell do the right thing for taking less for a bigger contract? Did Homer & Snider do the right thing offering another 6 year deal while supporting idea that they are killing the NHL? The Answer? As a Fan I don't care about either. I like what Hartsy brings and if he can bring that at around the same rate he's been charging for another 4 years, the deal is sure worth it to me.
- flyler

What do you mean about snider and homer giving a 6yr contract while supporting an idea that is killing the NHL?

as soon as a player takes an agent, he's out for himself and his own interests. F the union...

this is the silliest thing i have heard out of panaccio's mouth in a while. this is a made up debate.
- murdoch

Do you really expect anything less from Panotch?

He's just putting it out there that NHLPA members are upset, which I agree they shouldn't be.
- BulliesPhan87

If there are players upset, then name names. Otherwise it is just hearsay on Panotch's part to drum up non-existent drama. As usual.

If there are players upset, then name names. Otherwise it is just hearsay on Panotch's part to drum up non-existent drama. As usual.
- Tartan69

I think you're making mountains out of molehills here.

If there are players upset, then name names. Otherwise it is just hearsay on Panotch's part to drum up non-existent drama. As usual.
- Tartan69

*gasp* You mean like he always tried to do with Richards when he was here?


He never liked it when Pronger would put him in his place too...


For an "insider", it never seems like the players, management, or his colleagues ever display much respect for him or his opinions.

As far as Hartnell - who cares what anyone else thinks. Screw the union... screw the NHL front office.. and screw the other owners who don't like it... it's between Hartnell's best interest, and Holmgren/Snider. That's it. If people don't like it, tough. Maybe people (haters) should tell them where to send their kids to school? Or where to eat dinner? Since they like getting involved in other people's personal decisions...

A reminder from the Code of Conduct:
"5. Respect the HockeyBuzz Bloggers
Bloggers should be treated with respect at all times. They do a lot of work behind the scenes to dig up information for you. If you want to disagree with them, that's OK, but whether you agree or disagree, do not attack them personally. "