Course, there seemed to be an additional deterrent in the mix - you see, GM's kinda think its an asshol-ish thing to do. Largely because pursuing another team's RFA's either means that:
a.) You're stealing away a young guy and therefore development investment, or
b.) You're unnecessarily driving up the other's teams payroll.
The result was a sort of "unwritten rule" among the NHL team's brass - RFA are OB.
Cue the Clarke rebuttal:
"I don't give a (expletive deleted) if nobody likes me, I could care less," Clarke told TSN. "But they shouldn't be getting mad at me, I didn't put the (offer sheet) rule in the collective bargaining agreement. If they're mad, they should call Gary Bettman and complain to him. Get mad at Gary Bettman. He's in charge of the rules, not me. I didn't realize there were some rules we're not allowed to use."And he has a point. Technically, Kesler is fair game according to the official CBA rules. Maybe Vancouver should have done a better job of wrapping up Kesler to begin with?
Further, I kind of think this is a savvy move by Clarke. He has nothing to lose and a lot to gain. If the Canucks don't match, he gets the guy he's after - it may be for a tad above market value (Kesler scored 10 goals last year), but since the dollar figure involved is low enough and the potential of the player is high enough, the overpayment thing becomes a nominal issue. However, if the Canucks DO decide to match the offer, the 1.9 million will serve to drive the Vancouver organization periously close to the salary cap, thereby enabling Clarke to deal from a position of power and potentially get Kesler in a trade from the Canucks anyways. At the very least he's causing a significant inconvenience to a rival NHL hockey club.
So if Clarke ended there, I'd have no quibble with him. But of course, he doesn't.
"To me, our thinking is completely backward," Clarke said. "I lost Kim Johnsson to (unrestricted) free agency because the Minnesota Wild gave him $4.8 million. Well, the Flyers had to give (revenue sharing) money to Minnesota and other teams and I don't like that but it's the rules. And then Minnesota takes that money and signs my player and there are no rules to say I can keep him if I match. I wish I had all the options with Kim Johnsson that Vancouver has with Kesler. They can match and keep him or they can let him go. It's up to them."C'mon Bobby. You're just pissing in the wind with this kind of stuff. For one, I doubt Minnesota received any kind of payments from the "big market" teams last year. Blessed by a ravenous fanbase, the Wild have been selling out since their inception. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were in the upper half of the revenue earners in the league. Secondly, you could have matched or even exceeded the Wild's offer to Johnsson if you didn't have a couple of 500 pound anchors named "Hatcher" and "Rathje" weighing down your payroll ($3.5 million each). Who's fault is that?
Anyways, Clarke's tirade does end on an interesting note:
"I'm just playing by the rules that are there. To be honest, I'm surprised more teams aren't doing it.”Which makes one wonder if this will spark the end to RFA's being sacrosanct in the NHL. Currently, there are a couple of relatively desirable RFA's lingering in the League's contract-less purgatory, including:
- Brian Gionta
- Paul Martin
- Dan Hamhuis
- Nikolai Zherdev
- Tim Gleason
Hell, if I was Carolina I'd be tendering offer sheets to the likes of Hamhuis, Martin and Gleason rather than looking to deal blue chip prospect Jack Johnson. And why hasn't anyone taken a run at Brian Gionta? He's a 48 goal scorer who currently belongs to a team that has precisely 0 cap space - thereby making it near impossible for the Devils to match any reasonable offer made to the diminuitive sniper.
Hmmm...should be interesting times ahead if Bobby has truly opened the "Offersheet" floodgates...
(For those interested, check out the more educated thoughts of Tom Benjamin and James Mirtle on the Clarke/Kesler situation).
