Scratch Hamhuis Off The List

I hope this is the end of the “Bobby Ryan doesn’t want to be in Anaheim” crap. Read the article linked above (http://ducks.ocregister.com/2010/06/19/ryans-not-frustrated-but-kind-of-worried/38389/), and pay attention to his quotes. Also read the one linked to within it. The guy wants to stay in Anaheim, period.
.
The issue with Ryan and the Ducks isn’t money, or willingness to play there — it’s term. He wants a four-year deal, where at the end of it he will be 27, and (because it would be signed under the existing CBA – this is key) he would therefore become a UFA. If he took the three-year deal Anaheim wants to give him, he would be 26 at its end and therefore a RFA. With the CBA set to expire before the deal is up, it is possible the rules surrounding UFA status could get altered, possibly to a later age … which is why it’s important to note any deal signed under the existing CBA would have to be honored under the current rules.
.
THAT is what the whole issue is about — NOTHING ELSE.
.
It’s interesting that he said if he gets one more article from Toronto emailed to him he’s going to lose it. I don’t blame him. The amount of unresearched, speculative bullshit that has come out of TO in regard to Ryan is amazing. The information about the contract he’s seeking, and his desire to remain in Anaheim for less money than Getzlaf and Perry, is all out there and has been for quite some time (the article about the 4-year deal was published back in April, for example). This stuff isn’t all that difficult …

@ Jes:
Co-workers … has a nice ring to it, unfortunately we don’t get paid to do this, so I’m not sure the word applies. Prefer “teammates”.
.
The article you’re referring to is one of Derek’s. If you read it again, you’ll notice he openly references and acknowledges the speculation for what it is (quote: “if you believe the hearsay”).
.
My comment was in reference to Ryan’s comment about being e-mailed articles out of Toronto that say he doesn’t want to be in Anaheim. There is nothing wrong with speculation as long as it is presented as such … but when the topic of interest is presented in a factual manner, it’s generally a good idea for the writer to present one or two actual facts to back the argument up.
.
Make sense? I’d like to think something like fact-checking would be common practice within the media, but … I suppose I’m just too much of an optimist.