So Daniel Alfredsson has signed a contract to play his probably-final season in Detroit, and not in Ottawa where he has played the entire rest of his career. The reason - as it so often is for athletes whose best earning potential is in the past - is because it gives him a better chance to win the cup that he's never won during his career.
Generally, fans support this sort of thing if it's a veteran declining team with no chance of winning. It's a bit of a slap in the face given the teams' near-equal records last year, but Detroit's generation-long run of success makes it somewhat understandable (the last time they missed the playoffs was before the Senators existed.) Usually I'm one of the people willing to endorse the move-to-get-a-chance-at-a-cup end-of-career move. But I'm starting to wonder. For one thing, this doesn't work an awful lot of the time. Even if you assume that you could get signed by any team you want, what are the chances you could pick the next year's winner a year ahead of time when they haven't even done with free agents yet? Maybe one in ten? Is a one in ten chance at a cup really better than going through your career with one team and an unblemished record as the face of the franchise?
Furthermore, what are the ethics of parachuting into an already-good team for the express purpose of winning a championship? I realise that it's not like he'd be a parasite - the veteran newcomer will contribute to the team as much as anyone. But at what point does moving to a team because it's already good become a greedy strategy? In a sport that puts such an emphasis on character, it's strange that no one ever questions a player for this decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment