Loyalty to your team. Does it exist any more?

[Buffalo Rick]

My quick answer is no.  In most cases.  In the rare case of Chris Drury he was loyal  to his childhood team the Rangers and my Sabres payed the price as he walked out behind Briere that summer after the success the Sabres had. Now days I look at a guy like Patrick Kane.  He is a Buffalo  native and grew up a Sabres fan.  Would you  not think this would be the time he might want to "come home" and play for the Sabres now that they are on the rise and Chicago has hit rock bottom?  Its going to be a long rebuild in Chicago.  The Sabres are young and good, and one bad period vs the forum favorites does not change that. I am not sure how long Kane is locked in?  Likely a while.  If not, I would think the Sabres could make something happen there.  After all, Chicago is not winning again in my lifetime. And Buffalo is going to get a kick at the can very soon.  Having Eichel, Ristolainen and Dahlin pretty much will assure that. And Dahlin is a rookie.  I wonder if Botterill has considered that?  As for other teams loyalty, I cannot say who grew up where and cheered for who in most cases.  But free agency, greed created by ridiculous contracts in baseball and basketball have really not helped matters. I do not include football because in football your career can be over on the next play.  Your life span in that sport is far shorter.Its just a fact.  But these baseball contracts, like the one Harper has are just bad for sports.  Bad for hockey too because why should a guy that does not even get hit make that kind of money?  I think something has to be done. So LOYALTY has gone out the window in sports due to the almighty buck.  And that is a shame

[The Geek on Skates]

Hey there, Hockey Junkie, always cool to meet another Sabres fan! 

 

IMO no, loyalty to a team - at least from the players' perspective - is sadly a thing of the past.  There are definitely some exceptions, but I can't remember the last time a player stayed with his team for that reason.  The good ones get better deals, and the bad ones get sent to the minors, and everyone else is fair game to be traded by management.

 

But this kinda begs the question: was it ever a thing?  I believe it was in the Original Six days, when guys like Rocket Richard or Gordie Howe stayed on their teams for their entire careers - but in those days hockey got a lot more personal, too.  With 6 teams in a 50-game season, opposing players saw a whole lot more than they do today.  But later on, big name players got traded all the time - even Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky, two of the most iconic players of all time - switched teams.  And I don't think feelings had anything to do with it.  I know in Gretzky's case there was a lot of $ involved anyway.

 

But this I will say about loyalty: LET'S GO, BUFFALO!

[hf101]

9 minutes ago, The Geek on Skates said:

Hey there, Hockey Junkie, always cool to meet another Sabres fan! 

 

IMO no, loyalty to a team - at least from the players' perspective - is sadly a thing of the past.  There are definitely some exceptions, but I can't remember the last time a player stayed with his team for that reason.  The good ones get better deals, and the bad ones get sent to the minors, and everyone else is fair game to be traded by management.

 

But this kinda begs the question: was it ever a thing?  I believe it was in the Original Six days, when guys like Rocket Richard or Gordie Howe stayed on their teams for their entire careers - but in those days hockey got a lot more personal, too.  With 6 teams in a 50-game season, opposing players saw a whole lot more than they do today.  But later on, big name players got traded all the time - even Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky, two of the most iconic players of all time - switched teams.  And I don't think feelings had anything to do with it.  I know in Gretzky's case there was a lot of $ involved anyway.

 

But this I will say about loyalty: LET'S GO, BUFFALO!

 

 

Nice first post!  There is a lot more talent to choose from in the league these days too so we do see a lot of player movement.  But I do think most teams have tried to build around 1 or 2 players who can potentially play their whole career for one team.  

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Shane Doan says, "I am the last of my kind..."  

 

Welcome aboard @The Geek on Skates !

[yave1964]

There has always been a lot of player movement for every Beliveau or Richard who spent their entire career with one team there is a Lafleur or Gordie, Hull or even Orr who played out the string elsewhere, we tend to romance era's and remember players in a certain sweater but a tiny minority from every generation spend their entire career with one club. Salming, Sittler, Getzky, Coffey, right on to today, players move mid or late career elsewhere, the big difference is free agency whereas in previous generations the owners decided when to move a Ted Lindsay or a Bernie Federko who were iconic in their city but now the players have as much or more say in it. There will always be exceptions like Doan and a few others but that is what they are, exceptions and that is what they always have been. The Sedin twins, Getzlaf and Perry, Bergeron and Lundqvist come immediately to mind of those who have spent their entire career with one organization but then you have guys like Marleau who leave to chase one final payday and are well within their right to do so. IMHO there are no more or no less players today who spend their entire career with one team than there were in any other generation. If you look at players who played from the expansion era on who have been elected to the Hall of Fame a ridiculous amount of them played for two or more teams, it just gets romanticized is all about team/player loyalty from previous generations. It is a myth.

 BTW welcome aboard @The Geek on Skates!