Around the League Thread | Pre-Season Approaches

[krutovsdonut]

wow. it is very hard to square that with the treatment of the cap of other athletes who are physically injured or in the player assistance program.

edit. wait, i guess it is the same as fully suspended but if you can pay a suspended player and not have them on the cap that's an incentive for ltir players to get themselves suspended.

 

[Jerry the great]

This isn't really a Vegas win. No player under a contract suspension/non-buyout termination counts towards the cap (eg. Nichuskin for the Avs when in the assistance program as a recent example).

It's a Lehner win because somehow he failed to satisfy his end of the bargain and gets paid anyways.

Can you imagine the public/political backlash if the League were to punish a guy who has a well documented underlying mental health condition? it would be a PR disaster. This is, or should be, a totally unsurprising outcome.

 

[MS]

The optics aren't great, but in this particular case (Lehner has massive mental health issues), i'm not sure this is the wrong outcome. Prior to being diagnosed with bipolar disorder 6 years ago he was a suicidal, and addicted to drugs and alcohol. If he's unable to fulfill his contractual obligations because of his health....does it really matter if it mental or physical (or a combination of the two)? If the league is going to continue to make a big deal of mental health awareness (as they should), they can hardly punish the player/team here. I'm sure the VGK management pointed this out to the league (as would any team in the same situation).

To me a guy unable to play because of serious mental health issues should be an LTIR case, not a get out of jail free card for the team.

And obviously the player should be paid.

Nothing should be different from any sort of physical injury forcing LTIR.

 

[Jerry the great]

To me a guy unable to play because of serious mental health issues should be an LTIR case, not a get out of jail free card for the team.

And obviously the player should be paid.

Nothing should be different from any sort of physical injury forcing LTIR.

that's fair

 

[calnuck]

To me a guy unable to play because of serious mental health issues should be an LTIR case, not a get out of jail free card for the team.

And obviously the player should be paid.

Nothing should be different from any sort of physical injury forcing LTIR.

The absolute correct take. Thank you

 

[Jyrki]

To me a guy unable to play because of serious mental health issues should be an LTIR case, not a get out of jail free card for the team.

And obviously the player should be paid.

Nothing should be different from any sort of physical injury forcing LTIR.

The "trick" here is that Lehner's issues go beyond health and include legal troubles as well that could contravene his NHL contract. Can't really compare that with someone being sent to Robidas Island.

 

[StreetHawk]

To me a guy unable to play because of serious mental health issues should be an LTIR case, not a get out of jail free card for the team.

And obviously the player should be paid.

Nothing should be different from any sort of physical injury forcing LTIR.

All good points. He was also listed with an injury so if LV needs him to take a physical because insurance requires it in order to have his contract covered, then he does need to report to the team to take the physical.

 

[pitseleh]

This isn't really a Vegas win. No player under a contract suspension/non-buyout termination counts towards the cap (eg. Nichuskin for the Avs when in the assistance program as a recent example).

It's a Lehner win because somehow he failed to satisfy his end of the bargain and gets paid anyways.

I’m not sure that’s right. Lehner/the PA were gearing up for a grievance. I’m sure their argument was going to be that he should be treated the same as any player suffering from a physical disability limiting their ability to play. It’s a reasonable one.

Both the player and the team get what they want but it doesn’t really make sense - either he’s disabled and should get paid, with money counting against the cap, or he’s not and he’s in breach of his SPC.

This lets the league avoid a messy fight about whether someone with mental illness is disabled for the purposes of the CBA (which, fair enough, I can see why they want to avoid that) but can’t assume it is a win for the player.

 

[tantalum]

To me a guy unable to play because of serious mental health issues should be an LTIR case, not a get out of jail free card for the team.

And obviously the player should be paid.

Nothing should be different from any sort of physical injury forcing LTIR.

That player still has to satisfy the requirements of the contract though. It does not appear that he did that by not showing up to camp. Any other player not showing up to camp would similarly be under a contract suspension and not count against the cap.

I feel this case there was probably enough grey area correspondence that things could go either way in a grievance case and the sides settled at the compromise.

 

[Vector]

 

[supercanuck]

He's "suspended with pay", I guess. This so conveniently works out for all parties in the end. LOL

 

[Nucker101]

Can we do this with Poolman?

 

[tantalum]

I’m not sure that’s right. Lehner/the PA were gearing up for a grievance. I’m sure their argument was going to be that he should be treated the same as any player suffering from a physical disability limiting their ability to play. It’s a reasonable one.

Both the player and the team get what they want but it doesn’t really make sense - either he’s disabled and should get paid, with money counting against the cap, or he’s not and he’s in breach of his SPC.

This lets the league avoid a messy fight about whether someone with mental illness is disabled for the purposes of the CBA (which, fair enough, I can see why they want to avoid that) but can’t assume it is a win for the player.

A player with a suspended contract not counting against the cap is definitely correct.

"I’m sure their argument was going to be that he should be treated the same as any player suffering from a physical disability limiting their ability to play. It’s a reasonable one."

Except that wouldn't be their argument. Why? Simply because what happened is how a player suffering from a physical disability who fails to show up to camp is treated. Contract is suspended and does not count against the cap.

Same with a player who goes into the assistance program which isn't just for substance abuse but also for mental health issues. If a player goes into the program, however, they do not get paid. That is a annoyance that players have brought up before but it how it is dealt with (no cap hit, no salary paid).

So if I were to parse this entire situation my guess is that Lehner does not want to go back into the assistance program because he either didn't have a good experience with it or can reasonably demonstrate a different way to get healthy outside the program. Or there was nebulous communication on whether he had to show up or not given he is in the assistance program.

That lands everybody in a grey area. Normally, the player would go to the assistance program, get suspended without pay and his cap hit doesn't count. If my suspicion is correct then you need to figure out how to deal with it and this was the compromise found. Guy gets paid (abnormal result for other comparable situations) and team does not have a cap hit (what would normally happen for a player in the assistance program or failed to show to camp).

 

[StreetHawk]

He's "suspended with pay", I guess. This so conveniently works out for all parties in the end. LOL

Can’t there be a work around in that the team meets him wherever he is to do a physical at the closest facility to him to get this physical done? But instead they spend time working on this “resolution” with the nhl.

 

[Vector]

Can we do this with Poolman?

This was my thought as well "Why not Poolman'? I'm guessing it's entirely because of mental health/legal circumstances/NHLPA Player Assistance aspects.

 

[Peen]

My assumption here is that this is a likely a one-off given his mental health circumstances & bankruptcy. That's why he's being paid.

I think if he wasn't going through that, he's either showing up and is a usual LTIR case or he's not showing up and it's simply just voided with no payment.

I don't really have any issue with this.

 

[LordBacon]

To me a guy unable to play because of serious mental health issues should be an LTIR case, not a get out of jail free card for the team.

And obviously the player should be paid.

Nothing should be different from any sort of physical injury forcing LTIR.

Excellent take.

 

[pitseleh]

Except that wouldn't be their argument. Why? Simply because what happened is how a player suffering from a physical disability who fails to show up to camp is treated. Contract is suspended and does not count against the cap.

That’s not quite right. The injury/illness provisions relieve a player from their obligations under the SPC. Failing to report to training camp is no different than failing to report to a practice or game during the season when you’re hurt.

There’s a separate question about whether the injury is hockey related (e.g. if a guy hurts himself on his motorcycle in the offseason, he could be suspended) but it’s not true that failing to report means you are necessarily suspended.

 

[tantalum]

That’s not quite right. The injury/illness provisions relieve a player from their obligations under the SPC. Failing to report to training camp is no different than failing to report to a practice or game during the season when you’re hurt.

There’s a separate question about whether the injury is hockey related (e.g. if a guy hurts himself on his motorcycle in the offseason, he could be suspended) but it’s not true that failing to report means you are necessarily suspended.

You are assuming there is agreement between team and player that a no show is OK (i.e. Poolman given the issues he has they knew he was not going to be able to play or even do a fitness assessment). That does not seem to be the case here. Any player not honoring his contract is going to be suspended.

 

[StreetHawk]

You are assuming there is agreement between team and player that a no show is OK (i.e. Poolman given the issues he has they knew he was not going to be able to play or even do a fitness assessment). That does not seem to be the case here. Any player not honoring his contract is going to be suspended.

Unless Lehner is out in the wilderness or something, feels like LV could have gone to see him and do the physical at the closest facility there was to get it done. Yes, it's work on their end, but is it in totality anymore than dealing with the NHL on a resolution? Just different people who are putting in the work/time. Medical staff vs lawyers/management.

 

[pitseleh]

You are assuming there is agreement between team and player that a no show is OK (i.e. Poolman given the issues he has they knew he was not going to be able to play or even do a fitness assessment). That does not seem to be the case here. Any player not honoring his contract is going to be suspended.

There’s no obligation on a player injured through their employment to reach an agreement with the team that they aren’t required to perform their obligations under the SPC. Lehner’s position would be that he is unable to report due to his injuries/illness.

 

[Ernie]

The Bruins goalie said he wrote down every criticism he heard during the hearing into a checklist that he would refer to during the season.

"My biggest knock was that I wasn't trustworthy in the playoffs. Check," said Swayman, motioning a checkmark with his hand.

Swayman on Bruins tenure: 'Don't want it to end'

Restricted free agent goalie Jeremy Swayman, currently in a contentious contract standoff with Boston, said he would do "everything in my power to be a Bruin for a long time" on the NHL's new Amazon Prime Video docuseries.

www.espn.com

It's clear at this point it's not about money, it's about pride. The longer this goes on the worse it is.

Bruins have messed up this relationship and they just need to decide whether he's worth the investment over the next 8 years, and if so, meet his price.

 

[The Optimist]

Makes the Luongo recapture penalty seem even more ridiculous.

 

[rypper]

Makes the Luongo recapture penalty seem even more ridiculous.

Just spiteful and vindictive.

 

[tantalum]

There’s no obligation on a player injured through their employment to reach an agreement with the team that they aren’t required to perform their obligations under the SPC. Lehner’s position would be that he is unable to report due to his injuries/illness.

In order for a player to be put on LTIR in this type of case the player must physically show up to camp and fail the medical assessment. At least from everything read about the situation at the start of camp, today and in prior situations (Lupul. Weber etc). That did not happen.

It also seems that Vegas did not in the end suspend Lehner though they likely could have and were looking for a different solution, likely to help the player in this case. And that solution has been determined.