Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL: Part XV - End the Damn Season Already

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
McCartney said:
Will Callahan’s lover survive this?
Click to expand...

Who are you referring to? Fans of Cally who still supporter and follow him, who are also Rangers fans? I am one of them. Very upset now, so don’;t need to read stuff like this. Sorry.
 
Re: Callahan, exhibit A why teams aren't as concerned with term on some of these deals. Between this and free buy-outs that'll likely get included in next CBA, teams have legit outs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lias Andersson
I have a feeling that 9/10 players in their mid-30s could decide they weren’t going to play anymore be put onto LTIR for some chronic condition.
 
They should change LTIR to only cover the cap hit that can be buried in the minors so that a team can call up any player as replacement, but not allow teams to do blatant cap circumvention like this (and Zetterberg and Hossa etc.).
 
Once again proof why teams don’t worry about the cap like fans do. There is always a bs way to get out of a bad contract so just sign whoever and don’t worry about it
 
Blue Blooded said:
They should change LTIR to only cover the cap hit that can be buried in the minors so that a team can call up any player as replacement, but not allow teams to do blatant cap circumvention like this (and Zetterberg and Hossa etc.).
Click to expand...

Is the space you can bury even enough for a minimum salary? Instead of punishing teams that are using the system correctly the league should step in when there is clear circumvention but the league doesn’t care
 
Leetch3 said:
Once again proof why teams don’t worry about the cap like fans do. There is always a bs way to get out of a bad contract so just sign whoever and don’t worry about it
Click to expand...

It’s not BS. Callahan has played through some tough ordeals. This is not BS. He is done. He should be getting more respect from Rangers fans. Nuff said.
 
Blue Blooded said:
They should change LTIR to only cover the cap hit that can be buried in the minors so that a team can call up any player as replacement, but not allow teams to do blatant cap circumvention like this (and Zetterberg and Hossa etc.).
Click to expand...

It’s not remotely cap circumvention. If a player has a legitimate medical reason to not play, they shouldn’t be forced to play and they shouldn’t be forced for forgo the money they are contracted for.

You also can’t just declare this kind of stuff. The league investigates issues like this with their own team-independent doctors.

Your idea is that in a situation where a cap strapped team loses a player for the season, without question, they shouldn’t be allowed to make a trade to replace the player in the lineup. That’s crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Ranger
Leetch3 said:
Is the space you can bury even enough for a minimum salary? Instead of punishing teams that are using the system correctly the league should step in when there is clear circumvention but the league doesn’t care
Click to expand...
The amount you're allowed to bury in the minors is tied to the salary cap and is higher than the minimu salary. Last season it was something like 900k with the minimum salary being 650k.

The thing is that since you're only allowed to bury 900k per player, you can still call anyone up regardless of cap hit if LTIR only covers the amount you can bury since the rest of that player's cap hit is already on your books.

So we would be able to call up Beleskey for example, since the part of his cap hit that isn't buried is already on our cap.
 
Tawnos said:
It’s not remotely cap circumvention. If a player has a legitimate medical reason to not play, they shouldn’t be forced to play and they shouldn’t be forced for forgo the money they are contracted for.

You also can’t just declare this kind of stuff. The league investigates issues like this with their own team-independent doctors.

Your idea is that in a situation where a cap strapped team loses a player for the season, without question, they shouldn’t be allowed to make a trade to replace the player in the lineup. That’s crazy.
Click to expand...
Why should being buried in the minors be treated differently from LTIR from a cap perspective, in both cases you're not playing for the club but they still hold the rights. This is of course considering that teams apparently are able conjure up a diagnosis that qualifies a player for LTIR whenever they want to.

I would also say that your scenario where a team trades for an expensive player mid-season due to an injury where the cap hit can fit due to LTIR rather than accrued cap space during the season is far more rare than players going on LTIR when they would be able to play to sort out a cap crunch.
 
Blue Blooded said:
Why should being buried in the minors be treated differently from LTIR from a cap perspective, in both cases you're not playing for the club but they still hold the rights. This is of course considering that teams apparently are able conjure up a diagnosis that qualifies a player for LTIR whenever they want to.

I would also say that your scenario where a team trades for an expensive player mid-season due to an injury where the cap hit can fit due to LTIR rather than accrued cap space during the season is far more rare than players going on LTIR when they would be able to play to sort out a cap crunch.
Click to expand...

It’s different because burying a player is something the team is choosing to do and having a player be injured is not.

Teams shouldn’t be restricted by the cap because a player has a medical condition they can’t or aren’t willing to play with.
 
Tawnos said:
It’s different because burying a player is something the team is choosing to do and having a player be injured is not.

Teams shouldn’t be restricted by the cap because a player has a medical condition they can’t or aren’t willing to play with.
Click to expand...
It's become an obvious loophole and it's an elegant solution that makes sure that no team can abuse it while still making sure that a team always can maintain a full roster - just like they did for burying players in the minors.

But why shoud teams be not restricted by the cap in this case when they are restricted by the cap if say a 35+ contract player decides to retire early?
 
Blue Blooded said:
It's become an obvious loophole and it's an elegant solution that makes sure that no team can abuse it while still making sure that a team always can maintain a full roster - just like they did for burying players in the minors.

But why shoud teams be not restricted by the cap in this case when they are restricted by the cap if say a 35+ contract player decides to retire early?
Click to expand...

Because 35+ is a period with a very high likelihood of a player’s career ending, so it’s there to prevent teams from signing guys to 7 year front loaded contracts just to have them for cheaper.

This isn’t a loophole. If a player has a genuine medical issue they’re not allowed or not willing to play with, they shouldn’t be forced to retire and teams shouldn’t be punished for their salary.
 
Tawnos said:
Because 35+ is a period with a very high likelihood of a player’s career ending, so it’s there to prevent teams from signing guys to 7 year front loaded contracts just to have them for cheaper.

This isn’t a loophole. If a player has a genuine medical issue they’re not allowed or not willing to play with, they shouldn’t be forced to retire and teams shouldn’t be punished for their salary.
Click to expand...
Right but they still changed the rules with front loaded contracts so teams get punished regardless of how old the player was when it was signed. In the end, when the cap applies and not is arbitrary. Since some teams seemingly has found a way to abuse this I think I'd prefer to close it in this manner and take the risk of screwing over an unlikely edge case.
 
Blue Blooded said:
Right but they still changed the rules with front loaded contracts so teams get punished regardless of how old the player was when it was signed. In the end, when the cap applies and not is arbitrary. Since some teams seemingly has found a way to abuse this I think I'd prefer to close it in this manner and take the risk of screwing over an unlikely edge case.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it’s abusing it.

Also, how about a real life example of where LTIR is so important to leave intact. Marc Savard suffered a career ending concussion in the very first season of a 7 year contract. Under your scenario, the Bruins wouldn’t be able to fully spend to the Cap on their full roster for any of those 7 years, through no fault of their own, nor the players. They did end up trading his contract in the final 2 years of it, but in order to do so they had to make a trade that involved downgrading one of their forwards.

To automatically punish teams when their players get hurt is just a bad idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom