Ryan Hartman Match Penalty for "Attempt to Injure" on Tim Stützle (upd: in-person hearing - 10 games)

[thegazelle]

There is hard play, hard checking, even rough stuff, but none of that is low integrity goonery. I think it was Perfetti from the Jets that Hartman high sticked on a faceoff. Hartman does not deserve to play in the NHL - so many decent players who play fair deserves his spot. Minnesota should just get rid of him. He is a perpetual liability.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Well with the beauty of player unions I'm sure they're ready and willing to go to bat for him, to try and get that 10 down to the 4-6 range.

Yeah, but everything works slow, so all he does is get pay back for those games if it's lowered.

The worst part is Parros still has a job.

 

[Golden_Jet]

how is kuch on rasmussen nothing and this 10 games?

Does Kuch average a suspension for every 60 games played?

 

[3074326]

So Stutzle's potential future as a hockey player and well-being as a human is worth 10 games. Got it.

Call me crazy, but if it would be a felony outside of a rink the player should be gone indefinitely.

 

[Sideline]

I heard he got 10 games before I knew or saw anything about that play. After watching the video 10 is a joke. He's lucky not avoid criminal charges.

 

[rynryn]

Does Kuch average a suspension for every 60 games played?

probably not, because the league goes out of it's way to keep that from happening.
edit: for clarification, I am not saying any particular star player is or isn't as prolific an offender as Hartman.

 

[OilersFanatics505]

He should appeal and Bettman should say “nah add more”

 

[BLONG7]

Lucky it was just 10 games................I hope they keep a short leash on this moron......

No room in the game for that.............

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I'm not certain this is correct, so somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this suspension might also prevent us from accruing necessary cap space that it would take to bring Buium and/or Yurov in at the end of the season. Obviously other moves can be made to do so, but he might not be a super popular guy inside the home building right now as well.

 

[Al Lagoon]

Sad to see Hartman become this. He showed the makings of a good middle six center, especially after 21-22, 34 goals, 65 points.

As repeat offender, he deserves at least this.

 

[mouser]

The half million in fines would be really painful to just about everyone in the league. Wonder if you have to report that on taxes somehow.

There’s nothing extra for Hartman to report on his taxes. Hartman’s employer simply won’t pay him the lost “fined” salary.

Hartman’s W-2 will show he was paid ~$4.5m this season, instead of the $5m he would have been paid without the suspension.

 

[mouser]

I'm not certain this is correct, so somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this suspension might also prevent us from accruing necessary cap space that it would take to bring Buium and/or Yurov in at the end of the season. Obviously other moves can be made to do so, but he might not be a super popular guy inside the home building right now as well.

Player salary lost due to suspension is not included in a team’s total spending towards the salary cap ceiling.

Haven’t crunched the numbers how this would change Minnesota’s cap situation going forward.

Edit:

Sorry, my reply was erroneous. Salary forfeited does not count towards Actual Club Salary, but it does still count towards Averaged Club Salary. These are two different CBA definitions with different meanings.

Actual Club Salary is used for calculating things like the player 50% share of HRR and the Average Player Salary each season—which impacts RFA Offer Sheer Compensation tiers and other items. On ice suspensions reduce Actual Club Salary.

Averaged Club Salary is used to determine how much cap space (Payroll Room) a team has. Suspensions for on-ice discipline do not reduce the Averaged Club Salary.

 

[AKL]

Does Kuch average a suspension for every 60 games played?

In the interest of being factually correct, Hartman doesn't average a suspension every 60 games. He averages a supplemental discipline every 60 games, with 7 of those 11 instances being fines.

 

[thadd]

He's so lucky he only got 10 games.

This is some Chris Simon level ****. I was hopping for 20 games.

Hartman was looking for trouble the whole game, went after one of Ottawa's star players, intent to injure + the head is the principal point of contact.

Missing 10 games is surely going to take a fair chunk of your annual salary away, but 20 could be devastating for others and force them to actually consider the repercussions before doing something this stupid ever again.

 

[Romang67]

Sad to see Hartman become this. He showed the makings of a good middle six center, especially after 21-22, 34 goals, 65 points.

As repeat offender, he deserves at least this.

Become? He was a dirty player long before he became a productive player. He's just a dirty piece of shit who happened to be productive for a few seasons. Now he's no longer productive, and just the same dirty, callous rat he always was.

Soon enough, he'll be out of the league, and the NHL will be so much better for it.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

This is just old school hockey. Would have been a 2min back in my day. Everyone (except me) is too soft these days.

 

[rynryn]

There’s nothing extra for Hartman to report on his taxes. Hartman’s employer simply won’t pay him the lost “fined” salary.

Hartman’s W-2 will show he was paid ~$4.5m this season, instead of the $5m he would have been paid without the suspension.

Ty. Thought there might be a "report lost wages" reason and how complicated that would be factoring in what goes to escrow or other situations with different tax rates.

 

[BagHead]

I'm not certain this is correct, so somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this suspension might also prevent us from accruing necessary cap space that it would take to bring Buium and/or Yurov in at the end of the season. Obviously other moves can be made to do so, but he might not be a super popular guy inside the home building right now as well.

I saw mouser already answered this, but I read something on Puckpedia that claimed the player's cap hit would still count against the team, and it even cited the correct section of the CBA, but it seems to have taken the opposite meaning and is wrong(?). So I just wanted to post here in case I'm somehow reading this the wrong way. The actual CBA passage:

"For Players that are suspended, either by a Club or by the League, the Player Salary and Bonuses that are not paid to such Players shall not count against a Club's Upper Limit or against the Players' Share for the duration of the suspension, but the Club must have Payroll Room for such Player's Player Salary and Bonuses in order for such Player to be able to return to Play for the Club."

CBA Section 50.10.c

So, the Wild will accrue his cap space while he's out, unless I'm reading that wrong. The Wild do need to keep enough cap and roster space available for his return, but that's easy enough to do by having one of the AHL forwards play in his spot because they're paid less than him.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

This is just old school hockey. Would have been a 2min back in my day. Everyone (except me) is too soft these days.

these god damn liberals i tell you

 

[Il Stugotz]

As expected, he's appealing

 

[Machinehead]

One of the more egregious incidents I've seen.

It's not like they were going back and forth, or it was a fast-paced reaction hit.

He just grabs the dude off a dead puck and DDT's him.

 

[Pierre Larouche]

This is just old school hockey. Would have been a 2min back in my day. Everyone (except me) is too soft these days.

I disagree- this face smashing into the ice is a little variation.

 

[Golden_Jet]

This is just old school hockey. Would have been a 2min back in my day.

No it wouldn’t

 

[mouser]

I saw mouser already answered this, but I read something on Puckpedia that claimed the player's cap hit would still count against the team, and it even cited the correct section of the CBA, but it seems to have taken the opposite meaning and is wrong(?). So I just wanted to post here in case I'm somehow reading this the wrong way. The actual CBA passage:

So, the Wild will accrue his cap space while he's out, unless I'm reading that wrong. The Wild do need to keep enough cap and roster space available for his return, but that's easy enough to do by having one of the AHL forwards play in his spot because they're paid less than him.

I made a mistake, corrected my previous post which I’m going to mostly copy here

Salary forfeited does not count towards Actual Club Salary, but it does still count towards Averaged Club Salary. These are two different CBA definitions with different purposes.

Actual Club Salary is used for calculating things like the player 50% share of HRR and the Average Player Salary each season—which impacts RFA Offer Sheet Compensation tiers and other items. On-ice suspensions reduce Actual Club Salary.

Averaged Club Salary is used to determine how much cap space (Payroll Room) a team has. Suspensions for on-ice discipline do not reduce Averaged Club Salary. I.e. the team does not gain cap space as a result of the suspension. There have been past suspensions where teams loaned the suspended player to the AHL for periods during the suspension, which would change the Averaged Club Salary and possibly gain cap space while the player is suspended.


CBA 50.10c you quoted is discussing cap space (Payroll Room) which uses Averaged Club Salary. Suspensions for on-ice discipline don’t change Averaged Club Salary, and therefore don’t change cap space.

Players suspended without pay for off-ice “discipline” by the team or the league will not be counted in Averaged Club Salary and therefore will not count against the team cap during the suspension. The most prominent recent example is Valeri Nichushkin. He was suspended without pay while receiving treatment in the Player Assistance program for the second or more time. Nichuskin had a zero cap hit for Colorado during this suspension.

 

[Koivu11]