Should teams be allowed to exceed the cap with LTIR?

[Sureves]

See poll.

Click to read more...

 

[bobc222]

Nope. Allows teams to play games and rig it. (See Chicago)

 

[Blender]

Yes.

There are problems with sham retirements ("injuries") to avoid +35 and cap recapture penalties. Address those situations for what they are, cap circumvention, instead of a rule that works just fine and doesn't provide an advantage.

 

[Sureves]

Yes.

There are problems with sham retirements ("injuries") to avoid +35 and cap recapture penalties. Address those situations for what they are, cap circumvention, instead of a rule that works just fine and doesn't provide an advantage.

Callahan is under 35. It is not a problem that can be ringfenced to 35+ year olds: it's a problem that relates to players who are no longer worth their cap hit.

That makes it far harder to regulate with rules.

 

[Blender]

Callahan is under 35. It is not a problem that can be ringfenced to 35+ year olds: it's a problem that relates to players who are no longer worth their cap hit.

That makes it far harder to regulate with rules.

If Callahan has a back injury that will prevent him from playing again, he should retire and he would come off the cap. If he's unsure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with him being on LTIR as that is what the rules are for. This is part of the problem I was saying though, there are players that have clearly retired like Pronger, Hossa, etc. but because retiring would harm the teams that signed them, they sit on LTIR. That doesn't mean LTIR is wrong, their status not reflecting the reality of their situation is what is wrong.

 

[Sureves]

If Callahan has a back injury that will prevent him from playing again, he should retire and he would come off the cap. If he's unsure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with him being on LTIR as that is what the rules are for. This is part of the problem I was saying though, there are players that have clearly retired like Pronger, Hossa, etc. but because retiring would harm the teams that signed them, they sit on LTIR. That doesn't mean LTIR is wrong, their status not reflecting the reality of their situation is what is wrong.

So what rule do you propose that would solve the issue?

 

[Blender]

So what rule do you propose that would solve the issue?

If a player retires from injury, it should count as a retirement. Right now they let guys just sit there on LTIR instead of calling them retired, even when guys are going into the HHOF or working for teams in coaching/scouting positions even though they are still under contract with an NHL team as a player.

 

[Sureves]

If a player retires from injury, it should count as a retirement. Right now they let guys just sit there on LTIR instead of calling them retired, even when guys are going into the HHOF or working for teams in coaching/scouting positions even though they are still under contract with an NHL team as a player.

How do you define "retires from injury"? When does the NHL make the determination that the player is "retired"? The player (and NHLPA) is not going to look favourably on not getting paid by retiring.

 

[SotasicA]

This would make sense.

The problem obviously being teams having to run short benches whenever they have an injury. Assuming they are right against the cap.

The LTIR allows you to replace injured players.

 

[Voight]

If Callahan has a back injury that will prevent him from playing again, he should retire and he would come off the cap. If he's unsure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with him being on LTIR as that is what the rules are for. This is part of the problem I was saying though, there are players that have clearly retired like Pronger, Hossa, etc. but because retiring would harm the teams that signed them, they sit on LTIR. That doesn't mean LTIR is wrong, their status not reflecting the reality of their situation is what is wrong.

They'd also be walking away from millions of dollars. So it goes both ways.

 

[Hammman]

What happens if a team that is up against the cap has a guy go down to a long term injury? They can't replace him?

What if two, three, or four guys go down?

 

[Claypool]

Just get rid of the cap. Problem solved.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

If Callahan has a back injury that will prevent him from playing again, he should retire and he would come off the cap. If he's unsure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with him being on LTIR as that is what the rules are for. This is part of the problem I was saying though, there are players that have clearly retired like Pronger, Hossa, etc. but because retiring would harm the teams that signed them, they sit on LTIR. That doesn't mean LTIR is wrong, their status not reflecting the reality of their situation is what is wrong.

By all accounts, Callahan is 100% sure that his back injury will prevent him from playing ever again.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Of course. Imagine being a cap team and two of your highest paid players getting concussed and LTIR’d. Teams should have the ability to patch holes created by injuries.

That is obviously an extreme example, but the point still stands. It’d be way too much headache for everyone if injuries had no effect on the cap. We’ve seen many players get hurt at the same time during a season and you have to have the ability to manage your team and ice a healthy roster.

Problem isn’t how it influences the cap, it’s teams being dishonest and manipulating the situation to their benefit. Team and the player might know the player has no intention of coming back, but instead of retiring they leave it open.

If you really want to fix this, then focus on this issue, not the whole system.

But at the same time, is it really that big of a deal? I’d rather see teams ice the best rosters they can than guys who don’t want/can’t play linger around and hurt their teams.

And besides, if it’s the same for every team, it’s really not unfair now is it.

At the end of the day, it’s just a technicality. It’s like a player forced to retire, but instead of the cap hit vanishing, they’re getting their money through LTIR. As a fan, it’s all the same really.

 

[Paranoid Android]

Maybe there should be a limit on how much you can spend on a replacement player? A $5M player LTIRetires, team can spend $2.5M on a replacement.

It's kind of a moot point though since this is really only an issue with back diving contracts, which are now banned.