Vegas about to circumvent cap again? UPD: Mark Stone back practicing.

[Dr Pepper]

Vegas isn’t even the biggest abuser of the current LTIR situation. That title goes to Toronto because they put 3 awful contracts that their GMs signed on LTIR. If people are questioning Vegas doctors with Stone why aren’t people questioning Toronto’s doctors for Klingberg and Murray? There are many more examples in the league also with other teams.

Might have something to do with the Leafs not loading up at the deadline with the money freed up by LTIR caphits, and then adding both Klingberg and Murray back into the lineup juuuuuust in time for Game 1.

Those two, as well as Muzzin, have the sort of LTIR allocation that emphasises the "long term" part, as in we won't see them play til next season - or probably ever again, in Muzzin's case. Bit different from what Vegas did with Stone, I'd say.

 

[bossram]

LTIR are for players that are actually injured if you think he's just magically healed by game 1 I got some real estate to sell you.

Half the players in the NHL are banged up enough that a doctor would consider them "unfit to play" at any point in the season. Every single player in that position is going to want to push to return in the playoffs.

Obviously you don't have any argument beyond, "lulz fake injury", so we can just leave it here.

 

[LokiDog]

My biggest issue with it is simply that if he activates during the RS they’re not cap compliant but he’s not just able to go for game 1 but clearly very ready, which means it’s not a stretch at all to suggest he was able to activate earlier but missing 5-10 extra games was well worth the trade off, and it shouldn’t work that way. How do you add Mantha, Hertl and Hanifin at the TDL otherwise? So even if it’s legal and within the rules, your “strategy” is to just be disingenuous in order to gain an advantage. Hey, it’s a business, so more power to you, I guess, but I’ll never be able to root for that.

 

[tfwnogf]

My biggest issue with it is simply that if he activates during the RS they’re not cap compliant but he’s not just able to go for game 1 but clearly very ready, which means it’s not a stretch at all to suggest he was able to activate earlier but missing 5-10 extra games was well worth the trade off, and it shouldn’t work that way. How do you add Mantha, Hertl and Hanifin at the TDL otherwise? So even if it’s legal and within the rules, your “strategy” is to just be disingenuous in order to gain an advantage. Hey, it’s a business, so more power to you, I guess, but I’ll never be able to root for that.

It's also a question of how many players would be willing to sit out like that, if they are healthy and ready to go. If a player really loves the game then would they be ok with watching from the sidelines, especially the captain of a team having to watch them barely scrape into the playoffs. They could have used him. But they wouldn't have been able to even if he was begging to play. Stone and Vegas really are a perfect match in that sense. He seems to be willing to do his part to make it work.

 

[Mubiki]

Why is the defense of this always centered around the rules, when nobody (or very few) are arguing that? The argument isn't that it's against the rules, the argument is that it's unethical.

Typically sports leagues are better at preventing things like this. Nothing can be done but hope they prevent this in the future.

It's just unfortunate. This story is as old as time. There are always going to be scummy people that are willing to bend the expectations of common decency to get ahead. The same people doing/defending this are the same types of people who defend paparazzi for harassing people 24/7 or climbing trees to try and get a picture of some celebrity's kid at day care. Is it legal? Yes. Is it wrong? Also, yes. Regardless of the scenario, there is always a point in time where all consequences end and being a good person simply becomes a choice.

And for the people saying things like "You wish your team did this"; many of us truly don't. It's only sports after all. If winning comes at the cost of abusing the trust of others by exploiting a mechanism designed to help teams in truly unfortunate circumstances, you can have it.

 

[Tawnos]

Why is the defense of this always centered around the rules, when nobody (or very few) are arguing that? The argument isn't that it's against the rules, the argument is that it's unethical.

Typically sports leagues are better at preventing things like this. Nothing can be done but hope they prevent this in the future.

It's just unfortunate. This story is as old as time. There are always going to be scummy people that are willing to bend the expectations of common decency to get ahead. The same people doing/defending this are the same types of people who defend paparazzi for harassing people 24/7 or climbing trees to try and get a picture of some celebrity's kid at day care. Is it legal? Yes. Is it wrong? Also, yes. Regardless of the scenario, there is always a point in time where all consequences end and being a good person simply becomes a choice.

And for the people saying things like "You wish your team did this"; many of us truly don't. It's only sports after all. If winning comes at the cost of abusing the trust of others by exploiting a mechanism designed to help teams in truly unfortunate circumstances, you can have it.

The discussion centers around the rules because as soon as you establish something as a concern, the next question is "what is the solution?" And that involves the rules. I'm one who said earlier in the thread that this is a problem, but I haven't yet seen a solution that is without its own fairness problems. I still haven't.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Might have something to do with the Leafs not loading up at the deadline with the money freed up by LTIR caphits, and then adding both Klingberg and Murray back into the lineup juuuuuust in time for Game 1.

Those two, as well as Muzzin, have the sort of LTIR allocation that emphasises the "long term" part, as in we won't see them play til next season - or probably ever again, in Muzzin's case. Bit different from what Vegas did with Stone, I'd say.

Murray was playing with Marlies before the season ended, just never called him up, not to mention he waited 5 months to get surgery.

Leafs are the originators of LTIR abuse and Robidas Island.

 

[Mubiki]

The discussion centers around the rules because as soon as you establish something as a concern, the next question is "what is the solution?" And that involves the rules. I'm one who said earlier in the thread that this is a problem, but I haven't yet seen a solution that is without its own fairness problems. I still haven't.

It depends on your goal and how it's measured.

I would argue that it might be impossible for it to be universally "fair". But I can contend quite easily the it could be more fair than it is.

Most people misinterpret the word "fair" to mean equal to both sides, but in sports that is a trap because it's virtually impossible for it to be true. There are too many variables. A much more realistic way to interpret what is fair in a sports context is insuring that no side is afforded any undue advantages. You set an optimal baseline (every team ices a full/healthy squad within the cap) and you do everything in your power to ensure that happens without allowing it to become an advantage. (Having a roster that would be impossible within the cap)

This is really just the trolley question, is it not? By allowing Vegas to exceed the cap, you have now created an unfair situation for 15 other teams. In a scenario in which there cannot be universal fairness, this is a wildly illogical choice.

Another argument is one of practicality. In a scenario without perfect fairness, we may have to make as choice about WHO should carry the weight of any unfairness that does exist. To me, it makes the most logical sense that any disadvantages that cannot be remedied should be carried by those with whom the disadvantages originated. In this case, Stone oo the Vegas Team as a whole. It is HIS injury and THEIR player. If any party were to be obligated to suffer, it is them. Not because it's fair, but because it's the most fair in an unfair circumstance.

Of course this is all an aside to the fact that they all had a choice and decided in that moment to make the unethical one.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Murray was playing with Marlies before the season ended, just never called him up, not to mention he waited 5 months to get surgery.

Leafs are the originators of LTIR abuse and Robidas Island.

Again though, do you expect either Murray or Klingberg to join the Leafs at any point in the series? Or at all in these playoffs? Because I don't.

And using their respective caphits to bring in guys like Lyubushkin or Edmundson, rings a bit different than the likes of Hertl or Hanifin - especially with Stone miraculously rejoining the group in the end anyway.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Vegas isn’t even the biggest abuser of the current LTIR situation. That title goes to Toronto because they put 3 awful contracts that their GMs signed on LTIR. If people are questioning Vegas doctors with Stone why aren’t people questioning Toronto’s doctors for Klingberg and Murray? There are many more examples in the league also with other teams.

Because the Toronto doctors didn't do it with an active, high priced player that they thought would be back in time for the playoffs. Because those players suck and are not being welcomed back to the roster for the playoffs, putting them over what every other team typically would have.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Vegas isn’t even the biggest abuser of the current LTIR situation. That title goes to Toronto because they put 3 awful contracts that their GMs signed on LTIR. If people are questioning Vegas doctors with Stone why aren’t people questioning Toronto’s doctors for Klingberg and Murray? There are many more examples in the league also with other teams.

Because Toronto can’t see the forest through the trees.

Sorry but this misses the mark. Teams can opinion shop. Different doctors can make different interpretations. Also, certain injuries involve gray areas. All of these things are a playground for teams to exploit.

Lmao, shopping around for a lacerated spleen, thanks for the humour, good one.

 

[Chaos2k7]

The discussion centers around the rules because as soon as you establish something as a concern, the next question is "what is the solution?" And that involves the rules. I'm one who said earlier in the thread that this is a problem, but I haven't yet seen a solution that is without its own fairness problems. I still haven't.

Just because you can't come up with one now, doesn't mean there isn't one, or that the search for said solution should be halted until it falls into the laps of the BoG.

It's a competitive advantage, anyone with eyes can see it, and it should be addressed.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Again though, do you expect either Murray or Klingberg to join the Leafs at any point in the series? Or at all in these playoffs? Because I don't.

And using their respective caphits to bring in guys like Lyubushkin or Edmundson, rings a bit different than the likes of Hertl or Hanifin - especially with Stone miraculously rejoining the group in the end anyway.

Someone posted Vegas was 1 million over the cap in game 1, last year they were always under the cap, according to McCrimmon.

 

[John Mandalorian]

Ah yes the famous opinion shopping for a lacerated spleen diagnosis.. lol.

What misses the mark is people constantly thinking professionals are willing to risk lawsuits, hits to personal integrity, and professional reputation. The league literally confirms these things. There isn’t a playoff bound team that loses a key player near the deadline on a long term injury that doesn’t try to replace him.

It wouldn’t necessarily be specifically for that.

Because Toronto can’t see the forest through the trees.


Lmao, shopping around for a lacerated spleen, thanks for the humour, good one.

That doesn’t make sense.

 

[Golden_Jet]

That doesn’t make sense.

Teams can opinion shop,
According to you.

 

[John Mandalorian]

Teams can opinion shop,
According to you.

And you said lacerated spleen shop. Do you see how it’s not the same?

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Why is the defense of this always centered around the rules, when nobody (or very few) are arguing that? The argument isn't that it's against the rules, the argument is that it's unethical.

Typically sports leagues are better at preventing things like this. Nothing can be done but hope they prevent this in the future.

It's just unfortunate. This story is as old as time. There are always going to be scummy people that are willing to bend the expectations of common decency to get ahead. The same people doing/defending this are the same types of people who defend paparazzi for harassing people 24/7 or climbing trees to try and get a picture of some celebrity's kid at day care. Is it legal? Yes. Is it wrong? Also, yes. Regardless of the scenario, there is always a point in time where all consequences end and being a good person simply becomes a choice.

And for the people saying things like "You wish your team did this"; many of us truly don't. It's only sports after all. If winning comes at the cost of abusing the trust of others by exploiting a mechanism designed to help teams in truly unfortunate circumstances, you can have it.

I think a big part of it is that in the sports culture, there is a very strong "whatever it takes to win" mentality involved. There is even a "you are not trying if you are not cheating" idea in some circles. As a result, you have 2 sides of the opposing force here, one that "it is technically within the rules of the CBA so nothing is wrong here" and the other side of "what about the spirit of the cap (and to an extent, the spirit of sports)?" competing against each other.

I don't think either side is wrong per se, I just think it is differing mentality. I hate to say it, but the "winners" in sports (ie: those winning championships) are likely those that has the "whatever it takes" mentality to them. Every players and every team needs to push the envelop as much as possible to gain an advantage, and that advantage could be the difference between winning and losing. Especially in a matchup of top teams. For example, Vegas is somewhere close to $5m over the cap right now. If you force them to be cap compliant for this series, they likely have to drop one of Marchesault or Hanifin right now. You think they win game 2 without either? I'm not sure. But because they push for that advantage, now they have a comfortable 2-0 lead going home. They are technically "playing within the rules" but I can understand why some fans and media people don't like it.

 

[Golden_Jet]

And you said lacerated spleen shop. Do you see how it’s not the same?

no, that’s the injury we’re all taking about, which one you were you referring to.

 

[Chaos2k7]

With all the capologists employed by teams nowadays and with the ambiguous writing of the rules, there is no surprise teams push the limits of the said rules.

Doesn't make it right, nor does it mean it should be acceptable. Many laws and rules get amended after unforseen circumstances happen.

But the whole we aren't the first, and therefore it's all good is ludicrous.

This is obviously the most blatant attempt yet, and if not curbed, it's going to get worse, because by the same logic here everyone should just try anything until someone says no, apparently.

When the league comes down on someone and they will, it'll be interesting to see how the fans of those teams react to the it's all good until its not deemed not, positioning on the subject.

 

[DaPhazz]

Gotta respect their dedication lol, absolutely nothing to be ashamed of

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

Because Toronto can’t see the forest through the trees.


Lmao, shopping around for a lacerated spleen, thanks for the humour, good one.

I've seen people shop around for more troubling diagnoses, but rarely have I seen anyone time a follow-up MRI so well. The only other examples I can think of are... ohhhhh. Ohhh.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Something could get done, when Both sides can agree on a solution, that doesn’t involve some of the suggestions like banned from round 1.
Likely could be something like the 20 skaters for the game have to be cap compliant or maybe up to some small percentage over.
Being cap complaint would probably eliminate most trades, so maybe a little over.

 

[MartyOwns]

i just love how you guys have seemingly put more thought and consideration into this problem than the nhl has.

 

[Tawnos]

It depends on your goal and how it's measured.

I would argue that it might be impossible for it to be universally "fair". But I can contend quite easily the it could be more fair than it is.

Most people misinterpret the word "fair" to mean equal to both sides, but in sports that is a trap because it's virtually impossible for it to be true. There are too many variables. A much more realistic way to interpret what is fair in a sports context is insuring that no side is afforded any undue advantages. You set an optimal baseline (every team ices a full/healthy squad within the cap) and you do everything in your power to ensure that happens without allowing it to become an advantage. (Having a roster that would be impossible within the cap)

This is really just the trolley question, is it not? By allowing Vegas to exceed the cap, you have now created an unfair situation for 15 other teams. In a scenario in which there cannot be universal fairness, this is a wildly illogical choice.

Another argument is one of practicality. In a scenario without perfect fairness, we may have to make as choice about WHO should carry the weight of any unfairness that does exist. To me, it makes the most logical sense that any disadvantages that cannot be remedied should be carried by those with whom the disadvantages originated. In this case, Stone oo the Vegas Team as a whole. It is HIS injury and THEIR player. If any party were to be obligated to suffer, it is them. Not because it's fair, but because it's the most fair in an unfair circumstance.

Of course this is all an aside to the fact that they all had a choice and decided in that moment to make the unethical one.

There is no perfect solution, and that's my point really. I think you overcomplicated this, though.

It's simply a matter of this: which do teams and players prefer?

(1) Teams have as much flexibility as possible to deal with injuries and only make lineup decisions in the playoffs based on health and ability.
(2) No team is ever disadvantaged in the playoffs by the injury situation of another team.

That's it. My guy feeling is that, when it comes down to decision time, the decision makers in this will land right back on 1.

 

[Tawnos]

Just because you can't come up with one now, doesn't mean there isn't one, or that the search for said solution should be halted until it falls into the laps of the BoG.

It's a competitive advantage, anyone with eyes can see it, and it should be addressed.

In reality, and not some nebulous idea of "keeping trying," there aren't that many possible solutions to this. But the first question that has to be answered is what the priority is. I laid out the two central priorities that are at odds in my last post. They can only choose one of them. To fix this problem, they'd have to change the current priority. I have doubts that they will.