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

[Montreal Shadow]

Yes. That’s exactly what makes it fair. That’s almost the definition of fair.

No, this isn't. You can't seriously suggest that there's anything fair about it. That's what we call a loophole and by definition, it isn't fair.

 

[Vegas07]

Literally nobody thinks that. The point is lots of "hurt" guys don't go on LTIR to allow their team to add new players above the salary cap, as Stone and Vegas do.

That’s the point. Literally nobody thinks that, but when Stone plays in the playoffs, people suddenly think that and make comments that he must be 100%.

 

[Vegas07]

Loads of players play hurt in the post season, but it seems only Stone has the privilege of playing with his LTIR scab every April lol.

“Don’t ever underestimate the heart of a champion.”

-Rudy Tomjanovich

 

[BKIslandersFan]

No, this isn't. You can't seriously suggest that there's anything fair about it. That's what we call a loophole and by definition, it isn't fair.

Is the loophole only allowed to be explored by Vegas? No? So you are wrong then.

Just because it’s a loophole doesn’t make it unfair. If the loophole only allows Vegas to take advantage of it then yes. But it isn’t.

Grow up fella.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Is the loophole only allowed to be explored by Vegas? No? So you are wrong then.

Just because it’s a loophole doesn’t make it unfair. If the loophole only allows Vegas to take advantage of it then yes. But it isn’t.

That loophole can be exploited under specific circumstances, resulting in an uneven playing field. You got a team 10M over the cap. Do you want other teams to also pull the same shit? That’s moron logic.

If every team started abusing it, you can bet your ass the league would crack down on this. That's one of the reasons you don't see it more often. Hence why it's much more beneficial to some teams than some others...resulting in, *gasp* an unfair advantage.

Grow up fella.

From the dude who claims a team that’s 10M over the cap is playing it fair.

 

[TheBeard]

Is the loophole only allowed to be explored by Vegas? No? So you are wrong then.

If all billionaires use the same loophole to pay less taxes than a middle class person, does that make it fair since it's technically not wrong?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

That loophole can be exploited under specific circumstances, resulting in an uneven playing field. You got a team 10M over the cap. Do you want other teams to also pull the same shit? That’s moron logic.

If every team started abusing it, you can bet your ass the league would crack down on this. That's one of the reasons you don't see it more often. Hence why it's much more beneficial to some teams than some others...resulting in, *gasp* an unfair advantage.

From the dude who claims a team that’s 10M over the cap is playing it fair.

I was not aware only Vegas can have players be on LTIR. News to me.

Good lord. What a bunch of cry babies. Be mad a team for trying to win. What a world.

If all billionaires use the same loophole to pay less taxes than a middle class person, does that make it fair since it's technically not wrong?

Absolutely the dumbest comparison ever made on here.

I was not aware NHL teams had social classes.

 

[Dubi Doo]

I was not aware only Vegas can have players be on LTIR. News to me.

Good lord. What a bunch of cry babies. Be mad a team for trying to win. What a world.


Absolutely the dumbest comparison ever made on here.

I was not aware NHL teams had social classes.

I mean- Vegas is exploiting a loophole. Of course it's going to tick some people off. That's the nature of the beast. I love watching them play, though. Eichel especially is fun to watch.

I don't care enough to get pissy about it, personally. The Sabres bring me enough negative energy, haha.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Absolutely the dumbest comparison ever made on here.

I was not aware NHL teams had social classes.

That’s not what he asked.

Loopholes are by definition an unintended gap in the rules. People can do all sorts of unfair shit because of loopholes.

In the case of this rule, what about teams whose big-contract players stay healthy, or choose to play through their injuries? Is it fair that they go into the playoffs at a cap disadvantage? Would the “fair” thing be for them to play games with players’ medical statuses so they can scam their way into key acquisitions at the TDL?

The fact that someone finds a technicality to exploit, doesn’t mean the loophole is fair or creates an even playing field.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

That’s not what he asked.

Loopholes are by definition an unintended gap in the rules. People can do all sorts of unfair shit because of loopholes.

In the case of this rule, what about teams whose big-contract players stay healthy, or choose to play through their injuries? Is it fair that they go into the playoffs at a cap disadvantage? Would the “fair” thing be for them to play games with players’ medical statuses so they can scam their way into key acquisitions at the TDL?

The fact that someone finds a technicality to exploit, doesn’t mean the loophole is fair or creates an even playing field.

Wait so we are gonna just assume Mark Stone wasn’t hurt? Why are you assuming this is a scam?

Didn’t realize having your star player healthy going in to the playoffs was such a terrible thing.

Even if we go with this idea that Vegas faked Stone’s injury, it’s still a rule anyone can exploit. It’s fair. If your team was healthy all season long and couldn’t use the loophole, then that’s just luck isn’t it? We are gonna start vacating championships now because other team was injured and cost them the series?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Wait so we are gonna just assume Mark Stone wasn’t hurt? Why are you assuming this is a scam?

He absolutely was medically unable to play for a time, and they absolutely did timeline his return to ensure that he came back exactly when it would be to their greatest cap advantage, and they absolutely did have this planned out far enough in advance to build major trades around precise manipulation of transaction dates.

It’s a scam on the cap system. Or call it “circumvention” if it feels better, but the words mean the same thing.

Even if we go with this idea that Vegas faked Stone’s injury, it’s still a rule anyone can exploit. It’s fair.

What the hell?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

What the hell?

What exactly was confusing about that? If a rule can be exploited by anybody then its fair.

THis is nothing like billionaire tax loophole comparison, where the few can exploit it and no one else can.

 

[TheBeard]

Absolutely the dumbest comparison ever made on here.

I was not aware NHL teams had social classes.

It's about a mob mentality. Your argument about few can exploit it also, A) applies to deeper teams who can withstand the loss (the rich) and B) applies to teams that have an injured player they can stretch out to the playoffs. Also, many teams within smaller markets cannot afford to just add an additional 20 million in salary. Wanna say, well, then the owners shouldn't own a team if they can't, well there's your those who can vs those who cannot argument in terms of finances.

Regardless, your justification that "anyone can do it so it's not wrong" doesn't make it right hence the tax loophole analogy. We can all find loopholes in the tax system, rich or poor.

 

[tarheelhockey]

What exactly was confusing about that? If a rule can be exploited by anybody then its fair.

Faking injuries to get a cap advantage would not be fair play! It’s blatantly unfair. How in the world do we get to this point in an argument?

If Vegas were accused of full-on faking a surgery to make this happen, it would be a totally different thread. That would be a 1919 Black Sox level scandal for the ages.

THis is nothing like billionaire tax loophole comparison, where the few can exploit it and no one else can.

It absolutely is like that, because there are only certain teams that can be in a position to make this cap-cheat happen in a given year. If your team is healthy, or if your injured player is some low paid scrub, you don’t have access to the loophole.

Unless you’re really going to stand by the idea that it’s actually fine to fake injuries, in which case you’re just blatantly advocating for people to cheat and break the rules.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

What exactly was confusing about that? If a rule can be exploited by anybody then its fair.

I think people are confusing what's allowed with whether it's fair or not. Something can be allowed, but not "be fair" because it conflicts with someone's perception of what's fair. That's different from something that's fair because everyone could be able to do it, but don't because of either choice or lack of opportunity.

People are trying to make this into a moral argument. OK, fine, but that relies on each person's view of what's morally acceptable and what's not and that everyone else accept that - and by extension, that everyone else accept one's opinion of what's fair. That's irrelevant. People need to deal with the rules as they sit, whether they think those rules are or not provided that it doesn't give someone an exclusive advantage that no one else could given the same situation, instead of the rules they wish were in place because "that would be more fair."

 

[BKIslandersFan]

It absolutely is like that, because there are only certain teams that can be in a position to make this cap-cheat happen in a given year. If your team is healthy, or if your injured player is some low paid scrub, you don’t have access to the loophole.

I am sorry, what is stopping other teams from doing this again?

Dumb.

 

[TheBeard]

Even if we go with this idea that Vegas faked Stone’s injury, it’s still a rule anyone can exploit. It’s fair. If your team was healthy all season long and couldn’t use the loophole, then that’s just luck isn’t it?

Wait, what? So you're saying teams that remain healthy through the season should be punished because they can't exploit this loophole?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Wait, what? So you're saying teams that remain healthy through the season should be punished because they can't exploit this loophole?

Who's being punished? You'd rather risk not getting back your best player for the season?

 

[Montreal Shadow]

I am sorry, what is stopping other teams from doing this again?

Dumb.

You still don’t get the difference between what’s allowed and what’s fair. Just because something is allowed doesn’t mean it’s fair.

The cour system allows a lot of shit but I don’t think anyone would describe them as fair.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It absolutely is like that, because there are only certain teams that can be in a position to make this cap-cheat happen in a given year. If your team is healthy, or if your injured player is some low paid scrub, you don’t have access to the loophole.

This is pretty much an argument for why the existence of LTIR is unfair. Even though LTIR is potentially available to every team provided it meets the specific criteria required, if your team is healthy or you don't spend to the cap such that replacing guys who are injured doesn't put you over the cap, then you don't have access to LTIR; if other teams spend to the cap and then have someone get hurt and adding someone would put them over the cap, those teams can invoke LTIR which is then "not fair" to everyone else who can't.

 

[TheBeard]

Who's being punished? You'd rather risk not getting back your best player for the season?

If the player remains out for the playoffs it's a bad break, but if you're, say, Boston or Florida, You'd almost rather have someone like Marchand out until playoffs when he's rested and with a team playing with an additional 7 mill (or whatever he makes). So, basically being healthy, especially if you're already a good team that can succumb the loss of a top player, you kind of get the shaft whereas teams that have the luxury of being able to stash someone for financial gains get lucky. The rich get richer.

This is pretty much an argument for why the existence of LTIR is unfair. Even though LTIR is potentially available to every team provided it meets the specific criteria required, if your team is healthy or you don't spend to the cap such that replacing guys who are injured doesn't put you over the cap, then you don't have access to LTIR; if other teams spend to the cap and then have someone get hurt and adding someone would put them over the cap, those teams can invoke LTIR which is then "not fair" to everyone else who can't.

As I've said many times here, health should not be a detriment.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You still don’t get the difference between what’s allowed and what’s fair. Just because something is allowed doesn’t mean it’s fair.

The cour system allows a lot of shit but I don’t think anyone would describe them as fair.

You and others continue to want to inject fairness into the discussion. Great, but seriously ... irrelevant.

I think is unfair that two guys, who sign their ELCs at the same time and come off their ELCs at the same time, can end up where one is RFA and the other is not because one has the required number of professional seasons to qualify for RFA and the other doesn't. I think it's even more unfair that a team can make decisions such that it denies a player a professional season that may be needed to qualify to be RFA. In the above situation, the 2nd guy is left in a "no man's land" where he can't talk to other teams like the 1st guy [who's RFA] can, and is subject to the whim of the team which can basically offer what it wants and leave the player to hang if he doesn't take it.

That's me. Someone else may ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and say there's the rule, deal with it. And, ultimately, they're right. Until that rule changes, I can scream zomg, that's so unfair and it might well be unfair, but I don't get to change the rule to what I want it to be. And, I don't get to demand everyone else change their view of what's fair or not to what I think is fair. It's a collectively bargained item and it's not getting fixed unless the league agrees to a change, and the league probably isn't changing anything anytime soon no matter how much the players and agents scream.

Again: deal with the rule that exists, not the one you want to exist based on some idea of what you think is "fair."

 

[BKIslandersFan]

If the player remains out for the playoffs it's a bad break, but if you're, say, Boston or Florida, You'd almost rather have someone like Marchand out until playoffs when he's rested and with a team playing with an additional 7 mill (or whatever he makes). So, basically being healthy, especially if you're already a good team that can succumb the loss of a top player, you kind of get the shaft whereas teams that have the luxury of being able to stash someone for financial gains get lucky. The rich get richer.


As I've said many times here, health should not be a detriment.

Vegas barely made the playoffs my guy .

 

[Montreal Shadow]

You and others continue to want to inject fairness into the discussion. Great, but seriously ... irrelevant.

It isn’t and the rest of your post is complete nonsense. This thread wouldn’t be pages long and most people would be quiet if everyone thought it was fair. People’s problem with this whole situation is blatant and for you to pretend that it’s irrelevant is not only disingenuous but farcical as well.

Carry on.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is pretty much an argument for why the existence of LTIR is unfair. Even though LTIR is potentially available to every team provided it meets the specific criteria required, if your team is healthy or you don't spend to the cap such that replacing guys who are injured doesn't put you over the cap, then you don't have access to LTIR; if other teams spend to the cap and then have someone get hurt and adding someone would put them over the cap, those teams can invoke LTIR which is then "not fair" to everyone else who can't.

The principle behind LTIR is that you don’t get access to both the LTIR’ed player and his replacement at the same time. It’s designed to prevent teams from being in a situation where they can’t field a team if someone gets hurt. I think it’s universally agreed (or at least, I’ve never heard an objection) that if your 1C goes down with injury, that doesn’t mean you have to play with 17 players from now on. You get to replace that guy, potentially with someone of similar caliber, provided you’re willing to move the assets to do so. There isn’t a significant fairness issue there, and the system has worked reasonably well (notwithstanding questions about teams taking LTIRetirement contracts in trades).

Where the issue comes from, is this loophole which allows the underlined words to be ignored in the playoffs. That was not at all the intent of the CBA, and constitutes an obvious fairness issue where your 1C comes back for the playoffs AND you get to keep that other 1C that you acquired to replace him, thus running dramatically over the cap limits that everyone else has to follow.