GreatSaveLuongo
Registered User
- May 4, 2009
- 1,382
- 409
So what's special about this case that they approved termination rather than let him sit on LTIR full year?
Vegas has NEVER ABUSED the ambiguity of the cap. Don’t know what you’re inferring.I can see how this makes sense for everyone involved, just seems like a precedent that could be abused.
Chicago did it also but that's okay because that's my team.Tampa did it once to a player who ended up being legitimately injured (Kucherov).
Vegas did it THREE. (3). TIMES.
THREE YEARS IN A ROW.
TO THE SAME PLAYER.
WHO WAS VERY CLEARLY NEVER INJURED AND VERY CLEARLY LIED ABOUT IT.
STONE EVEN HAD THE BALLS TO GLOAT ABOUT IT.
that's blatant cheating and they were ALLOWED to get away with it because Bettman is too chickenshit to actually investigate it.
He's crazy and likes snakes?So what's special about this case that they approved termination rather than let him sit on LTIR full year?
They didn't approve the termination. It was a settlement. He's still getting paid. They couldn't put him on IR since he didn't show up for his physical.So what's special about this case that they approved termination rather than let him sit on LTIR full year?
He plays for Vegas.So what's special about this case that they approved termination rather than let him sit on LTIR full year?
I heard back pain is really bad around the beginning of spring (usually the first week of march)I bet we will see stone play more or less full season this year now that Vegas is under the cap and not in LTIR
Looks to me like what the NHL agreed to is that if a player report to your team they don’t have to count towards your team’s cap. Can anyone actually tell me why this is unfair or do people just hate Vegas so much that they don’t even care if what they’re saying makes sense?
Or you can just take 5 minutes to read into what’s actually going on and realize there’s nothing special about it
The unfair part if the precedent that this sets moving forward. I don't know the specifics of this particular situation, but what's to stop a team/player in the future from working out an agreement that the otherwise LTIR player not show up for his physical and the team just pays him out the rest of his contract, as is the case here?
From a player's perspective - you're getting your money either way and it saves you a trip. From the team's perspective, it may cost you real money (depending on how the situation impacts insurance vs. the team paying out the rest of the contract), but if it allows your team to avoid having to be stuck on LTIR all season, any additional cost may be worth it.
Regardless on how this all came together, it is clearly a competitive advantage for Vegas to have Lehner off the books completely versus LTIR and the league seems to have no problem with it. Meanwhile, the league docked the Devils draft picks and fined them for the Kovalchuk contact (yes, I'm still bitter) that was never even approved in the first place and thus had absolutely zero benefit for the team out of some "spirit of the CBA" bullshit.
Kovalchuk contact, actually was in the violation of the CBA and the team was punished for it. That HAS NOTHING to do with this situation...
Lehner has a lot of issues he's dealing with his own health and i don't think the union was gonna allow the team to outright terminate the contract, league and union both know why he didn't report. So they settled the issue.
Again, the oddity isn't that a player who didn't report to his physical doesn't count toward the cap. It's that Lehner will get paid despite a material breach in contract.
You should be mad at the NHL/NHLPA/Knights for doing Lehner a solid which sets a really weird precedence, not for alleviating the cap hit from the team when the player didn't report to camp.
Again, the oddity isn't that a player who didn't report to his physical doesn't count toward the cap. It's that Lehner will get paid despite a material breach in contract.
You should be mad at the NHL/NHLPA/Knights for doing Lehner a solid which sets a really weird precedence, not for alleviating the cap hit from the team when the player didn't report to camp.
The understanding that he wouldn't report means there was an understanding he wouldn't be put on LTIR.Isn’t the other side of the story that there was an understanding that he would not be reporting. Makes you wonder why the NHL caved here and didn’t pursue the issue further if they had such a strong case. I’m sure it was just out of the kidness of their hearts. Where does this leave Ryan Johansen and the Flyers. Is the NHL going to come in and find a solution?
Their case for termination is that Lehner didn't show up for his physical, so no, I wouldn't say the case for termination isn't open and shut.What’s more reasonable to assume, that Vegas is paying Lehner millions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts or that their case for termination isn’t as open and shut as people are implying here?
Money that a club pays a player should count against the cap seems like a really straightforward framework that should be easy for everyone to agree on. I guess not.
Their case for termination is that Lehner didn't show up for his physical, so no, I wouldn't say the case for termination isn't open and shut.