Jump to content

2023-24 NHL discussion thread


tomh009

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

What a trade this was

 

 

IMG_0514.jpeg

Horrible trade for Philly. Irony was that they not only gave up the best player -  Forsberg (IMO), they also gave up a bucket load of other assets and cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Horrible trade for Philly. Irony was that they not only gave up the best player -  Forsberg (IMO), they also gave up a bucket load of other assets and cash.


If I remember correctly one of those first round picks turned into Sundin whom they foolishly traded to the leafs for a washed up Wendel Clark. 
 

Set up Colorado who was also blessed by another idiot trade when they received Patrick Roy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


What a sweet set up that was to draft three players of this calibre back to back to back. 

Thanks to le Petit Tigre, they gave away Sundin for has beens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

Tanev gets 6 years from the Leafs at $4.5M.  He's 34 years old.  This feels like one of those under the table agreements that says he's spending the last 2 or 3 years on LTIR.

NHL needs to set up an INDEPENDENT medical assessment program for LTIR ... start with players in the last 2 years of their contracts and build it over time ... but they won't ... too many owners want to be able to cheat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

Tanev gets 6 years from the Leafs at $4.5M.  He's 34 years old.  This feels like one of those under the table agreements that says he's spending the last 2 or 3 years on LTIR.

Well I don't imagine it needs to be discussed. The guy is 100% going to break down. No need to even do the shady handshake under the table lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Plutarch said:

Well I don't imagine it needs to be discussed. The guy is 100% going to break down. No need to even do the shady handshake under the table lol

But will he break down and be UNABLE to play?  THAT is the intent of LTIR, not unable to play well ... but we all know how t is really used for older players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

NHL needs to set up an INDEPENDENT medical assessment program for LTIR ... start with players in the last 2 years of their contracts and build it over time ... but they won't ... too many owners want to be able to cheat.

 

They actually have this.  Montreal went through it with Weber as that one was heavily scrutinized by independent doctors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

NHL needs to set up an INDEPENDENT medical assessment program for LTIR ... start with players in the last 2 years of their contracts and build it over time ... but they won't ... too many owners want to be able to cheat.

 

This already exists. 

 

THe issue is that after playing in the NHL for a decade or more, most players have some type of injury and its hard for a doctor to say that injury isn't putting them at risk of further injury, or making their play diminished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Commandant said:

This already exists. 

 

THe issue is that after playing in the NHL for a decade or more, most players have some type of injury and its hard for a doctor to say that injury isn't putting them at risk of further injury, or making their play diminished. 

 

The criteria should not include "diminished play", that is the teams' problem ... not even certain that "risk of further injury" should be a criterion as that clearly isn't applied to most players who are injured and return to play ... risk of injury is more a "should I retire" consideration I-M-O ... LTIR should be for "incapable of playing" ... but that will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

The criteria should not include "diminished play", that is the teams' problem ... not even certain that "risk of further injury" should be a criterion as that clearly isn't applied to most players who are injured and return to play ... risk of injury is more a "should I retire" consideration I-M-O ... LTIR should be for "incapable of playing" ... but that will never happen.

 

Incapable of playing is a near-impossible bar to reach in terms of making it black and white for a rule.  As long as they have two legs and two arms, they're in theory capable of playing, even if the knees are bone on bone and one of the shoulders has been separated half a dozen times.  Sure, they're capable of playing but no doctor in their right mind would sign off on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

The criteria should not include "diminished play", that is the teams' problem ... not even certain that "risk of further injury" should be a criterion as that clearly isn't applied to most players who are injured and return to play ... risk of injury is more a "should I retire" consideration I-M-O ... LTIR should be for "incapable of playing" ... but that will never happen.

 

Yeah, but legally those criteria arent going to work... you can't force a player to play if he has an increased risk of further injury due to another injury.  Thats Liabilty out the wazoo if it happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

Incapable of playing is a near-impossible bar to reach in terms of making it black and white for a rule.  As long as they have two legs and two arms, they're in theory capable of playing, even if the knees are bone on bone and one of the shoulders has been separated half a dozen times.  Sure, they're capable of playing but no doctor in their right mind would sign off on it.

But they seem to all the time if the player wants it and is a worthwhile contributor ... they let Price and Weber play in that Cup run when, at some point at least, they should have been shut down if long-term player health was actually a real concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GHT120 said:

But they seem to all the time if the player wants it and is a worthwhile contributor ... they let Price and Weber play in that Cup run when, at some point at least, they should have been shut down if long-term player health was actually a real concern.

 

Its different when the player WANTS to take the risk. 

 

If he says he doesn't want to play through injury, the legality of forcing him to is a nightmare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Commandant said:

Yeah, but legally those criteria arent going to work... you can't force a player to play if he has an increased risk of further injury due to another injury.  Thats Liabilty out the wazoo if it happens. 

They have the option to retire ... which is what used to happen ... but I realize I am "barking at the moon".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

They have the option to retire ... which is what used to happen ... but I realize I am "barking at the moon".

 

Retiring means you don't get paid.... losing a guaranteed contract because you got hurt and can't play is another legal issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Commandant said:

Retiring means you don't get paid.... losing a guaranteed contract because you got hurt and can't play is another legal issue. 

I'm OK with can't play ... don't like using LTIR for "can't play well" ... but I know I am spitting into the wind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

I'm OK with can't play ... don't like using LTIR for "can't play well" ... but I know I am spitting into the wind

Why should you even care about LTIR rules? 

Same for all 32 teams isnt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DON said:

Why should you even care about LTIR rules? 

Same for all 32 teams isnt it.

 

Teams with more revenue can take advantage of loopholes that teams with less can't. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DON said:

Why should you even care about LTIR rules? 

Same for all 32 teams isn't it.

Conceptually I support LTIR ... teams should have the chance to replace a player lost for the season ... but it has become a cap circumvention tool to sign older players to contracts that are never intended or expected to be fulfilled solely to reduce the AAV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

... but it has become a cap circumvention tool to sign older players to contracts that are never intended or expected to be fulfilled solely to reduce the AAV.

A tool for all 32 GMs to use, so fair enough isnt it? Some GMs will always be less scrupulous than others.:spamafote: 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DON said:

A tool for all 32 GMs to use, so fair enough isnt it? Some GMs will always be less scrupulous than others.:spamafote: 

Not all GMs have the real-dollar budget to have dead-cap hit on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...