2024-25 NHL discussion thread

[GHT120]

19 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

This is horseshit. 

 

He's got a mental health issue?  Sure... don't play... go on LTIR. 

 

There is no reason though that Lehner should be off the books while players like Carey Price with a chronic knee have to go on LTIR. 

If that is all it is, I agree ... but we don't know the details of why he was unable to present himself for his physical and if it is serious enough that this is the result I doubt we ever will ... clearly there is something unique in this situation.

[GHT120]

2 minutes ago, huzer said:

Provable career ending LTIR should come off the cap period. 

I agree ... with the caveat that it comes with an exclusion from ANY employment with an NHL team until the conclusion of the player contract.

[GHT120]

7 minutes ago, huzer said:

But yeah, precedent sent. Price and the Habs should agree to him no-showing next year, go off grid, instant no LTIR, and he gets paid. 

I-M-O there are clearly some unique circumstances to this Lehner situation (I won't speculate irresponsibly) ... doubt it is as simple as what you suggest ... besides, once the Habs pay Price his July 1st bonus ($5.5M) his $2M actual salary for the final year of his contract could well be tradeable.

[dlbalr]

39 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I would agree if Lehner is still getting paid. You can't have it both ways (ie player getting paid and not be on the books). Having said that I am far from an expert on these issues. 

 

That's actually what they've agreed to.  Lehner will still be paid in full (satisfying the NHLPA) but the cap hit will come off.  Since Lehner didn't report, Vegas had cause to terminate the contract.  The underlying issue of why he didn't report (and didn't probably isn't the right word here but rather couldn't) is what makes this a unique case and probably not a precedent-setter.

[huzer]

31 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

I-M-O there are clearly some unique circumstances to this Lehner situation (I won't speculate irresponsibly) ... doubt it is as simple as what you suggest ... besides, once the Habs pay Price his July 1st bonus ($5.5M) his $2M actual salary for the final year of his contract could well be tradeable.

I don't doubt at all that there are personal nuances to the situation that make it unique. However, from a business standpoint of icing the best possible product on the ice, the decision behind this unique situation is beneficial to the team. A contract just magically disappears from being counted. As a competitor, I'm pissed. Because my LTIR player doesn't have "unique circumstances", we get penalized?

[GHT120]

2 hours ago, huzer said:

I don't doubt at all that there are personal nuances to the situation that make it unique. However, from a business standpoint of icing the best possible product on the ice, the decision behind this unique situation is beneficial to the team. A contract just magically disappears from being counted. As a competitor, I'm pissed. Because my LTIR player doesn't have "unique circumstances", we get penalized?

As dlbair posted above, since Lehner didn't report VGK had cause to terminate the contract and, as he suggested, it was likely a case of "couldn't" and not "didn't" report ... based on that and given the compromise reached to avoid an appeal (or any further litigation) by the NHLPA, I assume there was (a) very good reason that Lehner didn't report and (b) if it didn't negate the cause for the termination of the contract it would have made Vegas and the NHL look VERY bad for doing so ... I expect it is something serious enough that even competitors would not object.

[huzer]

21 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

As dlbair posted above, since Lehner didn't report VGK had cause to terminate the contract and, as he suggested, it was likely a case of "couldn't" and not "didn't" report ... based on that and given the compromise reached to avoid an appeal (or any further litigation) by the NHLPA, I assume there was (a) very good reason that Lehner didn't report and (b) if it didn't negate the cause for the termination of the contract it would have made Vegas and the NHL look VERY bad for doing so ... I expect it is something serious enough that even competitors would not object.

 

I understand the arguments behind the situation. On a human level, I get it. On a business/competitive level, I don't agree with it. Let every team slide their LTI-Retired contracts off the books, or go through with the "this looks bad" termination. Heaven forbid Vegas gets egg on their face. They already have the appearance of preferential treatment, so let's go ahead and reinforce that pubic perception.

[GHT120]

15 minutes ago, huzer said:

I understand the arguments behind the situation. On a human level, I get it. On a business/competitive level, I don't agree with it. Let every team slide their LTI-Retired contracts off the books, or go through with the "this looks bad" termination. Heaven forbid Vegas gets egg on their face. They already have the appearance of preferential treatment, so let's go ahead and reinforce that pubic perception.

Allowing all LTIR contracts to "slide off the books" is also a CBA change that the NHL cannot make unilaterally ... I expect it LTIR may well be an issue, potentially various aspects of it, in the negotiations for the next CBA ... so I don't see the NHLPA agreeing to any changes before then.

[huzer]

27 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Allowing all LTIR contracts to "slide off the books" is also a CBA change that the NHL cannot make unilaterally ... I expect it LTIR may well be an issue, potentially various aspects of it, in the negotiations for the next CBA ... so I don't see the NHLPA agreeing to any changes before then.

Paying a one-way NHL contract that doesn't count towards the cap isn't in the CBA either. 

 

Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this one. Simply put, it should be a contract termination. 

[GHT120]

6 minutes ago, huzer said:

Paying a one-way NHL contract that doesn't count towards the cap isn't in the CBA either. 

NOT being in the CBA gives the NHL flexibility, especially with NHLPA agreement, that doesn't exist for outright changing the CBA.

[GHT120]

8 minutes ago, huzer said:

Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this one. 

I can agree to disagree.

[Commandant]

5 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I would agree if Lehner is still getting paid. You can't have it both ways (ie player getting paid and not be on the books). Having said that I am far from an expert on these issues. 

 

Its right in the tweet "Believe Lehner will Still be Paid"

 

If he's paid, he should be on LTIR. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

12 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Its right in the tweet "Believe Lehner will Still be Paid"

 

If he's paid, he should be on LTIR. 

 

I guess when I read a sportswriter say they "believe" I don't take it as a confirmed fact. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

It seems to me that VGK have discovered yet another loophole. And the next time there is a Carey Price situation - where the guy is permanently injured - just make sure he doesn’t report to camp. Presto, his salary is off the books for cap purposes. Meanwhile you agree to keep paying him. 🤷‍♂️

 

From this POV, where the Habs and Price erred was in playing it straight. Hopefully we’ve learned our lesson.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

Lehner is being held in a Chinese prison for espionage. 
 

He was not able to attend camp 

 

Until we know the truth it’s tough to evaluate the situation. What were these special circumstances?

[Commandant]

3 hours ago, GHT120 said:

As dlbair posted above, since Lehner didn't report VGK had cause to terminate the contract and, as he suggested, it was likely a case of "couldn't" and not "didn't" report ... based on that and given the compromise reached to avoid an appeal (or any further litigation) by the NHLPA, I assume there was (a) very good reason that Lehner didn't report and (b) if it didn't negate the cause for the termination of the contract it would have made Vegas and the NHL look VERY bad for doing so ... I expect it is something serious enough that even competitors would not object.

 

Thats all fine and dandy, but the NHL/NHLPA had two choices here. 

 

1) Grant an exemption to the NHLPA that lets Lehner (who was on LTIR all last season) to go on LTIR again without having to show up for a physical. 

2) Grant an exemption that means Vegas gets to avoid season opening LTIR and all the downsides that go with it (per @Dlbalr) as well as removing him from the 50 contract limit. 

 

I'd say that #1 is a much smaller change and more in the spirit of the rules than what they did in #2.  

[GHT120]

26 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Thats all fine and dandy, but the NHL/NHLPA had two choices here. 

 

1) Grant an exemption to the NHLPA that lets Lehner (who was on LTIR all last season) to go on LTIR again without having to show up for a physical. 

2) Grant an exemption that means Vegas gets to avoid season opening LTIR and all the downsides that go with it (per @Dlbalr) as well as removing him from the 50 contract limit. 

 

I'd say that #1 is a much smaller change and more in the spirit of the rules than what they did in #2.  

Without knowing the details, and suspecting that something VERY serious is involved, I'll accept the NHL/NHLPA compromise.

[Commandant]

8 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Without knowing the details, and suspecting that something VERY serious is involved, I'll accept the NHL/NHLPA compromise.

 

I'd also argue that further reporting indicates that what Lehner is paid is going to count against the NHLPA share of HRR for the purposes of calculating escrow.

 

if the league/team felt it was serious enough to try and terminate, they should have done so like the Flyers with Richards, the Sharks with Kane, and the Kings with Richards. 

Of course in 2 of those situations (and the third is still pending) the team didn't get to terminate 100% of the contract, still had to pay the player part of the deal and has the money counting on their cap. 

 

so this is unprecedented.

 

It also favours Vegas, a team accused of LTIR shenanigans in the past (though yes this is different). 

 

you'd think the league would do a statement explaining why this unprecedented solution was necessary (and it can be done without details of any Lehner medical or legal situation). Of course this league doesn't get the benefit of the doubt cause they are the worst run of any of the major sports leagues. 

 

Best sport, worst league, always. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

46 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Without knowing the details, and suspecting that something VERY serious is involved, I'll accept the NHL/NHLPA compromise.

 

That's a reasonable position. Without knowing all the details it is difficult to make a judgement. It is likely something  very serious and personal. 

[tomh009]

4 hours ago, Commandant said:

Thats all fine and dandy, but the NHL/NHLPA had two choices here. 

 

1) Grant an exemption to the NHLPA that lets Lehner (who was on LTIR all last season) to go on LTIR again without having to show up for a physical. 

2) Grant an exemption that means Vegas gets to avoid season opening LTIR and all the downsides that go with it (per @Dlbalr) as well as removing him from the 50 contract limit. 

 

I'd say that #1 is a much smaller change and more in the spirit of the rules than what they did in #2.  

Isn't there also #3? Don't show up for a physical, LTIR status not granted, player ends up on normal IR and his salary counts against cap.

 

If they wanted to do a contract termination they could have done it without the LTIR shenanigans. But then Lehner would not have been paid, either.

[Commandant]

 

We assume they would have won the contract termination, and maybe they would, maybe they wont, but no matter what the facts it was a risk. 

 

Lehner has a long history of mental illness.  If he claims he misssed the physical due to his illness not letting him travel and there is some proof of that, he'd likely win a grievance against termination. 

That, plus the fact he had already missed all of 2023-24 on LTIR makes me think that LTIR was the best option here. Just waive the physical knowing he was injured all of the previous season, and his mental health issues are well documented.   That seems a better one time exemption, then an exemption that clears him entirely. 

 

I mean the Habs can't bank cap space for the deadline if Price goes on LTIR, but Vegas can cause Lehner magically disappeared?  Doesn't seem fair to be honest. 

[DON]

Item not real interest to me, but Brian wrote it, so worthwhile.

Montreal Can’t Copy the Route Vegas Took with Robin Lehner On Carey Price Next Year – HabsWorld.net

 

 

"This is not a situation where Vegas and Lehner worked out a wink-wink-nudge-nudge deal with Lehner to say don’t report, we’ll threaten to terminate your contract, and then we’ll work out a ‘best of both worlds’ scenario where both sides get what they want."

[tomh009]

Maybe ... but it still begs the question of why Vegas was let off the hook when the CBA is very clear on the options: termination, buyout, LTIR or roster. Whether it was Lehner's mental health issues or his bankruptcy proceedings, I don't see why Vegas was allowed to walk away from Lehner with zero impact on their cap.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

31 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Maybe ... but it still begs the question of why Vegas was let off the hook when the CBA is very clear on the options: termination, buyout, LTIR or roster. Whether it was Lehner's mental health issues or his bankruptcy proceedings, I don't see why Vegas was allowed to walk away from Lehner with zero impact on their cap.

 

The NHL doesn’t work according to due process and never has. It works according to arbitrary personal preferences, often based on judgements about who is and is not a ‘good guy.’ That seems to carry even to franchises. E.g., Vancouver was punished retroactively for signing Luongo to a contract that was totally compatible with the CBA. Meanwhile VGK finds a new loophole and gets rewarded. All we have to do is look at how games are refereed and how player discipline is enforced, to see how personalized and arbitrary the NHL’s entire culture of rule-enforcement is.

[dlbalr]

1 hour ago, DON said:

Item not real interest to me, but Brian wrote it, so worthwhile.

Montreal Can’t Copy the Route Vegas Took with Robin Lehner On Carey Price Next Year – HabsWorld.net

 

I needed a filler piece since nothing had been posted since Tuesday's postgame so this worked for a topic idea.

 

30 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Maybe ... but it still begs the question of why Vegas was let off the hook when the CBA is very clear on the options: termination, buyout, LTIR or roster. Whether it was Lehner's mental health issues or his bankruptcy proceedings, I don't see why Vegas was allowed to walk away from Lehner with zero impact on their cap.

 

There's grounds for termination if a player doesn't report.  But do those grounds hold up if a player can't report?  Vegas quietly indicated that they were willing to try it while the NHLPA quietly indicated they had every intention of grieving it if the Golden Knights went that route.  The reality is that the CBA doesn't have a distinction between the two.

 

Vegas easily could have opted to terminate and started the season in the exact spot they are now and wait to see how a grievance midseason would have played out.  Those usually end in settlements anyway, often without any sort of serious cap penalty so it wouldn't shock me if this would have been the eventual outcome.  They just got it out of the way now instead going through the hearing and the negative optics associated with it.