Thread: Upshall
View Single Post
04-03-2009, 02:34 PM
Registered User
Jester's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
You think I would pull out a post from 3 years ago without reading it? He asked about LTIR, but the answer was expressed simply as injured players, not LTIR.
You clearly did not read it, or do not understand what it's saying.

I said they're allow to replace it while he's injured, it essentially doesn't count, only because you're allowed to replace it, as long as you're under the cap when he comes off.
NO! That is specifically not what is happening.

If a player is on have to be under the cap the entire time he is hurt. If the player is on LTIR, you can exceed the salary cap while he is hurt and then must be back under it when he comes back.

From the Flyers this year:

1) Briere was on LTIR and the Flyers were allowed to exceed the salary cap while he was hurt, but had to go back under when he came back.

2) Timonen was hurt, they had to send Giroux back down in order to bring Guenin back up.

What's the point of allowing guys to go on IR retroactively is there is no point in doing it?
It gives you greater roster flexibility.

I already explained why IR and LTIR are different, because there are different policies for LTIR.
Yes, there are different policies. With LTIR you can replace the salary on the roster while the player is hurt...with IR, you cannot replace the salary on the roster. While a player is on IR both the injured player and his replacements salary count against the salary cap.

When Timonen was hurt they called up Nate Guenin...Timonen's salary counted against the cap, and Guenin's did too. This would have put the Flyers over the salary cap, so they shipped Giroux to the Phantoms for that Devils game because that brought us back under the salary cap.

So, you shouldn't be explaining the difference...cuz you don't seem to know the difference.

I hate the Upshall trade, but the rational for making a deal was perfectly reasonable and accurate. They had a real salary cap problem if they did not make a deal. We would have been unable to call up a short-term injury replacement if anyone got hurt for the rest of the regular season without sending someone down (likely Giroux), which was a BIG problem. So, they made a deal. I think they made the wrong one, but this isn't a case of Holmgren inventing a false problem and solving it.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote