View Single Post
Old
08-15-2010, 01:40 PM
  #62
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Child please. They knew it because they said so. OF COURSE they'd say so, if you were the assistant general manager of a professional sports team, and people accused you of not knowing the rule, would you agree with them?
Child please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Ok fine. But the Flyers didn't know the 35+ Rule (as much as you try to dispute this, they didn't know it, a little bit of reading comprehension when that came to be, and a little bit less naivete, and you might get it).
Fine, let's say they didn't know it. It still doesn't matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I don't need to. See below. The Sharks also knew Vladimir Malakhov was never going to play a game for them.

And the league is attempting to not have it be apples and oranges. This is the whole point. The intention of having contracts is that there is an intention for both team and player to fulfill them, and not give themselves an out should it be needed. They want proof that that they don't intend to do something with his contract should be retire. They won't want the egg on their face should it come to pass, they want it written in stone, whether or not they get it, now that is apples and oranges.
Then add a stipulation to the 35+ contract that disallows trades. Since it doesn't fall under the realm of cap circumvention, that's about all they can do.

If they were smart, they would've put that stipulation in when they wrote up the CBA seeing as that's what the 35+ rule was designed to do. The NHL opened their own loophole in the 35+ rule.

That's not the same as the loophole other teams are using for actual cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
They'll never get that. What they want if for that to not be allowed should it happen. They've been trading draft picks just to get rid of people, so that precedence is there for those trades, (we'll see if those trades burn them), and because they were able to put Mike Rathje on LTIR for 3 1/2 years. "Gee, maybe they're try to do this again, with a player who they plan on being injured.
Not sure if you're agreeing with me or trying to refute me there.

Who will never get what?

The Flyers will never get Pronger to stay on the LTIR illegally? Obviously not.

The NHL will never get proof the Flyers are planning to trade before hand if they are indeed planning a trade? Obviously not.

Not sure what you're getting at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
And the league suspects there is an exit plan if he doesn't. That's one of the things they're trying to get a stop on.
The league is trying to stop an "exit plan," yes.

But that's not as easy as saying a Pronger trade is cap circumvention. Technically it isn't, and on top of that, it's a lot easier to speculate a possible retirement as opposed to a possible trade scenario.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote