“He’s a player under contract,” he said. “He has contractual obligations to Nashville and it would be unfair, I think, to the club who has the benefit and right to his contractual obligations not to be able to bring him back.”
The reasoning makes sense, but the solution is poor. I think he should be allowed to come back without waivers next year. The trade deadline is a deadline for a reason, and adding a KHLer after it and just before the playoffs seems really cheesy and unfair.
Dmitry Chesnokov @dchesnokov
Salavat wants to keep rights to Radulov but can only do so if he leaves in the fall. Hence, no permission to leave now. #Preds ( @plysenkov)
Dmitry Chesnokov @dchesnokov
Radulov wants to leave for Nashville right now. The KHL club hasn't granted their permission (via @plysenkov and Rads agent)
Dmitry Chesnokov @dchesnokov
If Radulov and Salavat terminate their contract now, he can leave but Salavat will lose his rights. Smth they don't want to do. Dead end now
For those who have trouble reading and comprehending, have somebody read the rule below to you. You may also want to have it translated to your native tounge....
Was Radulov a professional Player or a former professional player earlier this year? Yes
Did he play in an league outside of North America after the start of the NHL regular season? Yes
Was he on Loan from Nashville? No
Those things are the aspects of the rule. It says nothing about playing on an illegal contract, it states nothing about having already signed a valid contract with the NHL club. The rule is about having played in another league plain and simple.
Those of you who are making arguments outside of the parameters of the three questions that I pose are making **** up or parroting justifications made by others.
The rule is being violated, and it is being done so with the approval of the league.
If the Speed limit is 25 mph and you are rushing somebody to the hospital at 60 mph, you are still breaking the law. If the police let you go because of your situation, you were still breaking the law but you got a pass on it for the greater good. So other than for Nashville fans, what is the greater good in not enforcing this rule.
And while I think the Wings and many other teams have much greater concerns than this situation, I think everyone involved with hockey should have concerns when the integrity of the game and the sense of fair play are brought into question.
Thank you. This is my understanding of the situation as well.
Personally I'm 100% on Nashville's side with this one. The CBA doesn't have specific, unambiguous language to deal with this situation and so it has to be interpreted in a way that the NHL and NHLPA can agree on.
Consider the following scenario: an NHL player, unhappy with the team or his contract or whatever, refuses to play/report or commits some other suspendable breach of contract. The team suspends him (as the Predators did with Radulov), but then at some later point in time he has a change of heart and decides he's willing to come back to the team, behave, and play. Would it really be good policy to force the team to put that player on waivers in order to allow them back into the NHL? If I were such a team, there's no way I'd put a player like Radulov on waivers and lose him for nothing, I'd simply refuse to lift the suspension. So in other words, if a player committed one poor error in judgment, they'd essentially be banishing themselves from the NHL forever. Think the NHLPA would be fine with that?
Couldn't he in theory come back at the end of the playoffs without having to pass through waivers?
Those things are the aspects of the rule. It says nothing about playing on an illegal contract, it states nothing about having already signed a valid contract with the NHL club. The rule is about having played in another league plain and simple.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
The 13.23 rule is for players who are not under current contract with the NHL. The fact it doesn't state it is an omission in the CBA. Remember, when the CBA was created, the KHL didn't exist. The NHL had agreements with all European leagues, so it was impossible for a player to go play in Europe unless they were on loan, because the European clubs would refuse to sign them to contracts if they were under NHL contract. Five days after Rads signed with the KHL, the NHL and KHL put an agreement into place, but the KHL refused to apply it to Radulov.
In short, it's impossible today to be a professional hockey player in Europe if you're under NHL contract, unless your name is Radulov or you are on loan.
Thus any player returning from the NHL from Europe, except Radulov, has to sign an NHL contract. The NHL doesn't just let them pick whatever team they choose, so they have to go through the waivers process, giving all teams a chance at the player, according to the wire order.
Radulov is already on contract. There's absolutely no way the NHL is going to say that the Predators must submit a player whom they have under contract to the waiver wire, thus ensuring he's taken by the first team in the wire order and effectively nullifying Nashville's contract. Explain how that would be fair to the Predators in any way, shape or form.
That's why this situation is NOT covered in the CBA and why the NHLPA and NHL had to agree on how to handle the situation. Since he's already on contract, and already on our playoff roster (and has been for 4 years), they ruled he can return at any time and still be playoff eligible.
I can understand why Detroit fans don't like it, but there's nothing unethical about it at all. In fact, to do otherwise would be unethical.
Last edited by wadesworld: 03-15-2012 at 01:12 PM.
Again, explain how it would be fair to the Predators to subject him to waivers?
No they don't. They agreed that the rule would prohibit his return without waivers so they have waived the rule.
They may not want it to apply in this type of situation which is why they waive it, but they have to waive the rule for him to return. My guess is that this will be addressed in the next collective bargaining session.
Well it appears that Radulovs KHL contract does not end until April 30 and his KHL team won't release him because they don't want to give up their rights to him. The KHL doesn't appear to be willing to make a waiver of a league rule (like the NHL has) in order to accomadate him so it seems that he will not have much impact if he can come over. I can't imagine that Nashville would risk adding him in mid-playoff series if they are advancing on. With no adjustment period it would be a huge risk.
And from Nashville's perspective, I can't imagine that they would have him ride the bench to clear out his contract. This does give them leverage in signing an extension and keeping him on well into the future if he was willing to put in the commitment. The only advantage that I could see by letting him come back to dump the end of his ELC would be to pick up draft picks if he is offersheeted.
Not sure, but didn't Holland do pretty much the same thing as what the OP suggested when he let Hudler take off to the KHL for a season because he was cap-strapped?
Meanwhile, Radulov taking off meant that Nashville was mediocre for years. Was that deliberate?
I agree that Radulov coming back after skipping the season is stinky. But perhaps we're overrating what he'll do. Afterall, Hudler was a ppg player in the K, came back, and looked BRUTAL for a full season. Cheers.
@plysenkov: Yuri Nikolayev, the agent Radulov, told me right now: "Yes, he's leaving." Expect to see Radu in Thurs game vs Pens. #Preds
@SlavaMalamud: Radulov will be getting on a plane to Nashville tomorrow, Sport-Express reports #Preds
I agree that Radulov coming back after skipping the season is stinky. But perhaps we're overrating what he'll do. Afterall, Hudler was a ppg player in the K, came back, and looked BRUTAL for a full season. Cheers.
TOML
The Hockey Gods are with us if this happens to Radulov.
Are you all as pumped about our probable 1st round matchup as I am?
No, because this preds team will probably beat the Wings. So I'm not excited. I'm bummed, and this whole Radulov scenario is really annoying. No team should be able to bring in a player after the trade deadline - end of story. No loopholes, no different situations, just no more players after the deadline. That's the rule, and the fact that this loophole was exploited is very frustrating in my opinion.
No, because this preds team will probably beat the Wings. So I'm not excited. I'm bummed, and this whole Radulov scenario is really annoying. No team should be able to bring in a player after the trade deadline - end of story. No loopholes, no different situations, just no more players after the deadline. That's the rule, and the fact that this loophole was exploited is very frustrating in my opinion.
I knew you had to be a central division team fan. You are getting called out left and right for your comment on the trade rumors thread, you need to go answer the bell. Trust me, we got screwed for over 3 years. He should've been in the central division the whole time. Detroit isn't getting screwed here. Sorry. Our playoffs should be much fun. It's a huge rivalry down here with all the detroit transplants. Can't wait.
Well it appears that Radulovs KHL contract does not end until April 30 and his KHL team won't release him because they don't want to give up their rights to him. The KHL doesn't appear to be willing to make a waiver of a league rule (like the NHL has) in order to accomadate him so it seems that he will not have much impact if he can come over. I can't imagine that Nashville would risk adding him in mid-playoff series if they are advancing on. With no adjustment period it would be a huge risk.
And from Nashville's perspective, I can't imagine that they would have him ride the bench to clear out his contract. This does give them leverage in signing an extension and keeping him on well into the future if he was willing to put in the commitment. The only advantage that I could see by letting him come back to dump the end of his ELC would be to pick up draft picks if he is offersheeted.
I don't get it. Radulov breached his NHL contract to go play with the KHL? But now he won't come back because returning to play for the first contract that he already breached would be a breach of his KHL contract?
Am I interpreting this correctly? All of a sudden it matters that he has a contract, even though the whole reason he's in this situation is because it didn't matter before?
I don't get it. Radulov breached his NHL contract to go play with the KHL? But now he won't come back because returning to play for the first contract that he already breached would be a breach of his KHL contract?
Am I interpreting this correctly? All of a sudden it matters that he has a contract, even though the whole reason he's in this situation is because it didn't matter before?
Doesn't matter, he worked it out with his KHL club so he could come over and they could keep his rights. The pessimist in me thinks Radulov is just going to come over, kill the final year on his deal with a handful of regular season games, and then see who (Preds or KHL) will give him the most money for next year.
All that matters, at this point, is that Radulov will be playing for Nashville beginning (I think) Thursday night.
When the wings beat the preds in the first round, with or without home ice, how sweet wil
It be when Suter signs with the wings? Adding insult to injury.
When the wings beat the preds in the first round, with or without home ice, how sweet wil
It be when Suter signs with the wings? Adding insult to injury.
Why does everyone (mostly Wings fans) think it's a foregone conclusion that a.) Suter walks and b.) if he does, he'll go to the Wings?
I don't get it. Radulov breached his NHL contract to go play with the KHL? But now he won't come back because returning to play for the first contract that he already breached would be a breach of his KHL contract?
Am I interpreting this correctly? All of a sudden it matters that he has a contract, even though the whole reason he's in this situation is because it didn't matter before?
It may be as simple as: when he breached his original contract there was no transfer agreement, now there is, and two wrongs don't make a right as far as the transfer agreement is concerned (i.e. he couldn't breach his current contract to make up for breaching his old one).
