HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Tim Thomas

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-09-2012, 11:14 AM
  #26
DohBruins
Registered User
 
DohBruins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by birddog View Post
"believe" -- I guess you would jump off a bridge if you believed it would be fun -- reality is very different. Bruins NEED to rid themselves of Thomas and his 5 million. Deals like this have been made in the past -- the pick will go to the team taking his contract.

The NHL might not even allow the deal. You are trading a retired player.
The Bruins will be fine taking the 5m cap hit for 2012-13. He's not retired. And why would the NHL block the deal, deals have been made like this in the past.

And this logic doesn't make any sense to me.

DohBruins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 11:17 AM
  #27
4ORRBRUIN
Registered User
 
4ORRBRUIN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: boston
Country: United States
Posts: 3,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBernierFan View Post
TT said he doesn't want to play hockey this year, regardless of it being with the Bruins or someone else, correct? I was under the impression he was taking a year off from playing. Sure he doesn't want to be a Bruin but he's not holding out because of it. At least that was my impression. If that is the case, no team is going to pay a "nice price" for someone who doesn't want to play this year and who hasn't trained this summer. Also, how many years does he really have left, even if he does come back? Isn't he in his late 30's? He also only has the one year left on his contract. The odds are stacked on the Bruins side for sure. Remember, there's a pretty good goalie named Luongo out there who hasn't been traded yet and who wants to play hockey this year.
I dont buy it, he will play. Not for thr B's.

4ORRBRUIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 11:24 AM
  #28
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan02190 View Post
The Bruins will be fine taking the 5m cap hit for 2012-13. He's not retired. And why would the NHL block the deal, deals have been made like this in the past.

And this logic doesn't make any sense to me.
The league can reject any deal. As for "deals like this", I can only think of 1 deal like this, where a guy was taking the year off, was suspended by the team for doing it, and was traded. As the other poster said, that was the Malakhov deal, and NJ added a 1st round pick.

So yeah, the idea that the B's are going to get another team to do them a favor and take Thomas' contract AND give the B's something of value, seems unlikely to me.

Sure, a team could use Thomas' contract to reach the floor, but there are other ways to do that. The B's benefit from having Thomas' contract OFF their books more than the other team would benefit from having Thomas' contract ON their books. Thus, the B's would have to add, not a 1st rounder, but something.

That's the logic.

Dr Quincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 11:29 AM
  #29
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ORRBRUIN View Post
I dont buy it, he will play. Not for thr B's.
This is the part I don't understand. If Thomas wanted to play somewhere else why wouldn't he just tell the B's that, and they could trade him? Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is the most likely. IF a guy wants to go somewhere else, he just says it. Taking a year out kills the chance that he goes somewhere else.

Oh, but you see Thomas was afraid the B's would ship him to Edmonton and that's why he is taking the year off, at least that's the other theory. If that was case he could tell the B's, I want to be traded, I don't want to go to Edmonton though, can you see if there's someone else who wants me. If the B's say, "No sorry" then he can wait until the trade is done and just fail to report. Same exact situation as now: he gets suspended without pay.

If Thomas WANTS to play in the NHL this year, the worst thing he could have done is what he is doing. Makes no sense to me.

Dr Quincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 11:30 AM
  #30
DohBruins
Registered User
 
DohBruins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
The league can reject any deal. As for "deals like this", I can only think of 1 deal like this, where a guy was taking the year off, was suspended by the team for doing it, and was traded. As the other poster said, that was the Malakhov deal, and NJ added a 1st round pick.

So yeah, the idea that the B's are going to get another team to do them a favor and take Thomas' contract AND give the B's something of value, seems unlikely to me.

Sure, a team could use Thomas' contract to reach the floor, but there are other ways to do that. The B's benefit from having Thomas' contract OFF their books more than the other team would benefit from having Thomas' contract ON their books. Thus, the B's would have to add, not a 1st rounder, but something.

That's the logic.
I believe the Devils (Who originally had Malakhov) were over the Cap in that situation so other teams had all the leverage.

DohBruins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 11:36 AM
  #31
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan02190 View Post
I believe the Devils (Who originally had Malakhov) were over the Cap in that situation so other teams had all the leverage.
Which is why the B's wouldn't have to send a FIRST round pick as I said, just that they would have to send something. The B's want to deal Thomas more than any team would want him. Thus the other teams would have all the leverage. When 1 team wants to deal a guy more than any other team wants to add him, you'll have that situation.

Dr Quincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 11:39 AM
  #32
JohnWayne
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
I think Boston will have to wait and see what the cap floor is.

Some gms, Snow among them, think the floor will drop in the next cba and they won't have to take on bad contracts or phantom cap hits to reach the floor.
if there is a cap floor. Some teams are not fans of the floor and have no problem getting rid of it

JohnWayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 12:11 PM
  #33
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
This is the part I don't understand. If Thomas wanted to play somewhere else why wouldn't he just tell the B's that, and they could trade him? Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is the most likely. IF a guy wants to go somewhere else, he just says it. Taking a year out kills the chance that he goes somewhere else.

Oh, but you see Thomas was afraid the B's would ship him to Edmonton and that's why he is taking the year off, at least that's the other theory. If that was case he could tell the B's, I want to be traded, I don't want to go to Edmonton though, can you see if there's someone else who wants me. If the B's say, "No sorry" then he can wait until the trade is done and just fail to report. Same exact situation as now: he gets suspended without pay.

If Thomas WANTS to play in the NHL this year, the worst thing he could have done is what he is doing. Makes no sense to me.
Why would Boston trade Thomas somewhere he doesn't want to go? He won them a Stanley Cup and you think their going to screw him over and send him to Edmonton?

nhlfan9191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 12:20 PM
  #34
danaluvsthekings
Registered User
 
danaluvsthekings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnWayne View Post
if there is a cap floor. Some teams are not fans of the floor and have no problem getting rid of it
Some teams might not like the floor but I can't see the NHLPA wanting to get rid of it. If you're going to put a drag on the upper end of salaries with a cap, they want to make sure teams have to pay a minimum amount in salary as well.

Not to mention, the floor is there to maintain at least some sense of competitive balance. Otherwise you could, in theory, have a gap of $20-30 mil or more in between payrolls of two teams and that doesn't look good for the league.

danaluvsthekings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 12:26 PM
  #35
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by danaluvsthekings View Post
Some teams might not like the floor but I can't see the NHLPA wanting to get rid of it. If you're going to put a drag on the upper end of salaries with a cap, they want to make sure teams have to pay a minimum amount in salary as well.

Not to mention, the floor is there to maintain at least some sense of competitive balance. Otherwise you could, in theory, have a gap of $20-30 mil or more in between payrolls of two teams and that doesn't look good for the league.
Well, if the NHL gets rid of the solid, hard cap and teams can go over a certain amout, the NHLPA might allow a cap floor to go. THere are teams that are still willing to spend 100mill on contracts and other teams that are having trouble making the floor

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 12:41 PM
  #36
danaluvsthekings
Registered User
 
danaluvsthekings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
Well, if the NHL gets rid of the solid, hard cap and teams can go over a certain amout, the NHLPA might allow a cap floor to go. THere are teams that are still willing to spend 100mill on contracts and other teams that are having trouble making the floor
True, I just don't see there being any way that the owners give up a hard cap now after being willing to give up a season to get the hard cap in the first place. Maybe I underestimate the resolve of the PA this time, but I think a season of no hockey hurts them a lot more than it hurts most owners. Especially guys that were playing during the last lockout. Missing 2 full years of earning potential is not the wisest financial move.

You're never going to have a perfect CBA of course and you can't negotiate the best CBA if you're only looking after what's good for the top 5 teams or the bottom 5 teams. It's those middle of the road teams that the CBA needs to be the best for. Of course Toronto wouldn't have a problem turning a profit at a $100 mil payroll. But a lot of teams would. The Isles would be happy with a $40 mil cap, but not a lot of teams would. It's the middle ground that needs to be found. It sucks if you're a fan of one of those top or bottom teams, but are you a fan of your team or a fan of hockey in general? And if you're a fan of hockey in general, you want what's best for the league, even if it means your team doesn't get a $90 mil payroll.

danaluvsthekings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 12:44 PM
  #37
birddog*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan02190 View Post
The Bruins will be fine taking the 5m cap hit for 2012-13. He's not retired. And why would the NHL block the deal, deals have been made like this in the past.

And this logic doesn't make any sense to me.
He's taking a year off. Next year he is a UFA. There's no value for teams to take him without incentive. And no the Bruins aren't fine is the cap is lowered significantly.

birddog* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 12:48 PM
  #38
Flamesjustwin
Registered User
 
Flamesjustwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: London ON
Posts: 595
vCash: 463
Tim Thomas has zero value. He will be coming off a year away from the game and his mouth makes him a detriment to the locker room. TT will never play in the NHL again.

Flamesjustwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:15 PM
  #39
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan02190 View Post
I was wondering what a team would give up to get him. At first I assumed that the team getting him would give up "future considerations", basically nothing. But some low market teams, like the Coyotes, Avalanche, and Islanders, all under cap-floor, would give up a minor asset for the 5 mil. cap hit. Not only the cap hit the team is the team receiving, but also the rights to the player for nine months. We saw Wideman get dealt for a 5th round pick, just to receive rights to talk for two weeks. Could the Bruins possibly gather a 4th round pick or more for him?

Also, I read two weeks a go, the Bruins owner, Jeremy Jacobs, had a radio interview and he believes there is a market for Tim Thomas.

Here is the link: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/bruin...ing-for-thomas

Thoughts/proposals?

EDIT: I realize the CBA and the uncertainty of the cap so this will probably be delayed until a new CBA is resolved.
trading him today i stupid and he has negative value today because of things like the cap among other considerations.

the good news is... he will either report or get suspended once the season starts... if suspended he wont be owed a single penny of salary.

now under the current cba, his cap hit does count... but i believe that the cba was never intended to hurt a team/or player under the thomas situation. Thomas had a fairly bargained contract that was honored by both himself and the Bruins. Then he did a very unique thing and became controversially political in a way that caused huge backlash against himself in Boston. Now he is taking time off to like... throw a snit... or maybe cause his family got upset at all the press and publicity? Whatever the case... the clause in the CBA was to stop players from 'retiring' from front loaded contracts. Thomas did recieve a front loaded payoff but his contract never became ridiculous at the end like guys like kovalchuck and parise and suter do.

so the entire thing is a mockery where Boston is being hurt unfairly and other teams are not being hurt even though they deserve to be.

I believe that fair is fair... and the new CBA will contain an admentment to protect teams that follow the rules and bargain fairly.

So at that point... Thomas becomes worth whatever any vet goalie coming off 2 vezinas in the last 4 years would be worth with a year left on his contract.

Boston can afford to play the waiting game. In the end... if everything goes wrong... they are trading away a 5 mill cap hit that isnt owed a penny of salary. So some cheap owner can effectively be 5 mill under the real cap using thomas. This is like a 5 million dollar bill in some owners pocket. Someone would be willing to take that on...

and then if thomas suddenly did report... he doesnt have a ntc... so the team can flip him for a pick once he reports.

ultimately... worst case... thomas is worth something to someone...

but he is worth more if the cba is changed as i suggest it will be. under suspension, his contract doesnt burn off. So he will eventually owe someone a season at 3 mill. Someone will give up value for that

id suggest the going rate for a game changing starting net minder on a very affordable contract would be a first and something like a prospect or a bottom level player

one team that i could see taking thomas on midway through the season is toronto. I could see them wanting to extend thomas for a couple years to help one of their kids develop. Im not too sure what other teams would bid more in trade value for a quality starter. Im under the impression louongo is going to end up in Florida so they dont need anyone. Im not sure about Chicago.

So my prediction is thomas ends up in Toronto for a first and a prospect. Toronto makes whatever cap move is necessary to clear the space then resigns thomas for a couple more years. Thomas leads them into the playoffs and helps them win at least one round and burke looks like a genius

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:18 PM
  #40
CreeksideStrangler
Registered User
 
CreeksideStrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamesjustwin View Post
Tim Thomas has zero value. He will be coming off a year away from the game and his mouth makes him a detriment to the locker room. TT will never play in the NHL again.
He'll be back in the NHL at some point... but everything else is true. Who would trade for a player who openly refuses to play?

CreeksideStrangler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:18 PM
  #41
Jozay
lolwut?
 
Jozay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In someones closet..
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,373
vCash: 500
I would be okay with the leafs getting him. A 7th rounder would be the most I would give up for him.

Jozay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:25 PM
  #42
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
This is the part I don't understand. If Thomas wanted to play somewhere else why wouldn't he just tell the B's that, and they could trade him? Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is the most likely. IF a guy wants to go somewhere else, he just says it. Taking a year out kills the chance that he goes somewhere else.

Oh, but you see Thomas was afraid the B's would ship him to Edmonton and that's why he is taking the year off, at least that's the other theory. If that was case he could tell the B's, I want to be traded, I don't want to go to Edmonton though, can you see if there's someone else who wants me. If the B's say, "No sorry" then he can wait until the trade is done and just fail to report. Same exact situation as now: he gets suspended without pay.

If Thomas WANTS to play in the NHL this year, the worst thing he could have done is what he is doing. Makes no sense to me.
if we take thomas at his word... he seems like his feelings are hurt over his treatment backlash from his political stance and we think his family life has suffered as a result.

right now he seems to be reacting to his family issues... and is using that as the excuse he has given us for taking time off. Since its not himself that he is using as an excuse... timelines given by him dont make much sense. After all, he is responding to other people on their own timeline

if he says im taking the entire season off... this is a statement to his family... to show them he is serious about addressing the issues that are effecting him and them. But once he has been home for awhile... will those issues still be valid? How long is needed to settle those issues?

one year... ten years? 2 months?

thomas probably does have his feelings hurt by how the reaction to his political views went... and he probably doesnt want to be dealt to just any old team. He maybe didnt want to get dealt at all? So it is no harm to him how he is acting now. He has shown that he doesnt care if he makes very controversial choices with his public stance. He hasnt shown any ability to stand up in the face of backlash though. He never stands and answers the questions after making his political statements

as a hockey player i love what he did for us... as an entertaining interview, i find him fun to listen to... but as a politcial activist i find him lacking in many reguards and now its hurting the team.

at the end of the day, i think we all hope he and his family can find peace and happiness and a resolution to whatever issues cause him to make this stand. I personally hope he either stops being political or else manages to handle it better. He is entitled to any opinions he wants to have but stop hanging the team out the way he does... deal with the storm himself please.

and then i hope the b's do trade him for a good return cause the team honored its side of the contract and hes trying to walk out on his side now

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:29 PM
  #43
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by birddog View Post
He's taking a year off. Next year he is a UFA. There's no value for teams to take him without incentive. And no the Bruins aren't fine is the cap is lowered significantly.
if hes suspended how does his contract run out? Nabokov owed the islanders a season even though he walked out on them. I could see Thomas taking 1/2 year off... then saying he will report just to eat the contract... but at that point he becomes a very valuable asset for a team wanting to win in the playoffs.

If he takes the entire year off.. he is still signed for a year at 3 mill which is very good value for someone of his talent.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:42 PM
  #44
Rubber Biscuit
Registered User
 
Rubber Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 5,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
if hes suspended how does his contract run out? Nabokov owed the islanders a season even though he walked out on them. I could see Thomas taking 1/2 year off... then saying he will report just to eat the contract... but at that point he becomes a very valuable asset for a team wanting to win in the playoffs.

If he takes the entire year off.. he is still signed for a year at 3 mill which is very good value for someone of his talent.
The Bruins, or whatever team trades for him, has the right to toll his contract or let the contract expire.

Rubber Biscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:46 PM
  #45
DohBruins
Registered User
 
DohBruins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamesjustwin View Post
Tim Thomas has zero value. He will be coming off a year away from the game and his mouth makes him a detriment to the locker room. TT will never play in the NHL again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by birddog View Post
He's taking a year off. Next year he is a UFA. There's no value for teams to take him without incentive. And no the Bruins aren't fine is the cap is lowered significantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CreeksideStrangler View Post
He'll be back in the NHL at some point... but everything else is true. Who would trade for a player who openly refuses to play?
The Cap hit for low-market teams whose (selfish) owners would rather take the cap hit, than to pay it to a player.

DohBruins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:49 PM
  #46
danaluvsthekings
Registered User
 
danaluvsthekings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Maybe it's the over-simplified response, but if you don't want the criticism that comes with making very political statements (and he'd be just as criticized if he came out with over the top political statements supporting the Democratic side too), don't make very political statements while still playing. I doubt too many people have changed their political views because of Thomas's statements.

There have been some athletes that have gotten involved in politics but it's been after they've retired. There's a reason not too many get involved while they're playing and it's because they don't want to alienate supporters of the other side.

danaluvsthekings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 03:05 PM
  #47
Dellstrom
We Like Eich
 
Dellstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 18,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
Why would Boston trade Thomas somewhere he doesn't want to go? He won them a Stanley Cup and you think their going to screw him over and send him to Edmonton?
He screwed us over with his decision. We want no part of him.

He's become arrogant and posts on his facebook page rather than talking to his managers.

Dellstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 04:51 PM
  #48
GoBs
Registered User
 
GoBs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucic View Post
He screwed us over with his decision. We want no part of him.

He's become arrogant and posts on his facebook page rather than talking to his managers.
Not all of us are upset with him for expressing his political views after winning us a cap. Only the Liberals.

Edit: Arrogant in expressing his opinion, lol. Consider what your saying. Ohh the irony.


Last edited by GoBs: 09-09-2012 at 04:56 PM.
GoBs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 05:25 PM
  #49
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
but i believe that the cba was never intended to hurt a team/or player under the thomas situation. Thomas had a fairly bargained contract that was honored by both himself and the Bruins. Then he did a very unique thing and became controversially political in a way that caused huge backlash against himself in Boston.

so the entire thing is a mockery where Boston is being hurt unfairly and other teams are not being hurt even though they deserve to be.

I believe that fair is fair... and the new CBA will contain an admentment to protect teams that follow the rules and bargain fairly.
So much here, and I clipped a bunch, but:
1) I love when people who don't live in Boston try to say what is happening in Boston. There wasn't a "huge backlash" in Boston. Period.

2) Boston is not being unfairly hurt by anything. They knew the rules of 35+ contracts. They saw a guy do the same exact thing before with NJ. 35+ contract, wanted to take a year off. I don't recall you or anyone in Boston complaining about NJ getting unfairly treated. What would be unfair would be for Boston to not have to have the same cap implications as every other team in the NHL who had a guy with a 35+ contract not play.

The rule is: 35+ counts on your cap until the terms run out or he's traded. Period. Selectively enforcing a clause against every team that doesn't have a spoked B on its sweater would be wrong. Enforcing it against all teams would be right.
D
3) It doesn't matter what you believe is fair. What is collectively bargained is what the rule becomes. There's no reason for the league to change the rule. Not one, and unless you were calling for this amendment when Malakhov took off there's no reason to call for it now.


Last edited by spiny norman: 09-09-2012 at 06:16 PM. Reason: Fixed [/QUOTE]
Dr Quincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 05:27 PM
  #50
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
if hes suspended how does his contract run out? Nabokov owed the islanders a season even though he walked out on them. I could see Thomas taking 1/2 year off... then saying he will report just to eat the contract... but at that point he becomes a very valuable asset for a team wanting to win in the playoffs.

If he takes the entire year off.. he is still signed for a year at 3 mill which is very good value for someone of his talent.
This isn't necessarily true. It's the B's option as to whether or not his contract runs out or is put on hold. It's highly unlikely they decide to keep it. Thus he'll be a UFA

Dr Quincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.