Other athletes have committed murder, ****, domestic violence, animal cruelty, and are still embraced by fans. What was Tim Thomas's unforgivable sin? Having a different political opinion and choosing family over money.
You know why Visnovsky's situation is different (as if I should even indulge this)? He's walking out on a $3 million dollar contract to make $7 million in Russia. Tim Thomas is staying home and not getting paid anything, not demanding a new contract or extension, not demanding a trade or anything else.
I disagree. I think the complaints should be directed at the guy who decided not to honor his deal, and made the cap hit unmoveable.
I think you're a little off in suggesting that Chia didn't understand the implications of the deal he signed. He simply didn't foresee Thomas' decision not to play.
How can you not foresee a 39 year old possibly retiring or not being good enough to play, leaving a 5 M cap hit on the books ? The effects would be the same.
He's staying there because it's closer to family... no? Whether he chooses to play hockey or open up a barber shop doesn't change the reasoning he gave.
And if he formally retired he couldn't be moved at all.
Plus he'd have to get paid. I'm not arguing that what he's done is the worst case scenario. It's simply not the best case either. I'd rather have a healthy, active Tim Thomas tending net, or being moved for assets in return, than one sitting on the sidelines tying up cap space.
Look, I feel loyalty to Thomas for what he's done for this organization. The fact is, however, that I was a Bruins fan before Tim, and I'll be one after Tim. My first loyalty is to the team, and my priority is to see the best thing happens for the Bruins, not Tim Thomas. He won't be standing in a soup line any time soon, and good on him for earning it with the work he put in.
It's amazing that the CBA dragged out as long as it did to save teams like the Islanders, who trade high round picks for players that actively and vocally don't want to be part of their organization.
How can you not foresee a 39 year old possibly retiring or not being good enough to play, leaving a 5 M cap hit on the books ? The effects would be the same.
I'm sure they had those types of discussions when they signed the deal. I can't see it going like this:
Chia "So Tim, how long are you going to stick around?"
TT "Well, I think I can play effectively and be interested until I'm 38"
Chia "Okay, good we'll sign you until you're 39 then. Perfect"
I disagree. I think the complaints should be directed at the guy who decided not to honor his deal, and made the cap hit unmoveable.
I think you're a little off in suggesting that Chia didn't understand the implications of the deal he signed. He simply didn't foresee Thomas' decision not to play.
I believe it's been reported that PC actually admitted to misinterpreting/misunderstanding the 35+ rule. And if he didn't anticipate there being a chance TT could retire at 39 years old, well than that's his fault.
If TT retired, his contract would be literally untradeable and the Bruins would be stuck with the cap hit.
I'll look for a source to back up my first statement.
I believe it's been reported that PC actually admitted to misinterpreting/misunderstanding the 35+ rule. And if he didn't anticipate there being a chance TT could retire at 39 years old, well than that's his fault.
If TT retired, his contract would be literally untradeable and the Bruins would be stuck with the cap hit.
I'll look for a source to back up my first statement.
I don't recall that, and if he did, bad on him. Doesn't change my opinion one bit.
Again, not arguing that his "sitting out" is the worst case scenario. I still see his deal as literally untradeable, however.
I don't recall that, and if he did, bad on him. Doesn't change my opinion one bit.
Again, not arguing that his "sitting out" is the worst case scenario. I still see his deal as literally untradeable, however.
Well it isn't "literally" at all. Literally would mean there is no way it can be moved. A team can trade for him to take the cap hit. It's highly unlikely, I'll admit. And that may be an understatement. But, it is still possible.
Well it isn't "literally" at all. Literally would mean there is no way it can be moved. A team can trade for him to take the cap hit. It's highly unlikely, I'll admit. And that may be an understatement. But, it is still possible.
Depending on what 5 mil in cap space is worth to Boston at the deadline, we might still see the contract traded.
Well it isn't "literally" at all. Literally would mean there is no way it can be moved. A team can trade for him to take the cap hit. It's highly unlikely, I'll admit. And that may be an understatement. But, it is still possible.
Possible sure, and that's the benefit of him not retiring. Still obviously not the best case scenario.
to a team looking to get to the cap floor, and there doesn't appear to be any of those
or moved along with an asset to a team with room to take a cap hit, but they wouldn't do it for free, so it would cost the Bruins something.
Of course it would, but it probably wouldn't cost much- as the team he's going to doesn't have to give up anything. It would be as cheap a "salary dump" as we could ever see.
Thomas was scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent on July 1. According to a source in the Bruins front office, part of what was driving the club to get the deal done now is that fact that Thomas will turn 35 years old on April 15.
When a player signs a new deal after his 35th birthday, per the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), although he can be bought out (at a two-thirds reduction in pay), his cap number can not be deleted from the club's salary commitments.
So it does seem like someone misunderstood the rules. I'm still looking for an official quote, though.
Fair enough, thought the thread was suddenly veering onto a "Chiarelli needs more ESP" line.
I'll never be upset at any of Chiarelli's moves that led to that cup including signing Thomas to a 35+ contract.
Nah. Just don't get why people are surprised by this since it was well known years ago that it could happen. It's kind of like winning the lottery and then expressing surprise that you have to pay taxes...
To be clear, that post was going on the assumption that Visnovsky and Thomas' situation were different because Visnovksy "didn't want to play for the Isles". If we're guessing about Visnovsky based on logical deduction then we may as well do the same with Thomas, no?
Based on their own words, the situations aren't all that different at all. Visnovsky's choice is due to family just as Thomas' was. You can guess at a myriad of other things, but if we take the mans words at face value then his and Thomas's reasoning for ditching on their current contracts are exactly the same. Sure Visnovsky is continuing to play while not honoring his contract with the NHL, but how does that make his and Thomas' reasoning any different?
Some people want to differentiate between the two because Visnovski's reasoning sounds less appealing then Thomas' (likely because we're more able to objectively look at the Visnovsky scenario due to the lack of the same emotional attachment to the player)... but if you support Thomas then it would be hypocritical to paint any player in the wrong who ditches on a contract to be with family. If you don't, then this isn't geared toward you.
I understand your reasoning, but disagree with your wording.
If Visnovsky has chosen not to play for the Islanders because he's getting paid more to play elsewhere, then it seems the two situations are different from each other, as one could be considered greedy, while the other could not.
Either way, I don't care about the Visnovsky deal. And I realize that my emotional investment into the Thomas situation and any negative feelings I have as a result, are due to MY selfishness - not Tim Thomas'.
Of course it would, but it probably wouldn't cost much- as the team he's going to doesn't have to give up anything. It would be as cheap a "salary dump" as we could ever see.
Probably. If we were to dump him at the deadline, a team would only be on the hook for ~1million in cash. What would that cost? Maybe something like Thomas and a 3rd for a 7th?
Still, you'd have to find a team willing to trade 1 million for a 3rd round pick. Not too sure what the appetite among GM's would be like for a deal like that.
I understand your reasoning, but disagree with your wording.
If Visnovsky has chosen not to play for the Islanders because he's getting paid more to play elsewhere, then it seems the two situations are different from each other, as one could be considered greedy, while the other could not.
Either way, I don't care about the Visnovsky deal. And I realize that my emotional investment into the Thomas situation and any negative feelings I have as a result, are due to MY selfishness - not Tim Thomas'.
It would be, but that isn't the reasoning he gave. He isn't coming back to the NHL because the situation he is in right now is better for his family. That makes it the same scenario.
All signs point to it being just as much to do with getting dealt to the Isles, but just as equally all signs pointed to Thomas being unhappy with Bruins brass when he left as well. We can't guess on one, it would be wrong to guess on the other.
That was my only point. You can't support one and hate on the other... well you can but it makes you hypocritical. Similarly, supporting Thomas and dissing Soderberg also seems a bit disingenuous now. Maybe people will be a bit more sympathetic to his reasoning as well? Radulov also?
Probably. If we were to dump him at the deadline, a team would only be on the hook for ~1million in cash. What would that cost? Maybe something like Thomas and a 3rd for a 7th?
Still, you'd have to find a team willing to trade 1 million for a 3rd round pick. Not too sure what the appetite among GM's would be like for a deal like that.
They wouldn't be on the hook for anything if TT isn't playing- they don't have to pay a dime.
