HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

Thomas is d.o.n.e.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-08-2013, 10:32 AM
  #251
dafoomie
Eat Mor Chikin
 
dafoomie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 14,120
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dafoomie
Quote:
Originally Posted by cneely View Post
It would be much easier to move his contract if he didn't indicate he had no intention of playing.
And if he formally retired he couldn't be moved at all.

dafoomie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:32 AM
  #252
DoubleAAAA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dafoomie View Post
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.

Excellent perspective

DoubleAAAA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:35 AM
  #253
Fire Julien
Registered User
 
Fire Julien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bergen
Country: Norway
Posts: 17,275
vCash: 1340
Quote:
Originally Posted by cneely View Post
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.

Fire Julien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:36 AM
  #254
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,580
vCash: 500
Are people suggesting Chiarelli shouldn't have signed Thomas to his contract?

Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:36 AM
  #255
dafoomie
Eat Mor Chikin
 
dafoomie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 14,120
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dafoomie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
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?
Really?

dafoomie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:38 AM
  #256
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dafoomie View Post
Really?
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.

Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:38 AM
  #257
cneely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dafoomie View Post
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.

cneely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:40 AM
  #258
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,203
vCash: 500
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.

JMiller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:41 AM
  #259
cneely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caballo Blanco View Post
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"

cneely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:41 AM
  #260
Rubber Biscuit
Noted Loui Apologist
 
Rubber Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 5,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cneely View Post
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.

Rubber Biscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:43 AM
  #261
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Are people suggesting Chiarelli shouldn't have signed Thomas to his contract?
Nope. Just looking for people to understand the associated risk that was there from the jump.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:43 AM
  #262
cneely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Biscuit View Post
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.

cneely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:45 AM
  #263
Rubber Biscuit
Noted Loui Apologist
 
Rubber Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 5,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cneely View Post
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.

Rubber Biscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:47 AM
  #264
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Biscuit View Post
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.

JMiller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:48 AM
  #265
cneely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Biscuit View Post
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.

cneely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:50 AM
  #266
cneely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Depending on what 5 mil in cap space is worth to Boston at the deadline, we might still see the contract traded.
It would have to either be:

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.

cneely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:52 AM
  #267
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cneely View Post
It would have to either be:

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.

JMiller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:53 AM
  #268
Rubber Biscuit
Noted Loui Apologist
 
Rubber Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 5,027
vCash: 500
As far as PC misunderstanding the rules:

This is from the Globe after the contract was signed

http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/..._inks_new.html

Quote:
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.

Rubber Biscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:55 AM
  #269
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
Nope. Just looking for people to understand the associated risk that was there from the jump.
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.

Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:57 AM
  #270
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
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...

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:58 AM
  #271
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
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'.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:03 AM
  #272
cneely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
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.

cneely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:07 AM
  #273
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
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?

Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:09 AM
  #274
Bridges31
Goon? Lol
 
Bridges31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NH
Country: United States
Posts: 11,658
vCash: 500
Thank you Thomas for one hell of a career with the bruins.

Bridges31 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:21 AM
  #275
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cneely View Post
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.

JMiller is online now   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 07:28 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.