Author Topic: Commissioner for a Day  (Read 1623 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21263
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2019, 07:45:10 PM »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Online bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21263
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2019, 07:48:13 PM »
In that case, he failed to fulfill the terms of his SPC, which allowed the club to terminate the contract.

Exactly. Berglund may have wanted out, but the Sabres had no options until he breached his contract. And, if they didn’t want to, they would not have had to. Berglund didn’t actually initiate anything. He simply opened up the option, and the Sabres chose to take it.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

TMLfans.ca

Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2019, 07:48:13 PM »

Online bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21263
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2019, 09:58:30 PM »
For the record, here is the section of the SPC that governs "mutual" termination:

Quote
14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:

(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.

(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

In the event of termination under Paragraph 14(a) or (b) the Player shall only be entitled to compensation due to him to the earlier of the date such notice is personally delivered to him or the date such notice is e-mailed to him.

In the event this SPC is terminated by the Club while the Player is "away" with the Club for the purpose of playing games the installment then falling due shall be paid on the first weekday after the return "home" of the Club.

You'll notice that there's nothing in that language that allows the player to trigger it - or even have a say in it - and that the only way the team gets an out is through the player breaching their contract (like not showing up for practices or other team events, showing up to camp not remotely in shape for reasons not due to a hockey-related injury, etc.)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2019, 10:02:50 PM by bustaheims »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Online CarltonTheBear

  • Administrator
  • Sittler Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 26412
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #33 on: July 18, 2019, 10:32:48 PM »
For the record, here is the section of the SPC that governs "mutual" termination:

Quote
14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:

(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.

(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

In the event of termination under Paragraph 14(a) or (b) the Player shall only be entitled to compensation due to him to the earlier of the date such notice is personally delivered to him or the date such notice is e-mailed to him.

In the event this SPC is terminated by the Club while the Player is "away" with the Club for the purpose of playing games the installment then falling due shall be paid on the first weekday after the return "home" of the Club.

You'll notice that there's nothing in that language that allows the player to trigger it - or even have a say in it - and that the only way the team gets an out is through the player breaching their contract (like not showing up for practices or other team events, showing up to camp not remotely in shape for reasons not due to a hockey-related injury, etc.)

I think that this is definitely a tricky situation and we haven't really seen an example yet where it happened and then the player signed back in the NHL so I genuinely don't know what the official rule is. But wouldn't you say that the player could initially "trigger" it by refusing to render his services?

Let's use Zaitsev as an example. Maybe Dubas couldn't trade him and come training camp he's still a Leaf. If Dubas went to Zaitsev and was like, "hey if you don't show up to camp we'll terminate your deal, you cool with that?" and Zaitsev said "hells yeah baby let's do this I want out" wouldn't you classify that as a "mutual" termination?

Offline Nik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26946
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #34 on: July 18, 2019, 10:55:03 PM »
I think that this is definitely a tricky situation and we haven't really seen an example yet where it happened and then the player signed back in the NHL so I genuinely don't know what the official rule is. But wouldn't you say that the player could initially "trigger" it by refusing to render his services?

Let's use Zaitsev as an example. Maybe Dubas couldn't trade him and D, you cool with that?" and Zaitsev said "hells yeah baby let's do this I want out" wouldn't you classify that as a "mutual" termination?

I appreciate that this doesn't answer the hypothetical there but it feels like there's kind of a built-in safe guard against that happening where the only reason Dubas wouldn't be able to trade him is if he weren't worth the contract he was under(signifying he'd be unable to get a similar deal as a free agent) so you'd essentially be asking a player to give up money he wouldn't then earn back.

I don't know what kind of deal Zaitsev could have gotten as a UFA but you'd have to figure he'd be giving up at least 10 million or so in guaranteed money. You'd have to really want out.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Online CarltonTheBear

  • Administrator
  • Sittler Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 26412
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #35 on: July 18, 2019, 11:17:20 PM »
I appreciate that this doesn't answer the hypothetical there but it feels like there's kind of a built-in safe guard against that happening where the only reason Dubas wouldn't be able to trade him is if he weren't worth the contract he was under(signifying he'd be unable to get a similar deal as a free agent) so you'd essentially be asking a player to give up money he wouldn't then earn back.

I don't know what kind of deal Zaitsev could have gotten as a UFA but you'd have to figure he'd be giving up at least 10 million or so in guaranteed money. You'd have to really want out.

Yeah I just used him as a completely random example to have faces/names instead of Player A and Team B.

I do think that shows though that finding a situation where a mutual termination of a NHLer who wants to continue playing in the NHL that makes sense for both the player and the team is pretty rare.

Offline Bullfrog

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #36 on: July 18, 2019, 11:26:52 PM »
CtB, meet Mr Marleau

Online CarltonTheBear

  • Administrator
  • Sittler Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 26412
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #37 on: July 18, 2019, 11:28:55 PM »
CtB, meet Mr Marleau

As a 35+ deal even if it was mutually terminated the cap hit would have still stayed. Checkmate!

Offline Bullfrog

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #38 on: July 18, 2019, 11:35:29 PM »
Well, I thought we were talking hypothetically where the league doesn't suck.

Online Guilt Trip

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #39 on: July 18, 2019, 11:36:51 PM »
For the record, here is the section of the SPC that governs "mutual" termination:

Quote
14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:

(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.

(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

In the event of termination under Paragraph 14(a) or (b) the Player shall only be entitled to compensation due to him to the earlier of the date such notice is personally delivered to him or the date such notice is e-mailed to him.

In the event this SPC is terminated by the Club while the Player is "away" with the Club for the purpose of playing games the installment then falling due shall be paid on the first weekday after the return "home" of the Club.

You'll notice that there's nothing in that language that allows the player to trigger it - or even have a say in it - and that the only way the team gets an out is through the player breaching their contract (like not showing up for practices or other team events, showing up to camp not remotely in shape for reasons not due to a hockey-related injury, etc.)

I think that this is definitely a tricky situation and we haven't really seen an example yet where it happened and then the player signed back in the NHL so I genuinely don't know what the official rule is. But wouldn't you say that the player could initially "trigger" it by refusing to render his services?

Let's use Zaitsev as an example. Maybe Dubas couldn't trade him and come training camp he's still a Leaf. If Dubas went to Zaitsev and was like, "hey if you don't show up to camp we'll terminate your deal, you cool with that?" and Zaitsev said "hells yeah baby let's do this I want out" wouldn't you classify that as a "mutual" termination?
That's exactly what I'm saying. In this case the player was happy until his role was diminished and he was a healthy scratch a few games. He could have just been a healthy scratch and received his full pay but he chose not to. He basically said F this and didn't report, which forced the Sabres to do something and the end result was a terminated contract.

Online CarltonTheBear

  • Administrator
  • Sittler Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 26412
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #40 on: July 18, 2019, 11:40:21 PM »
I will say in the case of Berglund I don't think we were just dealing with a case of a player angry about his lack of playing time. It seems like there was some personal things going on where he just needed to get away from hockey for a bit.

Offline Deebo

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 4923
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #41 on: July 18, 2019, 11:44:18 PM »
I think special teams already have too big an influence on the outcome of games, so I would be against changing the icing on the PK and minor penalties ending after a goal rules. That would just make special teams that much more influential.

Offline Bullfrog

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #42 on: July 18, 2019, 11:48:39 PM »
I thought about that too, Deebo. That's why I really think shorter, one minute penalties are appropriate for minor offences.

Offline Nik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26946
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #43 on: July 19, 2019, 12:27:31 AM »
I think special teams already have too big an influence on the outcome of games, so I would be against changing the icing on the PK and minor penalties ending after a goal rules. That would just make special teams that much more influential.

It's a double edged sword though. Ideally making penalties more, well, penalizing would lead to teams adapting and eventually taking fewer penalties making special teams less influential.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Offline Andy

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • TMLfans Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Commissioner for a Day
« Reply #44 on: July 19, 2019, 06:43:43 AM »
I think special teams already have too big an influence on the outcome of games, so I would be against changing the icing on the PK and minor penalties ending after a goal rules. That would just make special teams that much more influential.

It's a double edged sword though. Ideally making penalties more, well, penalizing would lead to teams adapting and eventually taking fewer penalties making special teams less influential.

Yea and with your idea about streamlining the rule book (along with abolishing silly penalties like 4 mins for any blood on a high stick and the puck over boards delay of game) I think it could work pretty smoothly.

My only minor tweak would be that I wouldn't implement both the inability to ice the puck and having to withstand the full time of a penalty; it would have to be one or the other.