Saturday's Hot Stove

by kforbes on Nov 30, 2009 8:55 AM CST Comment 55 comments

Last Saturday's edition of CBC's Hot Stove caught my eye for a myriad of reasons, here's the clip:

Now there's a couple things of interest there:

Brian Burke still pushing the idea of allowing some salary to be retained during a trade. This is something that he's been trying to do since he was with Anaheim.
Ian Pulver either ignoring or not understanding the idea of theoretical discussion on how to improve the current CBA structure and steadfastly sticking to the idea that 'the rules are the rules' as opposed with the discussion point of 'how to change the rules to make them better.'
Ron MacLean bringing up Tom Benjamin's name when talking with Pierre LeBrun about the salary cap. For anyone interested, I think Benjamin's blog article about the problem with the salary cap (and LeBrun's support of it) was particularly interesting.
But the main point that they argue is something that may not have been looked at too closely at the end of last season with the Calgary Flames reduced to dressing 15 skaters in a handful of games for salary cap purposes and the NHL turning a blind eye to it. Let's look closer...

As I understand it, at the end of last season, Calgary was extremely close to the cap, thanks in part to the deadline deal that saw Olli Jokinen become a Flame. As the season came to closer to an end, the team had some issues with injuries, namely with Robyn Regehr and Cory Sarich.

Because of the cap crunch, Calgary was unable to recall players to fill those voids. In Regehr's case, his knee injury may have qualified him for placement on the Long-Term Injured Reserve, but because it was approaching the end of the season, there weren't enough games left to fulfill the 10 game/24 day unavailability period.

In the end, Regehr missed the final five regular season games and all six playoff games that Calgary played (no salary is paid during the playoffs, thus the salary cap is not in effect). Sarich's ankle forced him out seven games in total, including one playoff match and he then played in the remaining five post season contests for the Flames.

So up against the cap and with injured players, Calgary dressed a shortened bench and the NHL, more or less, ignored it.

Now the question: Was this a violation of the CBA and what should have been done?

Ian Pulver (as stated in the video above) thinks it was and thinks Calgary should have forfeited those games that they could not dress the minimum roster as dictated by the CBA. Let's be frank, forfeiting a game, especially during the stretch run when teams are all fighting for points is not a reasonable solution for a number of reasons.

But Pulver is right, Article 16 (b)(4) of the CBA states:

“Absent an ‘emergency’ (medical, physical, death in the family), the CBA requires a minimum of 18 skaters and two goalies each game.”

These leaves Calgary with few other options:

They could have waived higher salary players to make enough cap room to be able to call up players from the minors to fill out their roster.
They might have been able to dress injured players to sit on their bench and not play.

But instead, none of these things happened and the NHL turned a blind eye to the Flames violating the CBA in order to not go over the cap. I can't see how it would be possible for the Flames to be able to declare an emergency as detailed above. While no one can plan for injuries, it was the Flames own player movements that placed them on the cusp of cap trouble to begin with.

Given all of this, what would you have Calgary and more importantly, the league do in this situation?

This item was created by a member of this blog's community and is not necessarily endorsed by From The Rink.

1 recs | Comment 55 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It’s an interesting thought. Earlier this week, the Habs called up David Desharnais to play in a game against Pittsburgh. It was the day before US Thanksgiving, so instead of having him fly from Hamilton on the busiest travel day of the year in the US, they ordered him a limo. He was to replace Andrei Kostitsyn, who was injured the night before. Sergei Kostitsyn, meanwhile, was said to have rolled his ankle and may not play that night, meaning the Habs were short a player. Is that an emergency? Should they have called up two players to go on that limo ride just in case?

Quite clearly, the CBA showed a real weakness in regards to the Calgary situation. The only measure that it provided was for the Flames to forefeit every game down the stretch rather than play any of the games. That’s clearly not acceptable. Who would reimburse the fans for those games lost? The sponsors? What players would lose out on bonus money as a result? Forefeiting is not an acceptable resolution.

Out of curiousity, how many amateur and pro tryouts are permitted by the CBA for a game, or per season, like Brayden Schenn, Justin Abdelkader, and now two Edmonton Oil Kings goaltenders have received under the current CBA? It’d be interesting if Calgary could have dressed 20 for even some of those games through this method.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Nov 30, 2009 9:47 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Those are all questions and scenarios that the NHL should have forced answers to. Instead, they just let the whole thing drop and didn’t enforce their rules as written.

Even Ron MacLean, when doing his yearly interview with Gary Bettman during the playoffs discussed the issue, but didn’t nail down any sort of statement or position from the Commish.

Obviously the alternatives (forfeiting games, waiving high salary players) are undesirably both for the team and the league, but ignoring it helps no one either.

I’m not quite sure where I stand on this, because I don’t want to see teams being forced to forfeit or waive players just to play hockey, but I don’t think the NHL ignoring its own rules is the right path either. I guess, I would start with wanting an explanation from the league on why they allowed this to occur and how they will prevent this from occurring in the future. If it’s a problem with the rule, change the rule. If it’s a problem with the team, punish the team.

-Kevin Forbes
Hockey's Future

by kforbes on Nov 30, 2009 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t playing with 15 players punishment enough?

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Dec 1, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

For the players themselves, its a punishment, as they’re the ones picking up the slack and facing the increased injury risk. Of course, the players didn’t make the financial decisions that led to only being able to ice 15 players.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Dec 1, 2009 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Two Oil Kings? I remember Jung just recently, but Sorochan was a U of A Golden Bear.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Dec 1, 2009 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah yes, you’re right.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Dec 1, 2009 9:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

1. Shouldn’t it have been the NHLPA with responsibility to enforce the CBA in this case? It isn’t the League’s job to police the rights of the players.

2. Calgary should have been forced to either waive players or put Regehr on LTIR – that’s the way the cap is supposed to work. Or, I suppose, put uniforms on injured players. The latter is a loophole that I’m not sure can be closed – and would have led to the same on-ice results – but at least the rules would have been followed. And I suppose, given that loophole, I can see why the union wouldn’t have really cared much one way or the other.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Nov 30, 2009 4:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think its necessarily a rights of players issue, except from the perspective of increased injury risk to the players who ARE dressing. In this case, one of the member teams of the league was not in compliance with the CBA, which all teams are supposed to be in compliance with. The NHL has a job of enforcing compliance with the CBA amongst its member teams, and it didn’t here.

If anyone should’ve raised a fuss about it, it should’ve been the teams Calgary was playing for those games. If I’m an opposing team, a divisional opponent, or a team interested in CGY losing for purposes of seeding in the standings, you’re damn right I’m going to get on a box, grab a megaphone, and tell anyone who will listen that there is a problem. If I can get a forfeit or force the team to make stupid personnel moves to comply with the rule, it’s in my advantage.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Nov 30, 2009 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Wings I know had to do this a couple times last year too, I think. I believe they did it for the Lidstrom/Datsyuk suspensions (that felt weird to write!) after the ASG, and I think they did it for a couple of games a little later in the year too. I never knew about the CBA rule specifying a number of players dress for a game, but it was mentioned a few times as an injury risk (if you’re short a couple guys, everyone else plays more, wearing them out and increasing their chances to be injured) and should outrage the players.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Nov 30, 2009 4:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

This edition caught my eye again for just how frigging annoying Milbury is on the Hotstove. Please, please, bring back The Hat.

by Fultron on Nov 30, 2009 4:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think the big issue is that Eric lives in Calgary and HNIC wants all of the panelists to be in studio. Tough for him to pull that off.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Nov 30, 2009 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Milbury is annoying? Even before we get to the idiocy of his inability to understand the difference between a discussion about what teams should do now and a discussion about how the rules should be be changed in the future, Ian Pulver’s voice is like fingernails across a chalkboard.

by J. Michael Neal on Nov 30, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

He’s been on twice lately, but I don’t think he’s supposed to be a regular. At least anything is better than PJ Stock.

by Fultron on Nov 30, 2009 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Steve Lepore has a pretty damning post about the state of the Hotstove in recent weeks. Being a Bruins fan, I can deal with Milbury (and actually like hearing from him), but Pulver’s entrance has just turned it into a weekly CBA argument. I couldn’t care less about the union, gimme real news and rumors.

by Arenacale on Nov 30, 2009 8:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They've ruined the Hotstove

I don’t know why the CBC is going with the in-studio format, and these guests, but they’ve managed to make what used to be the most entertaining and interesting segment of HNIC into something awful.

The constant focus on CBA/PA issues doesn’t help either.

by Skunkworks on Nov 30, 2009 8:43 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

It’s starting to go the way of Off The Record. At least I’ve heard of most of the people on Hot Stove. OTR’s panels are anonymous outside the reaches of Metro Toronto.

I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.

by Smoboy41 on Nov 30, 2009 11:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess that’s why I’m on there once in a while. :-)

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Dec 1, 2009 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, your THAT James Mirtle…..gulp….

Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.

by Smoboy41 on Dec 1, 2009 5:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you’re

Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.

by Smoboy41 on Dec 1, 2009 5:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I realize

its not exactly meant for those of us who live south of the border, but its really hard for us Americans to know all the names in the CBA/PA issues, simply because what little hockey coverage we do get, its certainly not about those topics.

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey

by jobe on Dec 2, 2009 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Join us on the internet!

by yrmom on Dec 5, 2009 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Admit your error CBC

bring back Al Strachan, and dump Milbury. I really didn’t think I would miss Al Strachan as much as I do.

by jobe on Dec 2, 2009 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Golly, who could have predicted that there would be unpleasant, unintended consequences to institutiing a salary cap?

by J. Michael Neal on Nov 30, 2009 5:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Unintended? Says who?

People act like these types of things could not possibly be anticipated. I assure you that a first year law student could anticipate them. They were anticipated. CAL wound up with exactly what was intended.

by Gerald on Nov 30, 2009 8:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The League intended to let teams dress too few skaters?

by yrmom on Dec 5, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Can it be argued that the injuries to the players are ‘medical’ emergencies? The wording—unless there’s more that I’m not privy to—is perhaps vague enough to be considered the loophole to the minimum-player rule.

@ChiBlackhawks

by chiblackhawks on Nov 30, 2009 5:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

In other circumstances, like emergency recalls and so on, I believe it’s deemed (perhaps even specifically so in the language of the CBA) that an emergency situation is like a zero-day thing, where the team doesn’t have time or ability to make a regular recall. So it would be a guy falling ill, getting injured that morning, something like that. An example would be Brayden Schenn’s one-day amateur-tryout contract. The Kings played Wednesday night in Edmonton and Loktionov got injured. There wasn’t enough time to bring a player from Manchester for Thursday’s game in Vancouver and so Brayden Schenn filled the role as an emergency junior recall.

Given that that is how the word “emergency” is used elsewhere, I would suspect a similar definition can be assumed here. But this wouldn’t have been an emergency for Calgary. In this case, the team had enough time and opportunity to recall the players needed, but simply could not without going over the cap.

-Kevin Forbes
Hockey's Future

by kforbes on Nov 30, 2009 5:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not perfect and as James pointed out it raises many issues around fans losing out, standings, etc., but I when I look at Calgary in this situation I see a team that didn’t do a very good job of managing its cap space. They knew when the acquired Jokinen that it put them at risk of having to make some drastic moves to stay under the cap and chose to go ahead. If I was the GM of any other team I’d be screaming bloody murder for the NHL to step in. That is unless I thought I might need to try the same thing somewhere down the line.

by yrmom on Nov 30, 2009 7:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

In terms of writing a CBA, though, how much extra cap room is it necessary to leave? Do you need to leave enough for 20 roster spots for 9 games/23 days to ensure that, if every player you have becomes injured after LTIR becomes problematic, you can still dress a team? Or is it something less?

If it’s something less, what are you going to do the first time that ‘less’ isn’t enough to cover someone? How are you going to define it?

If that is the cushion you need to leave, why not just set the cap at the amount you can actually spend and allow teams to put minimum wage players on the bench if they have to at the end of the season?

by J. Michael Neal on Nov 30, 2009 9:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what I wonder about. Teams try to leave some room under the salary cap, but at the same time they don’t want to hamstring themselves by spending less than they can and fielding the most competitive team they can, but what if under all the best assumptions they make the space they leave isn’t enough? And then next season they learn, leave more room, and it still isn’t enough.

When teams can’t put together full teams the competition suffers, and it can not only affect them but also every team involved in a playoff race with their opponents.

"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero

by Baroque on Dec 1, 2009 5:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to note: I didn’t write this entry. It’s actually a FanPost, and a very good one, by Kevin Forbes, who knows his stuff.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Dec 1, 2009 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

I like the idea of losing the right to skate certain players in the playoffs and/or being stripped of picks in the pending draft for such salary cap violations. At that stage of the season fines are useless.

I suppose Calgary’s first round loss to Chicago was sweet justice for this apparent infraction.

by puckreport on Dec 1, 2009 1:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I’d love to say “I’m shocked that people in positions of authority have no idea how the CBA actually reads” but I’m not. Not after talking to multiple people who are supposed to know how the thing works.

Let’s set the record straight on this alleged “CALGARY CHEATED THE CBA!” story. They didn’t. Period. Yes, they were playing with fewer than the stated 18 skaters on the Playing Roster. Why? Because of emergency – they had injured players and insufficient cap space to make call-ups to replace those injured players. There is nothing in the CBA that allows teams who’ve exhausted all of their cap space to suddenly go over the Upper Limit solely because they have fewer than 18 skaters and 2 goaltenders on their Playing Roster. Imagine the uproar that would take place if the Rangers had maxed out all of their cap space, had a rash of injuries that left them unable to play more than 18 skaters, and got to add contracted players to the roster and permissibly go over the Upper Limit in order to fill out a complete roster for a game or games. [Better yet, imagine the uproar if the Leafs did this.]

In fact, Calgary could have signed players to amateur try-out contracts [as Philadelphia did at the end of last season] and those players (A) would not have counted against the cap, because (B) they would not have been paid for playing [per the terms of an amateur try-out contract; see Exhibit 17 in the CBA for the applicable form]. Calgary knew [or should have known] when it spent all of its cap space to acquire Olli Jokinen at the trade deadline that they might have nagging short-term injuries that could make it impossible to dress a full team – and apparently they decided getting Jokinen was worth that risk.

I guess it’s just easier to misread the CBA and the facts surrounding the situation and start screaming “OH MY GOD, SOMEONE CHEATED THE CBA AND THE LEAGUE DID NOTHING!” than it is to actually understand how the CBA works. Sadly, there are a lot of people who should know better who do this.

by Irish Blues on Dec 1, 2009 7:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

????????

As mentioned, injuries that lasted for several days hardly fits any sort of accepted definition of “emergency”. As it was not an emergency situation, it was a direct violation of the CBA. A mostly harmless violation, perhaps, and any sort of discussion on it could be called splitting hairs, but it was a violation. Obviously, there’s some ways around it, like amateur tryouts and dressing the injured players without playing them, but the fact is it was a violation.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Dec 1, 2009 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The fact that you could’ve dressed the injured players and not sent them off the bench is probably precisely why this really isn’t relevant.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Dec 1, 2009 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely true, but I find it mildly surprising and downright funny that so many people with so much on the line and so much responsibility don’t know a damn thing about the CBA that they’re bound to. This is just another great example of it. Moreover, the fact that no other team, who are supposed to be looking for ANY competitive advantage, even batted an eye at it is kind of surprising to me. I won’t bother going back and checking standings vs the CGY schedule, but imagine if a team had finished 1pt out of the playoffs, because of a loss to CGY, dressing an illegal roster? Like I said, if I’m an opposing GM, you’re damn right I’m trying to make that into a win by forfeit, consequences be damned. On top of that, if you can get the team to dress the players, to me, thats just an additional pain in the ass that you can be to them. I’d make em do it.

Plus, I want to actually see someone get strung up by their toes for salary cap lunacy. I was really hoping it would come to the Blackhawks this year with the qualifying offer mess (and still don’t understand why it didn’t happen), or with the Flyers and their annual 65M cap with 10M in the minors or LTIR (Hello, Mike Rathje!). If the Flames could get forced into making a dumb personnel move because of the cap, I’d give that a thumbs up. It’s kinda irritating that so many teams have gotten around the salary cap, and never truly had to have their faces shoved in the mud because of their mistakes.

I wish some team would make Mirtle or Tyler Dellow or someone like that into a GM.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Dec 1, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t blame the Flyers for taking advantage of the provisions in the CBA.

1. Every team has the ability to bury players on 1-way contracts in the minors. If the Flyers or any other team want to bury $40 million of salary on the Phantoms, that’s their choice – they just have to risk getting stuck with half the remaining contract if they want to bring those players back to the Flyers roster. That’s the chance they take if they want to stick guys on 1-way contracts in the minors.

2. Rathje was unable to play, but was still entitled to collect his salary for the balance of his contract. Because he was unable to play AND was entitled to collect his salary, the Flyers were absolutely allowed to put Rathje on LTIR. Had Rathje just up and retired because he didn’t feel like playing any more and the Flyers decided to pay his $3.5 million salary, you’d have a point – but since he [and every other player signed to an NHL contract] had a guaranteed contract, he’s allowed to get paid the rest of his contract if he gets hurt … and as such, teams can utilize LTIR [which is for players who are unable to play for an extended period of time] for those players.

Chicago would have been stuck – except that the players signed contracts before anything could have taken place. The signing of the contracts nullified any argument the players might have had for being unrestricted free agents. [Or, another way to think about it: they could have been UFA, and still chose to re-sign with Chicago.]

by Irish Blues on Dec 1, 2009 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, I don’t blame ‘em. I mean, that’s the team’s job, is to try to win, and in pursuit of that, to use whatever loopholes they can to help them do so.

But I would definitely love to see a team that is habitually making out and out stupid decisions have to lie in the bed they’ve made, bite the bullet, and be forced to make some moves because of their cap. I think thats largely in part because it irritates me that the bigwigs within the small NHL fraternity keep letting the same dumbshits keep making decisions and getting jobs or being involved somewhere in the NHL.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Dec 1, 2009 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

New Jersey had a couple instances in the 2006-07 season where they were pressed against the cap and had a couple of guys dinged and only dressed 17 players as a result. I remember all the outrage from people when ……………… no, wait – no one made the first complaint about it.

In your opinion, it was a violation of the CBA. In some people’s opinion, the Islanders signing Rick DiPietro to a 15-year contract was a violation of the CBA – even though there’s absolutely nothing in the document that prohibits it.

To HockeyinHD [and anyone else that wants to claim this was some blatant violation of the CBA]: the “emergency” was of a medical or physical nature – specifically, the inability of the team to dress the necessary number of players because said players were physically unable to play. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand. It would be completely different if the Flames had 18 healthy skaters and only elected to dress 15 – that would be a violation of 16.4(b) plain and simple because there’s no reason why they couldn’t dress all 18.

But, I guess it’s easier to allege some dark conspiracy by the NHL to protect [insert team here] than it is to look at the situation in an objective manner with some perspective.

by Irish Blues on Dec 1, 2009 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Again IB... seriously.

“To HockeyinHD [and anyone else that wants to claim this was some blatant violation of the CBA]: the "emergency" was of a medical or physical nature – specifically, the inability of the team to dress the necessary number of players because said players were physically unable to play.”

So the Flames were down to 15 healthy skaters in their entire organization? Wow… now that’s some bad luck with the injury bug.

The point is, obviously, that the Flames had the bodies available to dress at least 18, but it was the SALARY CAP and not some completely ridiculous interpretation of the phrase’ medical emergency’ which prevented them from doing so.

They could have called guys up from the minors. They could have signed guys off the street.

Well, at least they could have if they hadn’t spent all their cap space in such a stupid way as to require them to either violate the CBA by spending over the cap or to violate the CBA by dressing less than the minimum number of players allowed by the document.

And really, ‘medical emergency’ means having a guy out with a sprained ankle, or a guy out with a strained groin? Come on IB… you’re better than that.

Now, as to whether this was a function of some kind of ‘conspiracy’… who knows? When a league is run as incompetently and irrationally as the NHL it’s hard to seperate the intended events of conscious choices from the unintended consequences of random acts of stupidity.

by HockeyinHD on Dec 1, 2009 7:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow … I’m not sure if you could have been more wrong if you had tried.

1. Calgary had 15 healthy skaters on the Active roster; they had another 4 on the Active Roster that were injured and unable to play. [They could have dressed them and sat them on the bench – but I believe there’s a league rule that prohibits this.]
2. Calgary had no cap space to call anyone up from the minors, even for one game. Had they been able to take advantage of LTIR in the final 10 games, they could have put guys on LTIR and made call-ups as needed … but as mentioned elsewhere, they couldn’t. [IIRC at that time the only way they were going to get someone up is if the guy had an annual NHL salary of like $188,000 – and obviously no one has such a contract.] They could have had 97 healthy skaters in the system, but the salary cap system prohibited them from calling any of them up. Period.
3. They had the ability to sign guys to amateur try-out contracts to fill out the roster; such players could have played for one game, received no salary, and would not have counted against the cap. [Again, Philadelphia did this at the end of the season.] Either the Flames chose not to do this, or they were unable to find players willing to sign to play unpaid for one day.

So, no – the Flames were unable to dress 18 skaters in any circumstance, especially if the league prohibits dressing players that are clearly unable to play. The inability to do so because guys were injured and call-ups were unavailable could very easy constitute an “emergency” under 16.4(b), which would permissibly let the Flames dress fewer than 18 skaters.

And … as I mentioned previously, post-lockout teams have dressed fewer than 18 skaters for a game on at least 4 occasions and not drawn discipline from the league.

Would you like to try this again?

by Irish Blues on Dec 3, 2009 9:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The reason I first brought this up is because I don’t really know. Clearly, judging from the fact that this is a topic on Hockey Night in Canada 8 months later and from all the conversation it has generated here, not many people do.

I trust Irish Blues’ interpretation of the CBA more than most, but I’m still not sure about the “emergency” conditions. Like HockeyinHD mentions, it wasn’t necessarily that they were physically unable to dress a complete lineup, but more that they were financially unable to dress a complete lineup, due to the limitations of the cap.

I guess as a followup, would a team be allowed to dress a shortened lineup now, as in earlier in the season.

Say a team like Philadelphia. In addition to LTIR for Rathje and Gagne, they have guys like Powe, Betts and Tollefsen on the IR. If, instead of calling up Bartulis, Nodl and Kalinski, the Flyers chose to operate with a shortened bench, is there any recourse for that? They would be in essence banking salary cap room to maybe use later in the season, perhaps to pickup salary at the deadline or keep a high salary player that they were able to afford in the lineup due to the LTIR situation with Gagne (not so much Rathje as he’s unlikely to return). A day without those three on the roster would allow them to afford the daily cap hit of player making a total salary of just under 2.25 million for a single day.

Same would go for a team like Washington, with Knuble set as LTIR and Gordon, Semin, Laing and Poti all on the IR. If they didn’t call up Perreault, Beagle, Alzner and Giroux, would this still qualify as a medical emergency? A day without those four would allow them to afford a player making just over 3.75 million/year for a day.

It all adds up, as the shuffling that San Jose is doing, sending players like Couture, McGinn and Ferriero up and down from the AHL during off days. A day without those three on the roster saves the team just under $15 thousand, which is approximately the daily rate of a player making $2.87 million a year.

Obviously, for cap purposes, contracts like the replacements I talked about above are minimal and the teams put them at a clear disadvantage by playing with a shortened bench, especially on a regular occasion, but I’m just trying to get my head around the whole thing. I don’t think it’s a big conspiracy and I’m starting to think what happened was one of those “so rare that the NHL barely planned for it ever” circumstances, but clearly there’s plenty of misinterpretation here and not just by me.

-Kevin Forbes
Hockey's Future

by kforbes on Dec 1, 2009 10:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But, I guess it’s easier to allege some dark conspiracy by the NHL to protect [insert team here] than it is to look at the situation in an objective manner with some perspective.

It’s not so much a tin foil hat thing, as it is a “Hah, someone screwed the pooch and no one noticed! What a bunch of idiots!” kinda thing.

The CBA is a legal document. As MudCrutch said once, regarding the qualifying offer business for the Hawks, “If the CBA says you have to send the qualifying offers by carrier pigeon, then thats what you HAVE to do”. It’s pretty black and white. In this case, the Flames CLEARLY violated the CBA. They were supposed to dress a certain number of players, and they didn’t. That’s a violation. Yes, there are ways around it, and the situation could’ve easily been fixed by just dressing the injured players, but it was a violation, plain and simple. Again, people whose business it is to know the CBA, did not.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Dec 1, 2009 11:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But did they? It seems to me much more logical to assume that the NHL knew perfectly well what was going on and gave the Flames their blessing due to the unusual circumstances (four guys on the IR with <10 games to go and no cap space), acknowledging as was pointed out above that the alternative, to dress three guys and have them eat hot dogs on the bench, would have precisely the same effect on the outcome of the game.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Dec 2, 2009 8:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve explained the rationale behind why the Flames did not violate the CBA. You’re convinced they did violate the CBA. We disagree. Fine. Again, the Devils didn’t dress 18 on at least one occasion in the 2006-07 season because they had a few guys dinged up and unable to play, and no cap space to make a call-up – and no one ever said the first word about it. [And

Back to Chicago – let’s pretend the league had investigated and decided the affected players did not receive their QO’s in a timely manner and were in fact UFA. Nothing would have changed, because every one of those players gave up any right to negotiate unconditionally with any other team by signing a SPC with the Blackhawks. As such, any talk about how the league should have still investigated is nonsense – there was nothing to investigate once the players signed a SPC and gave up any claim to being UFA as a result.

by Irish Blues on Dec 2, 2009 9:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

BTW – a quick check shows at least 3 other instances post-lockout where teams didn’t dress 18 skaters because of injuries and/or illness, not including Detroit only dressing 17 skaters right after last year’s All-Star Game when Datsyuk and Lidstrom were forced to sit for missing the ASG activities – and I don’t recall anyone demanding Detroit forfeit the point they got for losing in OT because they didn’t dress the CBA-mandated 18 skaters that night.

by Irish Blues on Dec 2, 2009 9:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, IB...

… the Flames violated the CBA. That they would have violated it in any case (either by overspending or under-rostering) doesn’t change the fact that they violated the CBA.

Look, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. You aren’t, however, entitled to your own facts.

Furthermore, I’m not calling for the Flames to forfeit anything, I am merely stating a fact: the Flames violated the CBA and the league didn’t do anything about it. If, as you suggest, there are even more cases of the NHL [b]CLEARLY NOT ENFORCING THE CBA[/b], then I would think that makes this a rather more substantive issue, does it not?

I’m a bit bemused as to why you are attempting to pretend a violation didn’t exist, when it’s explicitly clear one did.

Finally, if what you suggest about the Hawks QO’s is accurate… then what is the purpose of a QO? If a player can’t be a UFA regardless of whether he receives one or not, then what purpose do they serve?

by HockeyinHD on Dec 3, 2009 7:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not creating any facts. You, however, are clearly ignoring a few of them. Specifically, I tried to find your comment about Detroit dressing only 17 skaters vs. Columbus and the point that they earned in that game – but you didn’t make one. If you were trying to be consistent, you would have claimed that (A) Detroit also violated the CBA, and (B) they should have had to forfeit the game and lose that point.

But, you didn’t – which clearly shows you’re missing the fact that such “blatant violations of the CBA” had occurred previously because of cap reasons, and the NHL didn’t order a forfeit in any of those cases. If anything, had the NHL suddenly reversed course and demanded the Flames forfeit at the end of last season, it would have been inconsistent with its past behavior.

Re: Chicago – surely you don’t need me to explain the purpose of a QO. If an RFA doesn’t get his QO in a timely manner but proceeds to sign a new SPC with the team that held his rights, he cannot then claim he should be UFA and that the contract he just signed should be invalidated. If he really felt he was UFA, he should have NOT signed and grieved the QO to earn UFA status.

That is the point I was making. Whether the players were in fact UFA or not on July 1 was rendered moot when they all signed with Chicago – and so any investigation into the matter would have been a complete waste of time, as the outcome wasn’t going to change.

by Irish Blues on Dec 3, 2009 9:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

…or the NHL deciding that punishment under that clause was unwarranted due to circumstances. Because they have that right.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Dec 4, 2009 5:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

IB, seriously.

"Absent an ‘emergency’ (medical, physical, death in the family), the CBA requires a minimum of 18 skaters and two goalies each game."

Seems sort of straightforward to me, right?

by HockeyinHD on Dec 1, 2009 8:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Great point in your post

I think Kevin answered the question in his post. Had the NHL not give their “approval” of the Flames dressing less than 18 skaters and 2 goals, the Flames would have almost certainly dressed a few injured players to sit on the bench and not play. Plainly though, what the Flames did was a violation of the CBA.

Where every team is the home team

by IllegalCurve on Dec 1, 2009 10:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Pulver

I absolutely hated Pulver’s line about forfeiting games. I wonder if any of the players he represents would be happy to hear his idea, as they could be losing out on game cheques for games missed due to a forfeit. Or even the fans who bought tickets to the games, who would be completely screwed out of a game they had paid to watch. And of course the networks reaction…how did this clown get a tv gig?!?
Nevertheless, it is something that needs to be addressed in the CBA, close up any loopholes that can come by not having a full roster of healthy players, and not being able to call up emergency replacements for the games at the end of the year.

by TrevD on Dec 1, 2009 11:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I have a hard time believing players actually lose checks for forfeited games. Is that actually true? My understanding from nhlnumbers and capgeek is that players are not paid on a per-game basis, as NFL players are, but on a per-day basis, based on the number of days the player is on the NHL roster, and the number of days in that year’s NHL season. Further, almost any sort of a forfeit, short of the players simply refusing to take the ice, would be the organization’s fault, and not the players. I can’t see how the players would get jobbed for a decision made by the organization or the league itself.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Dec 1, 2009 3:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs