NHL voids Leafs' fourth-round pick
by James Mirtle on Apr 2, 2009 6:00 AM CDT
14 comments
This, my friends, is officially the most talked about fourth-round pick of all-time:
NHL deputy commissioner, Bill Daly, confirmed the sanctions to TSN.
"We can confirm that the Toronto Maple Leafs have been sanctioned by the league for violations of league rules in connection with the club's 2008 signing of Jonas Frogren, and that one aspect of the league-imposed discipline requires the forfeiture of the club's fourth round draft pick in the 2009 Entry Draft (previously acquired from Tampa Bay). We have no further comment on the matter."
Here was my take on the fourth-rounder back at the deadline on what's now truly become a bizarre set of events. Brian Burke's likely seething.
Not press release Brian Burke, though (too bad his Twitter account's gone).
''The Toronto Maple Leafs acknowledge and apologize for the error of judgement,'' Burke said in a statement. ''The club accepts the punishment handed down by the league and will not be commenting further on the matter.''
I haven't seen a take anywhere in the press on this so far, but Pension Plan Puppets has the right idea:
"They stripped the Leafs of their fourth round draft pick (while conveniently allowing the rest of the trade to go through so that the Lightning qualify for revenue sharing!) and have punished them for a deal that was ruled legal and a buyout that is not explicitly prohibited under the current CBA (teams cannot directly buyout contracts but the Leafs just gave Frogren a whack of cash). Essentially, two good moves are being wiped out because the league hates creativity."
Originally I'd said that Burke made this deal "to prove he could," but that's obviously been refuted emphatically by the league (albeit a month later). What rational they can use as to why they waited this long to rule on the Frogren situation given he signed in July, I haven't the foggiest, but the bottom line is that the Tampa deal has cost Burke about $500,000 and the rights to Richard Petiot, who's looked pretty decent for the Lightning thus far.
And there's still no word on when Lou Lamoriello gets his smack on the wrist for this one.
0 recs |
14 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
What rational they can use as to why they waited this long to rule on the Frogren situation given he signed in July, I haven’t the foggiest
Is it not the league’s responsibility to review and approve according to the CBA all SPCs when they’re agreed upon and submitted to the league? How on earth can the league retroactively punish a team for a contract that they approved? If it wasn’t, then why was Frogren allowed to play? If so, the league needs to be dope-slapped.
I don’t think we’re getting the whole story, here. This strikes me as something that Burke would gladly take the league to task on.
by Bosc Ulrich on Apr 2, 2009 8:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Please explain the mechanics of a ‘dope slap’. I believe that Colorado’s management, from trainers and team docs up to team president all need to receive such a thing.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Apr 2, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This situation was never fully resolved last summer. There was talk last summer that Frogren would not be allowed to report because the contract was in dispute. I guess the dispute carried on, and like all things tied up in leaglese (international trade disputes, etc.), the initial contract was allowed to stand until a ruling was rendered. I’d guess that Burke made the bizarre Tampa trade knowing he’d lose a 3rd or 4th rounder because of the pending resolution, and I guess we see why Toronto was so willing to make that weird deal just to get the pick. Two bizarre situations that refer to pretty obscure CBA clauses that got resolved all at once.
It’s unfortunate that this legal dirty laundry is being shown for the whole world without much explanation, though.
Remember a couple years ago when Calgary re-acquired Dean McAmmond at the trade deadline from Colorado after trading him there just prior to the season in the Morris/Drury trade? The league realized after the trade deadline passed that the move was in fact illegal… players could not be traded back to his former team within a year of being initially traded (although we see they are allowed to return as UFA’s for some reason). McAmmond had to sit out the remainder of the 2002-03 season as a result of the league initially approving an illegal trade.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Apr 2, 2009 10:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The other thing I’m finding weird about this situation, and I mentioned it over at Tyler’s, is that they took an ACQUIRED pick away, not a GIVEN one. I have no idea what the status is of Toronto’s own inherent 4th round draft pick, if its been traded or whatever, but when do you see a league take away a draft pick that’s been acquired, by presumably giving something up, as opposed to taking their given draft pick that is handed out by the league? Even when the NFL’s Patriots lost a first rounder a couple years ago for filming opponent’s sidelines, they lost their very late first round pick, not the high first round that they’d acquired by giving up an asset to the 49ers. Who does this?
by IAmJoe on Apr 2, 2009 11:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good Point
Obviously my theory is up there on why they chose an acquired pick but the Leafs also don’t have their own 4th rounder this year. It was dealt to San Jose in the Toskala deal.
Maybe Bettman thought that taking a 5th away was too lenient and a 3rd too harsh?
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Apr 2, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, I see.
Instead of taking an acquired pick, which ought to be pretty much untouchable unless you reverse the trade, then I’d say Bettman should’ve made up for the fourth by taking, say, a 5 + 7 or something like that. Taking a pick that was acquired in a controversial trade, while allowing the rest of the trade to go down, as well as the considerably more significant aspect of allowing TB to qualify for revenue sharing (which the league ought to be in an uproar about, as no team on Earth deserves it less) just makes the league look stupid, once again.
I didn’t know that about McAmmond, Saskhab. That’s pretty ridiculous. There ought to be a review period after a trade, or at least after the deadline, where if the league finds out that someone did something illegal, it has to be caught in that review time and the trade nullified and reversed, even after the deadline, or the deal just ends up standing, due to the NHL’s inability to figure out what is and isn’t illegal in a reasonable time frame.
by IAmJoe on Apr 2, 2009 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Riddle me this
What happens to that pick? Does it go back to Tampa? Does everybody move up a slot? What’s the mechanics on that?
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Apr 2, 2009 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe its just never taken. It goes down in the books with the player taken being “forfeited” and Toronto will never go on the clock for that pick.
by IAmJoe on Apr 2, 2009 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it’ll just vanish basically.
by James Mirtle on Apr 2, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cynicality
Call me crazy, but I can easily see the League using the Frogren situation as a smokescreen. It didn’t want to come out and “reject” the Tampa Bay trade as a whole, because it would open the door for questioning where the line is drawn on what’s an acceptable trade or not. But it also wanted to send Burke a message that he was not completely getting away with it. It had a convenient (if stale) issue with Frogren, and got lucky.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
by poploser on Apr 2, 2009 1:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But the league going around after the fact and allowing the trade to go through and then go back and try to be sneaky about taking the beneficial part of the trade from the Leafs looks a lot worse than not striking down the trade. Plus, while striking down the trade would create a question of where the line is drawn, not challenging the trade set a dangerous precedent, and now should the NHL ever take that step in the future, they’re going to look even stupider for letting past incidents go.
by IAmJoe on Apr 2, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frogen Signing
I suspect that this is a shot across the bow of other teams who will challenge the NHL
on the CBA. Burke had nothing to do with the Frogren signing but it does seem odd that the pick he acquired through “dubious intentions” is the one that he is forced to give up.
Why not a fifth, why the 4th is an interesting question.
Leafs selling hope to the hopeless since 1967
by Toe Blake Hockey on Apr 2, 2009 2:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think this is a case of the Leafs, the NHLPA and Don Meehan arguing that Frogren was an UFA (Euro, over 28, signing his first SPC) while the NHL contended Frogren was a “defected player” and therefore limited to an entry level SPC.
As to why it took 8 months to sort out and how the NHL actually arrived at the penalty, I have no idea. Some transparency or even a limited explanation sure would be nice.
Bitter Leaf Fan: a life-long Toronto Maple Leafs fan comments on the team, the media and the exasperation...
by mf37 on Apr 2, 2009 2:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
