Injury Report: Havlat pelvic surgery confirmed, ineligible for compliance buyout

[do0glas]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/09/sharks-expect-havlat-to-open-season-on-ir/

This isn't news to anyone but I didn't know that they gave him a temporary locker stall in their practice facility between games 6 and 7 and that he was sitting by himself in the opposite side of the arena while the other scratches were sitting on the opposite side. Does anyone know if there was actually any tension between him and the other players or Todd or DW? I like Havlat but its just unfortunate that his career is turning into this.

personally, I think the media is trumping it up. its more likely they didnt want a guy in that state of mind affecting any lockerroom atmosphere. he was probably pretty depressed

 

[Lebanezer]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/09/sharks-expect-havlat-to-open-season-on-ir/

This isn't news to anyone but I didn't know that they gave him a temporary locker stall in their practice facility between games 6 and 7 and that he was sitting by himself in the opposite side of the arena while the other scratches were sitting on the opposite side. Does anyone know if there was actually any tension between him and the other players or Todd or DW? I like Havlat but its just unfortunate that his career is turning into this.

I wouldn't read anything into that. Most of it comes from Kurz and he's just trying to stir the pot. No one in the organization has made any public comments criticizing Havlat at any point in time.

 

[Rickety Cricket]

I would think if there was any tension between him and the staff, DW would've dumped him for whatever he can get.

 

[sr228]

I wouldn't read anything into that. Most of it comes from Kurz and he's just trying to stir the pot. No one in the organization has made any public comments criticizing Havlat at any point in time.

There were some pretty biting words from McLellan during last years playoffs and Havlat was separated from the team. As to why that was is a total mystery to everyone but the org but it was certainly something new for the Sharks.

Seeing as Havlat has been skating with the team, if, big if, there was any tension between him and his teammates it looks like it's gone and only time will tell how the org feels about him.

 

[Barrie22]

There were some pretty biting words from McLellan during last years playoffs and Havlat was separated from the team. As to why that was is a total mystery to everyone but the org but it was certainly something new for the Sharks.

Seeing as Havlat has been skating with the team, if, big if, there was any tension between him and his teammates it looks like it's gone and only time will tell how the org feels about him.

wasn't the mclellan qoutes basically about havlat letting the team down by saying he was ready to go, when in essence he was not even close (hurt 2 minutes into the 1st game back).

 

[Pinkfloyd]

wasn't the mclellan qoutes basically about havlat letting the team down by saying he was ready to go, when in essence he was not even close (hurt 2 minutes into the 1st game back).

In essence he said that but I don't blame Havlat for that and I doubt the players do either. That's pretty much why you have a medical and training staff. There's no point in asking a player if he's ready unless he's cleared those guys. If he has and was already hurt before even playing, that's on your staff. The player will always say he's ready.

 

[OrrNumber4]

In essence he said that but I don't blame Havlat for that and I doubt the players do either. That's pretty much why you have a medical and training staff. There's no point in asking a player if he's ready unless he's cleared those guys. If he has and was already hurt before even playing, that's on your staff. The player will always say he's ready.

Things may be changing, but the medical and training staff are more advisers than they are enforcers. Players want to play, and while trainers and medical staff probably have some means of forcing a player's hand, those that use them will find themselves out of a job quickly.

Moreover, the staff is generally well-trained in deciding if a player should play...if it is in his best medical interest to play. It is up to the player and the coach to decide if he can play...this usually means is it in the best professional interest for him to play. Evidently, the bar during the playoffs is set very low.

Coaches often defer to a player's own judgement on this. After all, in many cases, there is no time or ability to see the player play and judge if he is ready; they have an elimination game the next day and have to know if the player is in or out. So often, when a player plays injured and bombs, it is because he told the coach he was ready when he really wasn't. I can imagine how such a transgression would make a coach very irate. Ron Wilson was harshly critical of Toskala, for example.

 

[Fn89]

In Czech interview Maarty says he had abdominal hernia, http://hokej.idnes.cz/hokejista-martin-havlat-je-po-dalsi-operaci-rozhovor-pcv-/reprezentace.aspx?c=A130722_124838_reprezentace_bem hope this works

 

[CupfortheSharks]

In essence he said that but I don't blame Havlat for that and I doubt the players do either. That's pretty much why you have a medical and training staff. There's no point in asking a player if he's ready unless he's cleared those guys. If he has and was already hurt before even playing, that's on your staff. The player will always say he's ready.

That's not true for every injury.

The medical staff can say the player has a torn ACL. His knee won't hold up during a game. He can't play. They can clearly make that call. What if the player can play with the injury but it's just painful? Like when Boyle played with a broken bone in his foot. I'm sure it hurt like heck but he played anyway. I bet Boyle made that call.

I don't know enough about Havlat's injury to know which catagory it's in.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

Still believe that DW has a trade in place should Glass Man return healthy at any point.. Probably going to have to retain some salary(1.5-2mil) and add a pick or prospect but I firmly believe Havlat will not be a Shark come the TDL...Would rather see Nieto or Hertl get Martys playing time, he is no longer part of the future of Sharks hockey, no point in hoping he stays healthy.

hertl-jt-burns
patty-juicy-kennedy
Torres-pavs-nieto

pavs-jt-burns
patty-juicy-nieto
torres-hertl-kennedy

not a baad top 9 all in all

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Things may be changing, but the medical and training staff are more advisers than they are enforcers. Players want to play, and while trainers and medical staff probably have some means of forcing a player's hand, those that use them will find themselves out of a job quickly.

Moreover, the staff is generally well-trained in deciding if a player should play...if it is in his best medical interest to play. It is up to the player and the coach to decide if he can play...this usually means is it in the best professional interest for him to play. Evidently, the bar during the playoffs is set very low.

Coaches often defer to a player's own judgement on this. After all, in many cases, there is no time or ability to see the player play and judge if he is ready; they have an elimination game the next day and have to know if the player is in or out. So often, when a player plays injured and bombs, it is because he told the coach he was ready when he really wasn't. I can imagine how such a transgression would make a coach very irate. Ron Wilson was harshly critical of Toskala, for example.

Blaming the player for not being ready is absolute garbage. That is what you have those 'advisers' and coaches for. It is their responsibility to look past the reality that practically all players will say that in that situation. To pin the blame on the player is highly unprofessional when you pay people to make those decisions for them.

That's not true for every injury.

The medical staff can say the player has a torn ACL. His knee won't hold up during a game. He can't play. They can clearly make that call. What if the player can play with the injury but it's just painful? Like when Boyle played with a broken bone in his foot. I'm sure it hurt like heck but he played anyway. I bet Boyle made that call.

I don't know enough about Havlat's injury to know which catagory it's in.

If it's something that's close to being ready then a player will say they're ready because they want to play. Expecting a player to know if he's really ready to play is more often than not over his head. They know how they feel but they're plenty stubborn and shouldn't be trusted in the first place. My take is simply that you can't blame a player for wanting to play...not in this culture where guys like Bergeron are praised for doing so with all the things that he had. If he was hurt to the point that he was, he shouldn't have been allowed out there in the first place and the medical and coaching staff should've known better.

 

[SJeasy]

PF,
There is also huge pressure on the players to play when the aren't ready. Whether it is future ice time or contracts or just the coach playing the pain vs injury card. There is huge pressure for the player to say that he is ready and it isn't all self-inflicted.

Just as examples, Marleau played with a separated shoulder when he clearly wasn't ready and JT's showing after his shoulder injury was almost as lame.

 

[hohosaregood]

PF,
There is also huge pressure on the players to play when the aren't ready. Whether it is future ice time or contracts or just the coach playing the pain vs injury card. There is huge pressure for the player to say that he is ready and it isn't all self-inflicted.

Just as examples, Marleau played with a separated shoulder when he clearly wasn't ready and JT's showing after his shoulder injury was almost as lame.

In general, I agree that a severely injured player shouldn't be playing at all but I think there's a difference between a lower body injury and an upper body injury though. When a player can barely skate or be mobile at all then they have no business being on the ice and no one should be letting them on the ice.

On the other hand, I can see the reasoning for trying to play through an upper body injury in that if players feel that they can keep moving and maybe getting a stick on the puck at the very least but obviously their effectiveness is greatly impacted and then it's debatable if they should or should not be playing at that point.

 

[Barrie22]

In general, I agree that a severely injured player shouldn't be playing at all but I think there's a difference between a lower body injury and an upper body injury though. When a player can barely skate or be mobile at all then they have no business being on the ice and no one should be letting them on the ice.

On the other hand, I can see the reasoning for trying to play through an upper body injury in that if players feel that they can keep moving and maybe getting a stick on the puck at the very least but obviously their effectiveness is greatly impacted and then it's debatable if they should or should not be playing at that point.

In my opinion lower body injuries can be deceiving during practices. It is a lot of quick stops and goes and little sprints here and there. A player can easially suck up the pain that will be coming up in those kinds of situations.

But games it is not so easy because no matter what you will be going almost full tilt for an entire 30+ second shift, with some of that time using the lower body to defend against opposing players.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

In my opinion lower body injuries can be deceiving during practices. It is a lot of quick stops and goes and little sprints here and there. A player can easially suck up the pain that will be coming up in those kinds of situations.

But games it is not so easy because no matter what you will be going almost full tilt for an entire 30+ second shift, with some of that time using the lower body to defend against opposing players.

Exactly.

 

[OrrNumber4]

In general, I agree that a severely injured player shouldn't be playing at all but I think there's a difference between a lower body injury and an upper body injury though. When a player can barely skate or be mobile at all then they have no business being on the ice and no one should be letting them on the ice.

On the other hand, I can see the reasoning for trying to play through an upper body injury in that if players feel that they can keep moving and maybe getting a stick on the puck at the very least but obviously their effectiveness is greatly impacted and then it's debatable if they should or should not be playing at that point.

To play the other side, think of Selanne in 2002, playing with a broken thumb. He was absolutely useless because he couldn't even grip his stick properly. Should he really be playing?

 

[OrrNumber4]

Blaming the player for not being ready is absolute garbage. That is what you have those 'advisers' and coaches for. It is their responsibility to look past the reality that practically all players will say that in that situation. To pin the blame on the player is highly unprofessional when you pay people to make those decisions for them.

It is simply a part of the sports culture, brought on by the fact that it is a multi-billion dollar industry. The Sharks pay Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau a combined 14 million. They can't afford to have those players not playing.

And, it isn't like coaches are icing players were severe, debilitating injuries. Quite frankly, there is much medicine and therapy that exists today where a player should easily be able to play through a broken hand or sprained ankle for a series or two.

If it's something that's close to being ready then a player will say they're ready because they want to play.

Well, any GOOD player.

My take is simply that you can't blame a player for wanting to play...not in this culture where guys like Bergeron are praised for doing so with all the things that he had.

I think what might undermine your point somewhat is the fact that Bergeron was a significant contributor for the Bruins. Players like Yzerman played with horrific injuries, and were significant contributors on their team. The message that players are seeing is that playing hurt is worth it, because playing hurt will get you closer to winning the cup.

If he was hurt to the point that he was, he shouldn't have been allowed out there in the first place and the medical and coaching staff should've known better.

Can you really ask the GM, Coach, trainers, and Bergeron himself to not play him, even though the team would be better off with him on the ice? It is practically a job requirement....

 

[WantonAbandon]

I would think if there was any tension between him and the staff, DW would've dumped him for whatever he can get.

Which would have been nothing. He would have to pass a physical before any team would finalize a trade

 

[WantonAbandon]

Still believe that DW has a trade in place should Glass Man return healthy at any point..

Probably Demers

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It is simply a part of the sports culture, brought on by the fact that it is a multi-billion dollar industry. The Sharks pay Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau a combined 14 million. They can't afford to have those players not playing.

And, it isn't like coaches are icing players were severe, debilitating injuries. Quite frankly, there is much medicine and therapy that exists today where a player should easily be able to play through a broken hand or sprained ankle for a series or two.




Well, any GOOD player.



I think what might undermine your point somewhat is the fact that Bergeron was a significant contributor for the Bruins. Players like Yzerman played with horrific injuries, and were significant contributors on their team. The message that players are seeing is that playing hurt is worth it, because playing hurt will get you closer to winning the cup.


Can you really ask the GM, Coach, trainers, and Bergeron himself to not play him, even though the team would be better off with him on the ice? It is practically a job requirement....

A responsible coach, trainer, or manager would have the sense to do what's best for the team and that isn't always playing an injured player. All this response is, is perpetuating the BS that the culture likes to put out there to pressure people into doing what Havlat did just because someone like Bergeron did it and managed to not make it worse and still do well even though he very easily could have. I don't have a problem with taking a chance like that with a player. I have a problem with people blaming the player for doing it the times that it doesn't work out well.

 

[Rickety Cricket]

Which would have been nothing. He would have to pass a physical before any team would finalize a trade

Is there no way around that? Did Sheppard pass a physical at the time of his trade?

 

[SJeasy]

Is there no way around that? Did Sheppard pass a physical at the time of his trade?

It isn't passing per se. The trade can be made as long as the trading team is entirely candid as to the extent of the injuries. It is easier to require the physical so the trading team is exempted from the responsibility for candor and for those things of which the trading team may itself be ignorant.

 

[Led Zappa]

I don't care what anybody says, something transpired, right or wrongly, after Havlat played that game and the powers that be were not happy with him.

But FWIW, I spoke to Rusanowsky and he isn't buying any of the "locker moved", "sitting without the team at game 7" etc... as any indication that what I believe is true.

I also am coming to believe that they are over it and both have come to terms, which was emphasized when Havlat's rhetoric began to fall into line with company rhetoric a couple weeks ago.

 

[sr228]

I don't care what anybody says, something transpired, right or wrongly, after Havlat played that game and the powers that be were not happy with him.

But FWIW, I spoke to Rusanowsky and he isn't buying any of the "locker moved", "sitting without the team at game 7" etc... as any indication that what I believe is true.

I also am coming to believe that they are over it and both have come to terms, which was emphasized when Havlat's rhetoric began to fall into line with company rhetoric a couple weeks ago.

I agree - who cares whose at "fault" for whatever happened, it happened and the org wasn't happy about it.

It seems like it's now water under the bridge, or at least everyone is treating it as such.