Waived: Sharks Waive Torres

[Barrie22]

What? No. I have no idea how you'd jump to that conclusion. The doctors and Torres thought that the knee was in better shape than it turned out to be.

No what you are seeing with torres is what happens with every single player that misses long periods of time due to injuries. The body part is just not as strong as it used to be. Players are hesitant to try things they used to do before the surgeries. But that body part (if cleared) is fully healed.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I agree that doctors would need to certify Torres for LTIR. So, in that sense, I agree with you. Since neither of us knows what a doctor would be required to say in order to certify Torres, there's probably not much point in discussing this further since we don't have sufficient information to form a real opinion IMO. We can agree to disagree about our guesses.

According to the CBA, all a Club's physician needs to be able to say is that the player is not capable of playing for a specific length of time or longer based on illness or injury. It could be a previous injury that has been aggravated. It could be a new injury. But I think that's all it really is. I think you may be complicating more than necessary.

 

[210]

Wow! Salty. FWIW, I have probably provided more info about the CBA than anyone on this board, certainly in the last year or so.

That isn't specific. I've pointed that out repeatedly. Further, that is not the same as what you said which was:

Team doctor says player cannot play in a game: eligible for LTIR
Team doctor says player can play in a game: not eligible for LTIR

Yeah, it's the same. "Club's physician believes, in his or her opinion, that the Player, owing to either an injury or an illness, will be unfit to play" is essentially exactly what I wrote. It comes down to the team doctor determining if a player is fit to play or not. If in your vast knowledge of the CBA you can find anything that disproves this feel free to post it.

 

[CrypTic]

According to the CBA, all a Club's physician needs to be able to say is that the player is not capable of playing for a specific length of time or longer based on illness or injury. It could be a previous injury that has been aggravated. It could be a new injury. But I think that's all it really is. I think you may be complicating more than necessary.

I don't think I"m the one complicating it. I'm saying that if he's not able to play in the NHL and if the reason for that is bc of an injury, per the terms of the CBA (as I interpret them), he is eligible for LTIR. (That does depend on how things like "unfit to play", "injury", "disabled" are defined), he is eligible for LTIR. You and others are making this more complicated than it needs to be IMO bc you're considering things like the timing of the injury with respect to when the LTIR happens.

I agree that, unless Torres is injured again, any LTIR will probably be based on his prior injuries.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't think I"m the one complicating it. I'm saying that if he's not able to play in the NHL and if the reason for that is bc of an injury, per the terms of the CBA (as I interpret them), he is eligible for LTIR. (That does depend on how things like "unfit to play", "injury", "disabled" are defined), he is eligible for LTIR. You and others are making this more complicated than it needs to be IMO bc you're considering things like the timing of the injury with respect to when the LTIR happens.

I agree that, unless Torres is injured again, any LTIR will probably be based on his prior injuries.

With the questions you've asked in this thread, you have actually been complicating this issue asking how things are defined and going so far as to say that someone just needs to have a stick in his hand to be fit to play. I mean, come on dude.

 

[CrypTic]

Yeah, it's the same. "Club's physician believes, in his or her opinion, that the Player, owing to either an injury or an illness, will be unfit to play" is essentially exactly what I wrote. It comes down to the team doctor determining if a player is fit to play or not. If in your vast knowledge of the CBA you can find anything that disproves this feel free to post it.

Glad you are resorting to being snarky again instead of trying to have a civil discussion. That always makes me think the person doing that has a solid basis for his argument.

I disagree that what you wrote is essentially the same as the CBA for the reasons stated in my last post. I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[Barrie22]

The sad thing about this entire argument is, ltir means absolutely nothing right now when it comes to torres and the sharks. It does nothing to help the sharks nor does it do anything to help torres.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Glad you are resorting to being snarky again instead of trying to have a civil discussion. That always makes me think the person doing that has a solid basis for his argument.

I disagree that what you wrote is essentially the same as the CBA for the reasons stated in my last post. I guess we can agree to disagree.

The only thing wrong with his post is that he didn't include that the player will be injured for a minimum length of time to qualify him for LTIR but it really does come down to the Club's physician's opinion on the matter.

 

[CrypTic]

With the questions you've asked in this thread, you have actually been complicating this issue asking how things are defined and going so far as to say that someone just needs to have a stick in his hand to be fit to play. I mean, come on dude.

I've said that how things are defined is important bc it is. I don't know how pointing out the obvious complicates anything.

You and others were the ones saying that if a player could play at any level, they couldn't go on LTIR. I was saying that the standard is clearly higher than that: just being able to play hockey at some level doesn't disqualify players from being on LTIR. Do you understand the logic of that?

I don't know how that is complicating the issue.

ETA:

The only thing wrong with his post is that he didn't include that the player will be injured for a minimum length of time to qualify him for LTIR but it really does come down to the Club's physician's opinion on the matter.

I agree that the injury/disability/illness has to be meet a minimum time requirement.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I've said that how things are defined is important bc it is. I don't know how pointing out the obvious complicates anything.

You and others were the ones saying that if a player could play at any level, they couldn't go on LTIR. I was saying that the standard is clearly higher than that: just being able to play hockey at some level doesn't disqualify players from being on LTIR. Do you understand the logic of that?

I don't know how that is complicating the issue.

ETA:



I agree that the injury/disability/illness has to be meet a minimum time requirement.

If it was as obvious you say it is, you wouldn't feel the need to point it out and ask how to define things. You say it's clearly higher than playing at any level yet you've failed to point out anything to counter that point. A recovering player staying on LTIR during rehab is not the same thing as what is going with Torres because he's not on LTIR anymore.

 

[210]

Glad you are resorting to being snarky again instead of trying to have a civil discussion. That always makes me think the person doing that has a solid basis for his argument.

I disagree that what you wrote is essentially the same as the CBA for the reasons stated in my last post. I guess we can agree to disagree.

Explain how it is different. Please be specific.

 

[kdb209]

Team doctor says player cannot play in a game: eligible for LTIR
Team doctor says player can play in a game: not eligible for LTIR

It's literally that simple.

Yup.

The threshold is whether the player is unfit to play ("unable to perform his duties as a hockey Player") - not whether he is able to play as some expected level of skill.

And if the League thinks a team is trying to use LTIR to circumvent the cap, they can have the player examined by an neutral 3rd party physician to determine his fitness to play.

 

[CrypTic]

If it was as obvious you say it is, you wouldn't feel the need to point it out and ask how to define things. You say it's clearly higher than playing at any level yet you've failed to point out anything to counter that point. A recovering player staying on LTIR during rehab is not the same thing as what is going with Torres because he's not on LTIR anymore.

The CBA is a legal document. How terms are defined in a legal document is often key to how the language of the document is interpreted. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I honestly don't understand how anyone could read a legal document like the CBA and not key in on how terms are defined for the purposes of that document. The concept is foreign to me.

I guess I was wrong about using clearly. Sorry, I guess it's not clear. You seem to agree that, in some situations (e.g., recovering from an injury), players don't need to be unable to play at any level. That was what I was trying to point out. It may be that the terms (e.g., "unfit to play" "unable to perform his duties as a hockey player") are defined differently in different situations but that would be unusual for a legal document like the CBA.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The CBA is a legal document. How terms are defined in a legal document is often key to how the language of the document is interpreted. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I honestly don't understand how anyone could read a legal document like the CBA and not key in on how terms are defined for the purposes of that document. The concept is foreign to me.

I guess I was wrong about using clearly. Sorry, I guess it's not clear. You seem to agree that, in some situations (e.g., recovering from an injury), players don't need to be unable to play at any level. That was what I was trying to point out. It may be that the terms (e.g., "unfit to play" "unable to perform his duties as a hockey player") are defined differently in different situations but that would be unusual for a legal document like the CBA.

To some extent, it's fine to ask how terms are defined but you are arguing those terms when someone defines it for you but you are not supporting that dissenting opinion with anything relevant and that's where it is you complicating things. If you had relevant evidence to support your interpretation of it when certain people have defined it for you and they have defined it in the past as such, it may be given more credibility. However, as of now, you don't have anything to justify your difference of opinion on the matter.

 

[CrypTic]

Yup.

The threshold is whether the player is unfit to play ("unable to
perform his duties as a hockey Player") - not whether he is able to play as some expected level of skill.

And if the League thinks a team is trying to use LTIR to circumvent the cap, they can have the player examined by an neutral 3rd party physician to determine his fitness to play.

KB, I agree that's what is in question and that if a team tries to circumvent the cap, they (or the NHLPA IIRC but I looked a while ago) could have a 3rd party doctor determine fitness to play. I'm not disagreeing with those points at all. The disagreement is about how "unfit to play" is defined for the purposes of LTIR. It seems to me that the purpose of that provision is to allow Clubs to call up players who can play instead of the injured player. To that end, if the player can't play in the AHL or NHL, it makes sense to allow Clubs to put the Player on LTIR.

From a Player's POV, it allows the Player to rehab without the pressure of needing to play ASAP. IMO it would make sense to allow a Player who is injured or disabled to go on LTIR instead of feeling pressured to play when he cannot do so to a reasonable level due to injury, disability, etc.

 

[CrypTic]

To some extent, it's fine to ask how terms are defined but you are arguing those terms when someone defines it for you but you are not supporting that dissenting opinion with anything relevant and that's where it is you complicating things. If you had relevant evidence to support your interpretation of it when certain people have defined it for you and they have defined it in the past as such, it may be given more credibility. However, as of now, you don't have anything to justify your difference of opinion on the matter.

If ppl would show me how it was applied in the past in situations like Torres's that would be excellent evidence of how the NHL and NHLPA intended to define the term. I"m objecting bc ppl are not doing that and instead just saying "this is what it means" without backing that up.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If ppl would show me how it was defined in the past in situations like Torres's that would be excellent evidence of how the NHL and NHLPA intended to define the term. I"m objecting bc ppl are not doing that and instead just saying "this is what it means" without backing that up.

If pointing to the proper passage in the CBA is not good enough for you then nothing will so what's the point? Being unfit to play is simply a Club's physician saying that the player is injured or ill. When said physician then clears a player based on health and not play quality, that player is to be taken off of LTIR. It's not that difficult. You're making it more than it is.

 

[CrypTic]

If pointing to the proper passage in the CBA is not good enough for you then nothing will so what's the point? Being unfit to play is simply a Club's physician saying that the player is injured or ill. When said physician then clears a player based on health and not play quality, that player is to be taken off of LTIR. It's not that difficult. You're making it more than it is.

So I tell you what would be a good indication of what that passage means and you say "nothing will [be good enough]"?

I have read the CBA. I probably know more about it than you do. But, sure, laugh at my questions and say that I'm just raising them to complicate things. If you have situations that are similar to Torres's situation, that (along with the actual medical forms that need to be completed for a doctor to certify LTIR, but we are probably not going to get those) would probably be the best support for any interpretation.

I agree with you (and have above) that it is up to the doctor and him/her certifying whatever is on the form(s) that need to be filled out. Neither of us know what those forms say.

 

[210]

So I tell you what would be a good indication of what that passage means and you say "nothing will [be good enough]"? I have read the CBA. I probably know more about it than you do. But, sure, laugh at my questions and say that I'm just raising them to complicate things. If you have situations that are similar to Torres's situation, that (along with the actual medical forms that need to be completed for a doctor to certify LTIR, but we are probably not going to get those) would probably be the best support for any interpretation.

I have agreed with you that it is up to the doctor and him/her certifying whatever is on the form(s) that need to be filled out. Neither of us know what those forms say.

What does it matter what the forms say? The CBA is clear: the team doctor decides if a player is fit to play hockey or not. What the doctor's paperwork on the matter looks like is irrelevant.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

So I tell you what would be a good indication of what that passage means and you say "nothing will [be good enough]"? I have read the CBA. I probably know more about it than you do. But, sure, laugh at my questions and say that I'm just raising them to complicate things. If you have situations that are similar to Torres's situation, that (along with the actual medical forms that need to be completed for a doctor to certify LTIR, but we are probably not going to get those) would probably be the best support for any interpretation.

I have agreed with you that it is up to the doctor and him/her certifying whatever is on the form(s) that need to be filled out. Neither of us know what those forms say.

When you have to start saying things like I know more about than you do, chances are you probably don't. When you have to ask silly questions involving medical certifications and the like, chances are you're seeing your argument go down the toilet. I haven't laughed at your questions so now you're exaggerating things. You've been asked the same about certain LTIR situations yet you've not really come up with any answers to those questions.

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from but you're not making a whole lot of sense on this issue.

 

[CrypTic]

What does it matter what the forms say? The CBA is clear: the team doctor decides if a player is fit to play hockey or not. What the doctor's paperwork on the matter looks like is irrelevant.

210, the CBA is far from clear. The forms will spell out exactly what the doctor needs to certify. IMO that will tell you how the NHL and NHLPA view that passage and what specific criteria the injury, disability, etc. needs to meet in order for a player to go on LTIR.

 

[210]

210, the CBA is far from clear. The forms will spell out exactly what the doctor needs to certify. IMO that will tell you how the NHL and NHLPA view that passage and what specific criteria the injury, disability, etc. needs to meet in order for a player to go on LTIR.

You are WAY overthinking this.

The CBA is very clear in the matter: the team doctor decides if a player is cleared to play hockey or not. The duration of the player's unavailability determines if he's eligible for LTIR, or not.

The forms are completely immaterial.

 

[CrypTic]

When you have to start saying things like I know more about than you do, chances are you probably don't. When you have to ask silly questions involving medical certifications and the like, chances are you're seeing your argument go down the toilet. I haven't laughed at your questions so now you're exaggerating things. You've been asked the same about certain LTIR situations yet you've not really come up with any answers to those questions.

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from but you're not making a whole lot of sense on this issue.

I said what I thought would help in making things clearer about LTIR and you replied with "nothing will be good enough for you" in reply to me saying what would be good enough. I did not think you were replying in good faith. I took that as you not taking what I was saying seriously, i.e., laughing at my points and questions.

Simply pointing to the proper passage in the CBA is somewhat helpful but doesn't address what I was saying.

I am saying that I don't know anyone in real life who would read the CBA and say that the language was clear or that what a doctor has to certify in order for a player to go on LTIR doesn't help make that passage clearer and more specific. I'm having the same problem understanding your POV as you are of understanding mine.

What questions do you want me to answer?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I said what I thought would help in making things clearer about LTIR and you replied with "nothing will be good enough for you" in reply to me saying what would be good enough. I did not think you were replying in good faith. I took that as you not taking what I was saying seriously, i.e., laughing at my points and questions.

Simply pointing to the proper passage in the CBA is somewhat helpful but doesn't address what I was saying.

I am saying that I don't know anyone in real life who would read the CBA and say that the language was clear or that what a doctor has to certify in order for a player to go on LTIR doesn't help make that passage clearer and more specific. I'm having the same problem understanding your POV as you are of understanding mine.

What questions do you want me to answer?

The problem here is that you're trying to put relevance on what a doctor needs to certify for a player to go on LTIR when it isn't relevant at all. What is relevant for putting someone on LTIR is whether the Club's physician believes that a player, either through injury or illness, will be unable to play the 24 days and 10 NHL games needed to put someone on LTIR. It literally makes no difference what a physician needs to certify to that end.

 

[210]

Exhibits 25-A and 25-B are the "Fitness To Play Determination Form"s. Exhibit 25-C is a form for an independent doctor to fill out.

Feel free to peruse these portions of the CBA at your leisure.

Glad to see the issue is all settled now.