Ferland Setback

[hellstick]

Is Ferland an effective use of our cap space if he isn't being physical/fighting?

He was brought aboard to bring that element to our lineup, and if he can't do that anymore, it's time to go on LTIR for the remainder of the contract.

If you're not contributing tangibly, then what the hell are you doing? Frankly, based on our limited exposure of Ferland this season, does anybody even know that answer? I have no interest in starting the season with a "healthy" Ferland only to lose him to injury within a handful of games.

 

[iceburg]

In most other jobs the employer has a duty to accommodate an employee who is unable to perform his or her full duties due to a workplace injury. Of course this is professional sports and not just some other job..

Sure, and that’s why employers are required to pay WSBC premiums here in B.C. There is a “socialized” insurance system to protect both employers and employees. With pro sports I’m
sure there is some form of private insurance that does the same thing. Bottom line is if they can’t perform, they don’t work. And that’s not just up to the employee.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I asked that question a couple of days ago but didn't get an answer. It could end up in some kind of arbitration I guess - depends what the CBA says...

The last player I remember disputing a failed physical is Joffrey Lupul. An article on the subject says this:

"If he is indeed sincere in his accusation, there is a route back to a playing career through the National Hockey League Players' Association. He can file a grievance, and an independent medical opinion can be obtained.

If the second opinion says the player is healthy enough to play, then yet another independent physician is jointly selected by the NHL and the NHLPA to determine his status."

 

[iceburg]

The last player I remember disputing a failed physical is Joffrey Lupul. An article on the subject says this:

"If he is indeed sincere in his accusation, there is a route back to a playing career through the National Hockey League Players' Association. He can file a grievance, and an independent medical opinion can be obtained.

If the second opinion says the player is healthy enough to play, then yet another independent physician is jointly selected by the NHL and the NHLPA to determine his status."

Excellent reference. Thanks. I forgot about the Lupul case.

 

[F A N]

Sure, and that’s why employers are required to pay WSBC premiums here in B.C. There is a “socialized” insurance system to protect both employers and employees. With pro sports I’m
sure there is some form of private insurance that does the same thing. Bottom line is if they can’t perform, they don’t work. And that’s not just up to the employee.

WorkSafe isn't there to protect employers from employees who are healthy enough to work but are prevented from doing so by their employers. NHL contracts are insured but not all. Again, those insurers are not there to protect employers from employees who want to play but are prevented from doing so by their employers. Prior to his latest setback, Ferland was working hard. I have no doubt that he passed all the fitness tests prior to being cleared to play.

The last player I remember disputing a failed physical is Joffrey Lupul. An article on the subject says this:

"If he is indeed sincere in his accusation, there is a route back to a playing career through the National Hockey League Players' Association. He can file a grievance, and an independent medical opinion can be obtained.

If the second opinion says the player is healthy enough to play, then yet another independent physician is jointly selected by the NHL and the NHLPA to determine his status."

Thanks for that. That's what I was saying. A team can't just decide to keep a player on LTIR under the notion that this is for the player's own good. A player can raise a real stink about things. Of course if a player really isn't fit to play then ya he probably won't be able to pass an NHL physical. Lupul was probably enjoying life, felt challenged, and was probably only half serious about playing ever again. Ferland is different. He doesn't have Lupul's injury history and isn't coming off abdominal surgery. If he doesn't get dizzy moving his head side to side then I think he will pass NHL physicals.

It's also pretty easy to make for Ferland to make things a PR nightmare. He could hold open practice for him to showcase his fitness level. He can even arrange for and play in a scrimmage showing he is fit to play hockey. In short, an NHL team can't keep an NHL player under contract from playing if he is indeed healthy.

 

[iceburg]

WorkSafe isn't there to protect employers from employees who are healthy enough to work but are prevented from doing so by their employers. NHL contracts are insured but not all. Again, those insurers are not there to protect employers from employees who want to play but are prevented from doing so by their employers.

Why would worksafe protect employers from employees who want to work and are able to work. Of course they wouldn’t. It wouldn’t make any sense... they are there to protect both employees and employers when the employee can’t work. I think you may be arguing against a point that wasn’t made.
The premise of my original question was that, if Ferland thought he couldn’t play, and the team disagreed, what is the recourse?

 

[F A N]

Why would worksafe protect employers from employees who want to work and are able to work. Of course they wouldn’t. It wouldn’t make any sense... they are there to protect both employees and employers when the employee can’t work. I think you may be arguing against a point that wasn’t made.
The premise of my original question was that, if Ferland thought he couldn’t play, and the team disagreed, what is the recourse?

I think you got the discussion all twisted around. What we have been talking about is if Ferland wants to play but the team decides he is unfit to play:

If the Canuck’s doctors (and independent ones too) agree Furley isn’t able to play anymore, because the risk to his health from future concussions is too great, can the Canucks at that point put him on LTIR - even if Furley still wants to play?

 

[tantalum]

If the Canuck’s doctors (and independent ones too) agree Furley isn’t able to play anymore, because the risk to his health from future concussions is too great, can the Canucks at that point put him on LTIR - even if Furley still wants to play?

That's what they essentially did with Malhotra if I'm not mistaken. They decided it was too dangerous for him to play so he was shutdown until his contract finished. He then played a couple more years elsewhere though not well. He wasn't happy about Gillis telling him that at the time but he understands that Gillis was just looking out for him as a person.

 

[Fatass]

That's what they essentially did with Malhotra if I'm not mistaken. They decided it was too dangerous for him to play so he was shutdown until his contract finished. He then played a couple more years elsewhere though not well. He wasn't happy about Gillis telling him that at the time but he understands that Gillis was just looking out for him as a person.

We might see where the team and Furley decide together he’s not able to play anymore. Then he can go on LTIR, right?

 

[tantalum]

We might see where the team and Furley decide together he’s not able to play anymore. Then he can go on LTIR, right?

Yes. But you essentially only get IR relief if he's on a cap compliant roster on day 1.

Also note that while we all, including me, talk about LTIR the term LTIR isn't actually present in the CBA. It's all simply IR. LTIR just gets used to help distinguish between these long term injuries that require roster replacement for a substantial amount of time and the little day to days.

 

[iceburg]

I think you got the discussion all twisted around. What we have been talking about is if Ferland wants to play but the team decides he is unfit to play:

Not really. If Ferland wants to play, that doesn’t mean he’s fit to play. The key to my last post was the second part of the sentence “players who want to play and are able to play”. But yeah, this seems to be going in circles so I’ll quit.

 

[F A N]

That's what they essentially did with Malhotra if I'm not mistaken. They decided it was too dangerous for him to play so he was shutdown until his contract finished. He then played a couple more years elsewhere though not well. He wasn't happy about Gillis telling him that at the time but he understands that Gillis was just looking out for him as a person.

That is what happened. But let's face it, at the time (and even now) it looked like a shady move to get under the Cap. Malhotra was very careful in saying all the right things of course but made it clear that he disagreed with Gillis. His agent refused to talk about it. Gillis also said that if Malhotra asked for a trade he won't trade him. I think it could have been a very messy situation if Malhotra pushed the issue but he decided to just take the high road. How many fans and players were happy to see Malhotra play his way back to the NHL as opposed to fans and players who thought he was stupid and should have retired?

 

[VanJack]

If Ferland ends up on LTIR like David Clarkson, might he have some value around the league? A team looking to trade somebody for cap reasons, might find the idea of acquiring Ferland for cap-relief somewhat attractive.

 

[deckercky]

Yes. But you essentially only get IR relief if he's on a cap compliant roster on day 1.

Also note that while we all, including me, talk about LTIR the term LTIR isn't actually present in the CBA. It's all simply IR. LTIR just gets used to help distinguish between these long term injuries that require roster replacement for a substantial amount of time and the little day to days.

Incorrect. Teams can put players on LTIR and go over the cap (even in excess of the 10% cushion) like the leafs did last summer. At no point were the leafs below the salary cap limit last season.

Gillis and Gilman always tried to get cap compliant at the start of the season before putting players on LTIR because it provided a small advantage in accumulating the maximum LTIR advantage (though I've never seen anyone clearly explain how that advantage manifested itself).

 

[tantalum]

Incorrect. Teams can put players on LTIR and go over the cap (even in excess of the 10% cushion) like the leafs did last summer. At no point were the leafs below the salary cap limit last season.

Gillis and Gilman always tried to get cap compliant at the start of the season before putting players on LTIR because it provided a small advantage in accumulating the maximum LTIR advantage (though I've never seen anyone clearly explain how that advantage manifested itself).

Yes you can put players on IR during the off season. This was discussed somewhere else in the last couple of days. If, however, you want to be able to use the IR relief during the season to the maximum you need the injured player on a cap compliant roster on day 1. As you said.

the Canucks could put Ferland in IR to help out summer activities (Player movements) but likely won’t help them did the season unless they get him on a cap compliant roster day 1.