Joffery Lupul denies failing Physical. Says the Leafs "cheat, and everyone lets them"

[HoweHullOrr]

Lupul is a bachelor for life, lives on an ocean front property in the summers, and attends fashion shows.

Do you really want your 20 year old bluechip prospects being invited to fashion shows, ocean front bachelor pads and parties?

Not sure how this is relevant? This seems a little petty and perhaps is motivated by jealousy.

 

[Northern Dancer]

I think Lups has/had too many distractions in life that took away from his game. I'll bet Shanny and company would have recognized this, and either had him correct it (alla Kadri) or sent him on his way before rewarding him with that contract.

If I looked like Lups I would also have too many distractions in life.

 

[Warden of the North]

"Some reason"? WOW Marek has a grasp of the obvious and vague at the same time, which is an accomplishment in itself.

You need to listen to the clip to get what im saying. Im not putting words in anyones mouth here.

 

[ToneDog]

If I looked like Lups I would also have too many distractions in life.

Long on looks but short on brains ?

 

[HoweHullOrr]

The reality is in a hard cap system teams will bend the rules to get things to work. Maybe the Leafs ought to be punished by the league for the Lupul, Robidas and Cowen, but how does the NHL look for when Pronger was in semi retirement mode, collecting a salary from the Flyers while heading the DOPS? Or Marian Hossa being disappeared for an equipment allergy, or Lou Lamoriello making guys like Malakhov, Mogilny, etc finish out their careers in the minors, or the cap circumventing years tacked onto the contracts of players like Keith, Luongo, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Suter, Parise, Kovalchuk, etc. Finally, if teams didn't have these kinds of outlets, and big market teams that could absorb these problematic salaries, what would teams like Columbus do when they're stuck with an uninsured Nathan Horton deal?

What's important is NHL teams can wiggle out of problem scenarios so they can ice competitive, entertaining teams so they can be viable business entities and attract and keep their fan support. Crippling a team by not letting them off the hook in a hard cap and then punishing them is just not the best way to serve any fanbase.

Those points are OK and apply to a certain percentage of teams. I think budget or financially constrained teams typically are not inclined to pay a player money not to play. They can't afford it.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

This.

IG ? Lupul isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

He is being paid by the team. He probably slants things if favour of the team.

He risks losing his license to practice medicine if he lies on the record. The Leafs are not his only source of employment.

True. Most professional have written ethics rules and there's consequences for breaking those rules such as loss of the person's professional license.

Having said that, we don't know if the team doctor has other clients, or how much he is being paid by the Leafs. The Leafs could afford to pay him an outlandish amount of money and thus eliminate any of the doctors financial concerns. Hard to say though without all of the facts.

 

[ACC1224]

If they just had buyouts with no cap consequences, this stuff never happens.

 

[Anthrax442]

If they just had buyouts with no cap consequences, this stuff never happens.

And no cap

 

[mix1home]

I see nothing more than tangue in chick comment. Like sure failed physical. Haha. It was a joke that went wrong. Instead of taking it as humor Ppl got serious and started to spin the scandal to make themselves famous if for nothing good in their own lives then for this.
I dont believe for a second he is in good form and ready to play hockey. Not with his history of back problems. Snowboarding or not, he could be doing it on strong painkillers (from my own experience lol).
Move along nothing to see here.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Impossible for me to take Lupul seriously on this. He tweeted and then deleted the tweet, that's all I need to know.

 

[ACC1224]

And no cap

That would be fantastic but I think to make things fair they need to have a limit on what teams can spend.

I don't see why Teams need to be punished for mistakes if they choose to buy their way out from them.

 

[ToneDog]

And no cap

With no cap, the league would be at the mercy of this rich franchise led by this competent management team.

 

[Anthrax442]

That would be fantastic but I think to make things fair they need to have a limit on what teams can spend.

I don't see why Teams need to be punished for mistakes if they choose to buy their way out from them.

Not having a totally open free market is the opposite of fair. Historically, in hockey, there haven't really been any teams that "bought" the cup.

 

[Trapper]

With no cap, the league would be at the mercy of this rich franchise led by this competent management team.

I understand the cap for the smaller market survival and the overall prosperity of the NHL. US dollars/media are huge and you always want to grow the product.

But man I miss the days when anyone could be traded, things are so tight now, everything has to line up perfectly. Less fiscal responsibility lead to many more interesting things happening.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I understand the cap for the smaller market survival and the overall prosperity of the NHL. US dollars/media are huge and you always want to grow the product.

But man I miss the days when anyone could be traded, things are so tight now, everything has to line up perfectly. Less fiscal responsibility lead to many more interesting things happening.

I miss those days too. You can't make a hockey trade these days without and array of accountants and lawyers being involved.

 

[ACC1224]

Not having a totally open free market is the opposite of fair. Historically, in hockey, there haven't really been any teams that "bought" the cup.

I'm with you, hate the cap.

 

[Trapper]

I miss those days too. You can't make a hockey trade these days without and array of accountants and lawyers being involved.

I miss the old Norris division, the free agency/trade dealine frenzies, trades at anytime (and big trades), sign players with only money concern and not cap.
The days when we had no idea what Corsi was and everything wasn't reduced and dissected.

If we could do that with a balance of drafting players like Matthews/Marner/Nylander etc. that would be a perfect world.

 

[hockeywiz542]

the leafs remain steadfast that they have done nothing wrong here, even though there is an appearance of scandal. Lupul isn’t talking. His agents, one for contracts, one for marketing, didn’t return calls on monday. The nhl players’ association indicated on monday that lupul had three days to appeal the results of his medical exam — and he did not file an appeal.

Which means what?

from the leafs’ end, it means lupul ostensibly violated the spirit of the agreement he made with the team. Basically, he agreed to disappear silently to california and, in exchange for that absence, he would be paid in full, the $5.25 million — $10.5 million if you include last season — remaining on his contract. All the leafs asked of him was to be invisible.

for some reason, lupul got cheeky on sunday. He was momentarily visible on social media. He pointed the finger at the leafs, before withdrawing it. Either someone told him to take down his post or he realized the foolish position he had put himself in.

He called the leafs cheaters — but when given the opportunity to appeal, he chose not to.

word around for some time has been that there is more to this story, that the leafs have something on the veteran winger. Something damaging they just might release should lupul become an annoyance to them. either he was reminded of that on sunday or an agent reminded him or maybe he just had the sense himself to take the post down.

he has no leverage here. Had the leafs bought him out, he would have received just two-thirds of his salary over twice the length of term of the contract. That’s $7 million over four years instead of $10.5 million over two. Had he forced the issue, the leafs would have dispatched him to the minors, and probably somewhere lower than the ahl. He could play, assuming he is able, and ride the bus from one nowhere town to another.

 

[nsleaf]

True. Most professional have written ethics rules and there's consequences for breaking those rules such as loss of the person's professional license.

Having said that, we don't know if the team doctor has other clients, or how much he is being paid by the Leafs. The Leafs could afford to pay him an outlandish amount of money and thus eliminate any of the doctors financial concerns. Hard to say though without all of the facts.

Are you really suggesting that a MD compromise his/her professional ethics for money?

 

[seventieslord]

this post is what is everything that is wrong with hockey culture. it's disgusting the type of old boys club these guys run.

So speaking out against a team that put him in limbo, he is guilty?

The leafs have literally ****ed him,

He has to go away and take his money or he gets buried in the minors and has to ride the bus. It's gross how teams in general are allowed to do that.

Late to the party, but yeah, this is ridiculous. Leafs didn't **** him at all.

Which Leafs forward would you trade, waive, or send to the AHL to make room for Joffrey Lupul?

This.

2-3M? He will be lucky to get the league min.

This.

Methinks Lupes just cost himself his next Assistant Director of Player Development job with the Leafs...

hahahahahaha

 

[hizzoner]

Move along. Nothing to see here. Lou cheats--as he has done before. So what--he got away with Kovalchuk and with Robidas. This too will pass. Players get their bucks and other GMs with teams with money give a wink and a nod for when they can do it. This along with winning the lottery is called first class management.

 

[Longshot]

If they just had buyouts with no cap consequences, this stuff never happens.

Can anybody explain the reason they don't?

I get that one of the ideas behind the cap is to manage your team better and avoid killer contracts, but in retrospect that's ridiculous.

The league and the players have a deal to split revenue 50/50. They accomplish this with a spending cap, a spending minimum and escrow payments the players make on each cheque. With those in place, it's really not necessary to punish teams for bad contracts or players that get injured.

Lupul is kind of a special and unusual case, but if you look around the league in the cap era there have been all kinds of examples of this weird situation. Pronger, Hossa, Nathan Horton, Clarkson and others I'm forgetting. Seeing guys unable to retire because of cap consequences is silly.

What's the difference if a team can fully buy out a contract (not the two thirds thing, spread over twice the time) they don't want anymore and let that player go with no cap consequences? The player gets their money and a chance to go elsewhere and the team gets to move on and get another player. And the 50/50 deal is still in place.

 

[Trapper]

Can anybody explain the reason they don't?

I get that one of the ideas behind the cap is to manage your team better and avoid killer contracts, but in retrospect that's ridiculous.

The league and the players have a deal to split revenue 50/50. They accomplish this with a spending cap, a spending minimum and escrow payments the players make on each cheque. With those in place, it's really not necessary to punish teams for bad contracts or players that get injured.

Lupul is kind of a special and unusual case, but if you look around the league in the cap era there have been all kinds of examples of this weird situation. Pronger, Hossa, Nathan Horton, Clarkson and others I'm forgetting. Seeing guys unable to retire because of cap consequences is silly.

What's the difference if a team can fully buy out a contract (not the two thirds thing, spread over twice the time) they don't want anymore and let that player go with no cap consequences? The player gets their money and a chance to go elsewhere and the team gets to move on and get another player. And the 50/50 deal is still in place.

I don't know how small market teams would react but I don't have a problem with a salary cap and then a 1 year no cap hit buyout. The buyout isn't at 1/3, it's total and the player is off the cap.
Same goes for players like Horton, Pronger, Savard, etc. declared long term disability. If the guy is never going to play again, settle up with insurance and remove them with no cap hit. Why wait until day 1 of the season just to put them on LTIR. Then again next year, and next.

 

[Longshot]

I don't know how small market teams would react but I don't have a problem with a salary cap and then a 1 year no cap hit buyout. The buyout isn't at 1/3, it's total and the player is off the cap.
Same goes for players like Horton, Pronger, Savard, etc. declared long term disability. If the guy is never going to play again, settle up with insurance and remove them with no cap hit. Why wait until day 1 of the season just to put them on LTIR. Then again next year, and next.

I would guess small market teams would react the same way they are now: use the big money team to relieve their problems or to get to the minimum. Arizona took on Pronger's cap hit to get to the floor with his actually contract being paid by insurance. And Columbus traded Horton to the Leafs to get out from under his cap hit (although they got stuck with Clarkson, who I assume had a fully insured contract as opposed to Horton). And I remember Brian Burke was able to get a fourth round pick from Tampa for taking on a bunch of cap ballast one year.

I would guess teams would adjust and use the rules in a way that suits them best.

My point is: as long as the money spent outside the annual cap is included in the 50/50 split, what's the difference if teams can buy out players with no cap penalties? It's already happening now, one Lupul and the others go on LTIR the Leafs will be spending over the cap.

 

[Daisy Jane]

That would be fantastic but I think to make things fair they need to have a limit on what teams can spend.

I don't see why Teams need to be punished for mistakes if they choose to buy their way out from them.

well it's called a budget.
it's not the leafs fault they can have an a high one and poor teams can't.