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

[ACC1224]

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.

No idea, they could even give the Team the option to count it if they choose to help the smaller markets hit the floor.

 

[Menzinger]

This is a weird one for me and all depends on what the player wants to do with his career.

If he intends to continue it, his option would be to be buried in the minors which effectively ends it.

If he intends to retire, there is no harm to the player. He simply retired early, got his full pay.

I do think that the league and PA need to get on top of situations like this though as the future squeeze is on. Middle aged players who fit the middle tier pay scale are in danger of cap moves like we have seen.

Just take a look at the number of guys on the Leafs that signed contracts intending to continue their careers and have had speed bumps thrown into their plans.

There will be nonsense about well if they can't play then we don't want them. But the bigger issue is that most of these guys can play. It's that cheaper guys can also play.

I suppose the solution is buyout proof contracts but it will take a lot of time to replace what is on the books currently.

The fact that player can play doesn't mean they should. If you have a younger and cheaper alternative it's simply the logical decision to play them instead.

The NHL isn't a house league where everyone should get their fair turn, it's a professional business.

In future players like Lupul are going to have to realize that if they want to keep playing into their 30s they're going to need to start taking bigger pay cuts as young stars are now demanding more and more money. The age of paying a middle line support players multi million dollar long term deals is coming to an end.

 

[Squiffy]

Seems like a non story to me. Lup's with a classic social media boo boo, lost his head for a second. There is no way the Leafs are not conforming to the letter of the CBA in their evaluation and classification of Lup's. Is there something wrong with the parameters they are working within? Perhaps, but that's a CBA problem, not theirs. Not the slightest concern anything comes of this.

I like Lup's and I'm sorry that he's been stranded on Robadias Island, but there are worse lots in life. Leave well enough alone there Lup's, best of luck once this contract expires.

 

[Gallagbi]

No idea, they could even give the Team the option to count it if they choose to help the smaller markets hit the floor.

Likely to protect owners/teams from themselves and maintain competitive balance.

Really, it could help small market teams though since they need to maximize return on contracts. If Arizona had an anchor contract like Clarkson/Gomez/etc.. it would impact them more than any other team. Might be a nice option to be able to flip a bad deal (to be bought out) for a pick.

 

[leburn98]

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.

Agreed, the Rangers had by far the highest payroll and were the laughing stock of the league.

I know some will say Colorado and Detroit bought cups, but the thing that both of those franchises had in common was that they had a base of internally developed prospects to build off of. Sure, players like Rob Blake and Brendan Shanahan were important, but the key pieces were Sakic, Forsberg, Foote, Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, etc.

Really, the only thing the cap allowed was to keep competitive, championship caliber teams intact.

 

[biotk]

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.

Passing a physical is not like, say, a concussion protocol. If a doctor knew that a player failed the protocol, yet gave the player the go ahead, that would major and one would be able to determine a violation of ethics. But whether someone is healthy enough in general to play depends on a lot of factors and is not a science.

For someone like Lupul with his injury history, and his likely constant daily physical discomfort from those injuries, there is absolutely no reason for a doctor to be on the take. It would not be a black/white case of pass/fail - it would be a grey area where most doctors would side towards the caution of saying he is not healthy enough. I wouldn't want be the physician who signs off on saying someone with Lupul's medical history is healthy enough to play.

I have no issues, concerns or questions with Lupul being failed on his physical, even if he is a borderline case - makes sense to side against him being healthy enough due to injury history and length of time he has currently been on IR. I do still have concern with Zaitsev returning from his concussion when he did, and a few days later being considered unfit for international play.

 

[napoleon in rags]

Seems like a non story to me. Lup's with a classic social media boo boo, lost his head for a second. There is no way the Leafs are not conforming to the letter of the CBA in their evaluation and classification of Lup's. Is there something wrong with the parameters they are working within? Perhaps, but that's a CBA problem, not theirs. Not the slightest concern anything comes of this.

I like Lup's and I'm sorry that he's been stranded on Robadias Island, but there are worse lots in life. Leave well enough alone there Lup's, best of luck once this contract expires.

Well said.

 

[Daisy Jane]

The fact that player can play doesn't mean they should. If you have a younger and cheaper alternative it's simply the logical decision to play them instead.

The NHL isn't a house league where everyone should get their fair turn, it's a professional business.

In future players like Lupul are going to have to realize that if they want to keep playing into their 30s they're going to need to start taking bigger pay cuts as young stars are now demanding more and more money. The age of paying a middle line support players multi million dollar long term deals is coming to an end.

and see theoretically this is where I think the PA fails their own. THEY should be thinking about the middle class - and they don't. in this whole "drive up salaries for everyone" THEY aren't thinking what that does to an entire tier. GMs shouldn't think about it. (imo).

but i do agree with your statement. this isn't house league and i don't understand why ppl want the Leafs to act like it is.

 

[White Shadow]

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

I think it's 100% relevant. Lupul is not wanted around the team anymore because he is not the type of player wanted by either Lou or Babs.

He and Kadri were pretty tight. Kadri changed his ways and re-signed long term. Lupul was told he was not welcome around the team.

 

[Pookie]

The fact that player can play doesn't mean they should. If you have a younger and cheaper alternative it's simply the logical decision to play them instead.

The NHL isn't a house league where everyone should get their fair turn, it's a professional business.

In future players like Lupul are going to have to realize that if they want to keep playing into their 30s they're going to need to start taking bigger pay cuts as young stars are now demanding more and more money. The age of paying a middle line support players multi million dollar long term deals is coming to an end.

Got to think about it from the players perspective.

If the players are equal in talent, the younger guy gets the ice.

Why?

He's cheaper.

There is an artificial cap on their earnings as dictated by the ELC and RFA process.

I'm all for a free market approach to this but it's not. You have price capped labour competiting with a free market.

The players under the artificial cap ceiling are not being fairly compensated for their skills and the players who are losing jobs are having careers ended because of contractual matters.

The PA should be fighting heavily to remove the price ceiling and protect their middle class.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

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.

The point of the cap is to provide cost certainty for ownership. So that there is some certainty to how much an organization will have to pay yearly in order to ice a competitive team. This obviously is attractive to smaller market teams, and makes it possible to ice teams in non-standard markets to try and grow the game. The ability to buy out a contract in cash and eliminate it from the cap provides a vector for cash transactions and to give teams in bigger markets a way to gain a much larger competitive advantage just for having more money. We would essentially see more, and much bigger cash transactions happening.

It would allow massive cap circumvention by offloading most of a player's contract into later years when they are not intending to play.

For example, let's take Leafs signing Marleau and cap circumvention. Rather than sign him at $6.25m/yr for 3 years, Leafs can sign him for $3.125m/yr for 6 years and buy him out after year 2 with no penalty. Essentially a same value contract for 1/2 the cap hit.

When it comes to cash transactions, let's say Ottawa wants to offload Phaneuf in the last 3yrs of his contract. They trade Phaneuf to Leafs with a 1st rounder, and Leafs buy him out at no cap penalty. Leafs just bought Ottawa's pick for cash.

For flexing financial muscle, Arizona can only compete on signing UFAs when those UFAs are getting max term. If they want to sign a UFA for 5 years, then Leafs can sign them for 7 at the same AAV, knowing they can just buy out the last 2 years if necessary. Using cash to gain a substantial advantage against smaller market teams for contract negotiations.

 

[ULF_55]

The point of the cap is to provide cost certainty for ownership. So that there is some certainty to how much an organization will have to pay yearly in order to ice a competitive team. This obviously is attractive to smaller market teams, and makes it possible to ice teams in non-standard markets to try and grow the game.

If teams were restricted to paying 50% of their franchises HRR it would ensure cost certainty.

So the league would have a cap of 50% of revenue, and each team would be able to pay their own payroll.

Might even encourage proper accounting for HRR if you knew you weren't getting handouts from the rich.

 

[redgrant]

I personally think this is a stupid rule. If Toronto has no issues paying Lupul but dont want him to count against the cap what is the damn issue? Let toronto use that space to get players they want. Honestly who cares if Toronto has 50 million a year they are spending on players not even playing? How does this hurt anyone?

Yes Oilers fan and dont you guys whine when we do this to Lucic in 2 years.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I personally think this is a stupid rule. If Toronto has no issues paying Lupul but dont want him to count against the cap what is the damn issue? Let toronto use that space to get players they want. Honestly who cares if Toronto has 50 million a year they are spending on players not even playing? How does this hurt anyone?

Yes Oilers fan and dont you guys whine when we do this to Lucic in 2 years.

i am firmly on the board of teams should have to right to buy out ppl and it not go on the cap so y'all do what y'all need and see you in the cup finals

 

[Longshot]

The point of the cap is to provide cost certainty for ownership. So that there is some certainty to how much an organization will have to pay yearly in order to ice a competitive team. This obviously is attractive to smaller market teams, and makes it possible to ice teams in non-standard markets to try and grow the game. The ability to buy out a contract in cash and eliminate it from the cap provides a vector for cash transactions and to give teams in bigger markets a way to gain a much larger competitive advantage just for having more money. We would essentially see more, and much bigger cash transactions happening.

It would allow massive cap circumvention by offloading most of a player's contract into later years when they are not intending to play.

For example, let's take Leafs signing Marleau and cap circumvention. Rather than sign him at $6.25m/yr for 3 years, Leafs can sign him for $3.125m/yr for 6 years and buy him out after year 2 with no penalty. Essentially a same value contract for 1/2 the cap hit.

When it comes to cash transactions, let's say Ottawa wants to offload Phaneuf in the last 3yrs of his contract. They trade Phaneuf to Leafs with a 1st rounder, and Leafs buy him out at no cap penalty. Leafs just bought Ottawa's pick for cash.

For flexing financial muscle, Arizona can only compete on signing UFAs when those UFAs are getting max term. If they want to sign a UFA for 5 years, then Leafs can sign them for 7 at the same AAV, knowing they can just buy out the last 2 years if necessary. Using cash to gain a substantial advantage against smaller market teams for contract negotiations.

I understand what you're saying, but you make it sound like the cap as structured is preventing cap circumvention. That's not true. The Leafs (and other teams) are actively circumventing the cap with players like Lupul, Horton (who they took on to get rid of Clarkson) and Robidas buried on injured reserve.

The 50/50 deal and the escrow payments already ensure cost certainty. Allowing the Leafs to buy out Lupul's deal with no cap penalty allows Lupul to try and resume his career and the Leafs have more money to spend on other players (which they're doing anyway). It doesn't have any impact on the 50/50 split, except to raise the amount the players are getting (which the owners claw back through the escrow). If the Leafs were able to buy out Lupul with no cap penalty, they money remains in the system and at the end of the year if it turns out the players' percentage exceeded 50%, it would be clawed back from all the players through the escrow.

And your Phaneuf scenario is happening to some degree, although not as dramatically as a first rounder. There have been examples of teams taking on cap ballast salary in exchange for a draft pick.

And I believe the most recent CBA prevents teams from front-loading contracts to spread out the cap hit. I'm not familiar with the percentages, but the annual value of the deal has to remain within a certain percentage over the lifetime of the contract.

I really don't see any downside to making the change.

The 50/50 split is guaranteed through escrow.
Players get the money they are owed.
Teams can rid themselves of players and contracts they don't want.
Players like Lupul can try and revive their career elsewhere.

 

[SEER]

He is present enough to have cleaned up the comments, so he knows about it and have taken action.

Yes.... I see he has obviously done a dirty deed...

My message to him would be...

 

[hockeywiz542]

 

[Longshot]

Is anybody here knowledgeable about how the salary cap actually works?

I freely admit, I don't know the ins and outs of the system and I know LTIR doesn't work like many think it does. As in: when the Leafs put Lupul and Horton on LTIR they don't magically get all that cap space (together they are $10.5 million on the cap). For example: if the cap is $75 million and the Leafs are at $72 million, they don't get extra cap space when those two go on LTIR, since they're already below.

Even when I try and follow the cap at Cap Friendly, I don't quite understand how it works. It currently shows the Leafs right at the cap with negative $4.5 million in cap space, which I don't understand at all.

The way I read it: the Leafs are currently $4.5 million over the cap, but once the season starts and Lupul and Horton go on LTIR they will be right at the $75 million cap.

Can anybody quickly explain how it works right now with Horton and Lupul and what it would look like if the Leafs could buy those players out with now cap penalty?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Seems like a non story to me. Lup's with a classic social media boo boo, lost his head for a second. There is no way the Leafs are not conforming to the letter of the CBA in their evaluation and classification of Lup's. Is there something wrong with the parameters they are working within? Perhaps, but that's a CBA problem, not theirs. Not the slightest concern anything comes of this.

I like Lup's and I'm sorry that he's been stranded on Robadias Island, but there are worse lots in life. Leave well enough alone there Lup's, best of luck once this contract expires.

Perfect summary, nice post. And as a bonus, I now know that squiffy is a word. And a pretty cool word at that.

 

[al secord]

Perfect summary, nice post. And as a bonus, I now know that squiffy is a word. And a pretty cool word at that.

Go to bed, you're squiffy!

 

[Joey Hoser]

How is he fooling himself?
I'm ready...just awaiting the call.
Failed physical? They cheat.

If he was ready, willing and wanting to play, he could have and would have used the options available to him to challenge it.

Unless these are sarcastic remarks do they sound like words of someone who thinks they are either A) not healthy or B) unable to pass an NHL physical.
You tell me.

It sounds like the words of somebody defending themselves from being called "made of glass" by a troll on social media. Essentially... "I'm not actually hurt, I just agreed to take my money and stay quiet, which amounts to cheating on behalf of the Leafs".

Why didn't he just say I'm not healthy then? So he is either fooling himself or fooling with everyone with sly remarks. Depends on how you want to take it.
You are taking it the way you see it. I'm taking it the way I read it.

Because he is "healthy", but opted to take his money and shut up. Then he forgot to shut up, briefly.

If Lupul wanted to fight what has happened "to" him, he would have started the fight when it happened the first time a year ago. He would not take up this fight by waiting a year and making a smart-ass comment on instagram that he immediately deletes. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[mouser]

I understand what you're saying, but you make it sound like the cap as structured is preventing cap circumvention. That's not true. The Leafs (and other teams) are actively circumventing the cap with players like Lupul, Horton (who they took on to get rid of Clarkson) and Robidas buried on injured reserve.

The 50/50 deal and the escrow payments already ensure cost certainty. Allowing the Leafs to buy out Lupul's deal with no cap penalty allows Lupul to try and resume his career and the Leafs have more money to spend on other players (which they're doing anyway). It doesn't have any impact on the 50/50 split, except to raise the amount the players are getting (which the owners claw back through the escrow). If the Leafs were able to buy out Lupul with no cap penalty, they money remains in the system and at the end of the year if it turns out the players' percentage exceeded 50%, it would be clawed back from all the players through the escrow.

And your Phaneuf scenario is happening to some degree, although not as dramatically as a first rounder. There have been examples of teams taking on cap ballast salary in exchange for a draft pick.

And I believe the most recent CBA prevents teams from front-loading contracts to spread out the cap hit. I'm not familiar with the percentages, but the annual value of the deal has to remain within a certain percentage over the lifetime of the contract.

I really don't see any downside to making the change.

The 50/50 split is guaranteed through escrow.
Players get the money they are owed.
Teams can rid themselves of players and contracts they don't want.
Players like Lupul can try and revive their career elsewhere.

It's really simple: allowing buyouts without cap hits results in the other players losing a larger % of their paychecks to escrow.

A good illustration is 2014-15 when nearly $38m was spent on cap-free compliance buyouts. With the 50/50 HRR split that season it meant that players who would have lost 11% of their paychecks to escrow instead lost 13% of those paychecks.

 

[tiger_80]

I personally think this is a stupid rule. If Toronto has no issues paying Lupul but dont want him to count against the cap what is the damn issue? Let toronto use that space to get players they want. Honestly who cares if Toronto has 50 million a year they are spending on players not even playing? How does this hurt anyone?

Yes Oilers fan and dont you guys whine when we do this to Lucic in 2 years.

People are upset because it is a cap circumvention that increases competitiveness of teams in big markets. Teams like Chicago and NYR sign players to ridiculous contracts with the intention of them not playing those contracts out. Other than this basic unfairness, it should not bother anyone if Toronto wants to pay Lupul, Clarkson, Pronger to boot, while not actually having them on roster. Ultimately it is a CBA issue. Hopefully, the next one closes this loophole or at least penalizes teams like Chicago and Toronto--e.g. by prohibiting them to sign free agents, while they are riding contracts like that.

 

[Stephen]

I don't really see how Lupul failing a medical could constitute malpractice or whatever. Whenever the guy plays NHL hockey his body reacts by getting hurt for long periods of time. Seems like a pretty simple conclusion you could come to as a doctor to say he's not fit to play.

 

[TorMapleJays]

Lupes just wants to play his final year so he can get signed again next year. No one is signing a guy 3 years off...