Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by hockeykicker, Oct 10, 2018.
A bit of context would be nice why is this relevant?
He's suspended, that's why he can't play, end of story. How are they allowed to circumvent the loss of the roster spot?
Now every team will want this. What the hell ?
Suspended players usually count against the active roster, limiting the team by one player during their suspension. With this exemption, Wilson won't count against the active roster so Washington won't be down a man during his suspension.
My guess is that this exemption will only be in place until Wilson's appeal is heard, and then he will count against the roster just like any other suspended player.
what's the point of that? Wilson is a piece of **** and Washington deserves to be punished for employing him
Lol what a joke
If anything, the league should do everything in their power to **** over these teams who keep icing reckless idiots. This is not quite it.
The idea of the suspension to the player is to punish the player specifically. Suspensions from the league aren't (generally) intended to punish the team that the individual plays for. If it was the leagues intention to punish the team, they would fine the team in conjunction with the fine to the player. So it is unsurprising to see the league take this course of action.
They should also punish the teams who knowingly ice players with a history of reckless behavior.
I'm pretty sure San Jose didn't get that consideration with Torres. No other teams have had that consideration when being stuck with a suspended player.
NHL again muddying the waters on their own rules.
By what merits do the Caps get such a special grant? Due to winning the Cup last season? Is that in the rules as a special benefit for winning the Cup? Or is this just bull****?
As if Caps are innocent. They just gave the most reckless player an extension and they field him willingly.
The only way i'm cool with this is Tom Wilson retiring or getting bough out which i sincerely doubt is happening.
if this is true, why does the NHL not do this with every suspended player? I can't think of another time they've done this for a team. Also teams should absolutely be punished for employing players who get themselves suspended
Dont ask. Let the indignation and sanctimony continue.
Probably because the club most often does not ask. It’s the first instance of this I can recall, that doesn’t mean the Caps are getting special treatment though.
Whether teams should be punished when their player is suspended for being reckless is another matter though. I’d agree, I’d like to see teams punished to deter this sort of behaviour further.
Not surprised as other have noted Torres received this. It also worth noting that he is contesting the suspension so this would also make sense with that being a part of this. Both Wilson and the Caps disagree that he should be suspended this long and he is appealing that. So can you punish a team that is hoping for a third party ruling that you're dragging your feet on like the Wideman situation? When you hand this over during that process at least the team has less to gripe about.
The fact that Wilson's appeal hasn't already been heard by the third party is ridiculous. Having Bettman wait a month to rubber stamp something we can all assume he rubber stamped in the first place before going to the arbitrator is really a bad look on the league.
I stand corrected.
But I still think it's silly to grant special exemption for any team because a player gets suspended.
Even if the financial deterrent isn't enough, maybe teams will be less inclined to employ a player if there's a high likelihood they could be stuck with a 22 man roster as a result.
I feel like it makes sense and it would be unfair to screw over the Capitals by having a 22 man roster for 20 games, but at the same point, I feel like you should just make all suspended players non-roster players if you're going to do it for the big suspensions.
As long as he continues sitting and losing money I'm fine with this.
I don't really see how that is relevant. The arbitrator/Bettman isn't going to overturn the entire suspension, so having the roster status remain unchanged while the process plays out doesn't seem to harm anyone.
Also your complaints about process are pretty nonsensical. For one - most media-types seem to be in favor of the suspension, so I don't see how that's a "really bad look" for the league. Second - the process is one that was negotiated in the CBA, so if the NHLPA has an issue with it they should have put in some habeus relief or something.
I agree this whole process needs to be updated badly in the next CBA. I just don't understand when we all know it is going to go to a third party arbitrator why we haven't already started that process.
I think you should be entitled to the roster spot since you are fighting the existing penalty. Maybe that isn't a part of their logic in granting it, but I agree with doing that in this kind of scenario.
Separate names with a comma.