NHL grants Capitals special status concerning Tom Wilson and roster spots

[innitfam]

The section indicates that the reason must be other than injury, illness, or disability. Suspension is not one of those three. Unsurprising the league did this.

 

[Pens x]

You shouldn’t help a team for this type of situation.

 

[pcruz]

Let me get this right.
My player gets a 5 game suspension. I'm forced to field a 22 man roster for 2-3 weeks.
That player gets a 10 game suspension. His team is forced to field a 22 man roster for a month.
This other player gets a 20 game suspension. His team is allowed to field a 23 man roster.

Is there a cut-off when the suspended player doesn't count towards roster spots?
Is it 11 games, 15 games, 19 games, 20 games?

 

[Frosty415]

The outrage in here is hilarious

It's not a big deal

 

[pcruz]

The outrage in here is hilarious

It's not a big deal

It's not outrage. It's just basic fairness.
Why is Washington given a set of rules while others are given another set of rules?

 

[Hivemind]

It's not outrage. It's just basic fairness.
Why is Washington given a set of rules while others are given another set of rules?

This isn't the first time the NHL has granted such an exemption. So it's not just the Capitals getting these rules.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

But why? That's horse shit.

 

[Revelation]

Wouldn't be an issue if the NHL gave him a 3 game suspension like they would to anyone else making that hit

 

[serp]

If the league did it with Torres before i'm less angry about it. But its still unfair to teams who don't have players that get suspended for 20+ games . Where is the cutoff for this ?

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

This is absolute horseshit

 

[Sol]

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 sure as hell punished the Kings for what Voynov did. Kings had to play with 5 defenseman for many games.

I agree with your logic but the NHL didn't do this against the Kings.


Absolutely pathetic, f*** the NHL.

 

[Sol]

The outrage in here is hilarious

It's not a big deal

It's the inconsistency.

 

[Zirakzigil]

The new CBA needs to address this. Needs to be some consistency.

 

[PunkRockLocke]

As someone mentioned before, I wonder it there is precedent for this happening while the suspension is being appealed? That would make perfect sense.

If that's not the case...very odd choice.

 

[Herregud]

It's the inconsistency.

The fact that this was done for two of the last three 20+ game suspensions makes a case for consistency, not against it.

 

[Sol]

The fact that this was done for two of the last three 20+ game suspensions makes a case for consistency, not against it.

Sure wasn't done with Voynov.

 

[Herregud]

Sure wasn't done with Voynov.

I suppose I should have specified hockey-related suspensions.

 

[Blades of Steel]

With all this crying and moaning about Wilson, I absolutely cannot wait until he’s back.

 

[Sol]

I suppose I should have specified hockey-related suspensions.

Why was the team punished for the deeds of a single person?

 

[Devil Dancer]

As a Caps fan, that's BS. Either suspended players count against the player limit or they don't. The length of the suspension shouldn't be the determining factor.

 

[Foots]

With all this crying and moaning about Wilson, I absolutely cannot wait until he’s back.

T-minus 17 games until Wilson returns!

 

[El Travo]

Seems really unnecessary. The complaining, I mean.

 

[Lunatik]

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

they do with most long suspensions actually

 

[Canada4Gold]

I understand the reasoning here. A team can manage for a 2 or 3 game suspension, but when you get to making them run a player short for a quarter of the year, that's a bit much to ask.

However I think the league should come up with a number, and say, ok anything over this number of games the team is eligible to non roster the players during the suspension. With the caveat that they have to roster the player for that minimum number of games first before they are able to switch them to non roster. So lets say the league determined that number was 10 games. Anything over 10 games makes them eligible for non roster. Then here Washington has to keep Wilson on their roster for 10 games, and then can non roster him.

The fact that the entirety of the suspension is non roster means a player who gets suspended 2 games has their team run with 22 players for longer than the team who has a guy who got suspended 10 times as long sounds silly to me.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

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.

If a team continues to ice a player who constantly gets himself suspended, then why shouldn't the team be punished for it? No one made Washington keep dressing the lunatic after his previous suspensions.