Mickey Marner
Registered User
The rule exists in the first place to deter teams from signing repeated offenders. At least the Caps will put the most money into the players safety fund this season.
Easy to say when your team didn't lose a player to Washington via waivers that they can now keep...The outrage in here is hilarious
It's not a big deal
If anything, it would've been appropriate to allow the Kings the 23rd roster spot, as the suspension was not hockey-related. The Kings organization had no idea he would beat his girlfriend. The Sharks and Capitals, however, could reasonably be expected to know that their player would inevitably be suspended for something stupid.Sure wasn't done with Voynov.
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.
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.
Same, it will be fun for sure.With all this crying and moaning about Wilson, I absolutely cannot wait until he’s back.
I agree with this.
I'll also add that the PA probably would push for this as well. A roster spot means another player making an NHL salary, and it also means players can be more easily rested during that period if minor ailments occur where the player wouldn't go on the IR.
The fact that this was done for two of the last three 20+ game suspensions makes a case for consistency, not against it.
Now every team will want this. What the hell ?
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.
I don't understand this logic, the team is already being punished by not having the player in the lineup for the length of the suspension. All this does is allow them to fill the spot with a lesser body.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.
They will drag it out. Even if Wilson wins has appeal I'm sure he will have served his time by then.Go on and get this appeal over with already. It should not take so long for an appeal to be heard in the first place...
I'd put it at 8 games. Or a tenth of the season. However, I am fine with 10 games being the threshold.
Just because it has happened before doesn't make it OK. The topic is about Tom Wilson. Not others. If it happened with Raffi Torres and others its still BS. Doesn't make it any more legit just because its happened before.Dont bother people here are ignorant and wont use common sense when its about Wilson.
Yes. Cannot wait for him to injure another player.Same, it will be fun for sure.
Yes. Cannot wait for him to injure another player.Same, it will be fun for sure.
Yes. Cannot wait for him to injure another player.
He will do it again.
As a Caps fans who cares... This doesn't help us. We had our roster and salary cap in order before Wilson was suspended. We would be fielding the same team with or with out the NHLs ruling.
It's not like all a sudden we can go a pick up a 5mill replacement for the cap hit saved.