NHL grants Capitals special status concerning Tom Wilson and roster spots

Mickey Marner

Registered User
Jul 9, 2014
19,225
20,758
Dystopia
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.
 

Mickey Marner

Registered User
Jul 9, 2014
19,225
20,758
Dystopia
Sure wasn't done with Voynov.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,545
13,840
Vancouver
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 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.
 

MAHJ71

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2014
11,710
3,986
NWA 217
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... :thumbd:
 

MarkusKetterer

Shoulda got one game in
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'd put it at 8 games. Or a tenth of the season. However, I am fine with 10 games being the threshold.
 

Noldo

Registered User
May 28, 2007
1,664
246
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.

I think that Regal hit the nail there and this approach is very much there to give NHLPA less ammunition that they could use to oppose the long suspension in general. Considering that the NHLPA opposed longer overtime because it would generally mean more wear and tear for subsection of players (the stars who are more likely to play during overtime) the NHLPA would definitely oppose long suspensions even more if they would hurt not only the perpetrator but also other members of the NHLPA.*

* Although it has never made sense to me why the NHLPA is not actively demanding actions that would prevent damage caused to their members by reckless actions of other NHLPA members.
 

Ovechkins Wodka

Registered User
Dec 1, 2007
17,443
7,149
DC
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.
 

King'sPawn

Enjoy the chaos
Jul 1, 2003
21,812
20,607
The fact that this was done for two of the last three 20+ game suspensions makes a case for consistency, not against it.

Two teams get treated one way while another team gets treated different is not making a case for consistency.

A more severely punished offense giving leniency to the teams employing the player is certainly NOT consistent. Why do the teams using a player get a break for a 20 game suspension while the ones using a player who gets a 5 game suspension does not?

There is no consistency in the logic or how the breaks are levied. These are valid criticisms.
 

IamNotADancer

Registered User
Feb 16, 2017
2,422
2,707
Now every team will want this. What the hell ?

And honestly, I'd be okay with it if they made this a rule where players over a certain amount of games suspended(10 maybe) become non-roster players. I just hope this will not be a case by case thing where the NHL decides, well player X has a 16 game suspension, player Y has also a 16 game suspension but only player X will be exempt.
 

Legionnaire

Help On The Way
Jul 10, 2002
44,253
3,964
LA-LA Land
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.

You forgot how the Kings were penalized for Voynov and an off ice incident.

Total garbage by the NHL. Once again proving to be a clown show league.
 
Last edited:

Lunatik

Normal is an illusion.
Oct 12, 2012
56,185
8,337
Padded Room
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.
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.
 

Based Anime Fan

Himedanshi Bandit
Mar 11, 2012
7,477
6,159
Tokai
I think the important thing that people are missing is this isn't just granted by the NHL, the team has to make the request.

So if the Kings didn't do so during the Voynov thing, that's their own fault.

I have no problem with this. Why should the other 22 players risk more fatigue and increased risk of injury because someone's suspended 20 games?
 

maacoshark

Registered User
Jul 22, 2017
9,629
3,723
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... :thumbd:
They will drag it out. Even if Wilson wins has appeal I'm sure he will have served his time by then.
 

Tasty Biscuits

with fancy sauce
Aug 8, 2011
12,161
3,415
Pittsburgh
I'd put it at 8 games. Or a tenth of the season. However, I am fine with 10 games being the threshold.

IIRC, leaving the bench to engage in an altercation is an automatic 10-gamer. I believe Eric Godard did it way back during the Pens-Isles fiasco. He was suspended 10 games, and took up a roster spot during that time.
 

ScaredStreit

Registered User
May 5, 2006
11,082
2,971
Tampa, FL
The NHL is so soft on suspensions and then they scratch their heads and wonder why they keep happening. Just when I thought they were getting serious about them...they prove me wrong.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
Dont bother people here are ignorant and wont use common sense when its about Wilson.
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.
 

ScaredStreit

Registered User
May 5, 2006
11,082
2,971
Tampa, FL
Yes. Cannot wait for him to injure another player. :help:

He will do it again.

Cooke basically ended Savard's career (a legit star player), and didn't even get a minor penalty. Even some of his teammates said he should face suspension. Cooke then got several suspensions afterwards, but it's ok because "he changed". You're 100% correct that Wilson will do it again.
 

kladorf2005

Registered User
Apr 20, 2018
1,403
1,614
Can someone explain to me why this matters? Hershey is a 2 hour drive from DC. How hard would it be to swap out a player back and forth with someone else as needed for whatever reason? As many have already stated, including this guy below, it doesn't free up any cap space. So whoever they replace him with still has to fit within the cap. And big deal if they don't have to ship some other guy (who isn't dressing anyway) 2 hours north.

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.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->