Solution to the LTIR Issue

[andora]

"Ted, why do you keep saying the average fan has no clue how a Collective Bargaining Agreement works?"



No one is making the owners or the players do anything they don't want. You or anyone else can rage post any idea you want, you're not making the two parties that make the decision do anything any more than you standing outside One Manhattan West and stamping your feet waiving a bullhorn demanding satisfaction. Please quit pretending "I think, therefore it must be right, therefore everyone else must do it" is a remotely plausible idea.


1. I'm sorry that you, like everyone else who keeps proposing this, has an objectively shitty "solution" and won't listen to criticism of it because you f***ing swear to God your solution is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or the Tamagotchi. Or the Thigh Master. Or all three combined.

2. A "straw man" argument is inventing some other claim and then attacking it. I'm not attacking something else, I'm attacking your "solution" because it's objectively shit for reasons I explained and it is never getting accepted by the NHLPA [and probably the owners either] - except in your imaginary world where



3. I did read your response. It's nothing new. Seriously, you may think you've stumbled on some novel idea because it's not. It's the same idea, just in a new post and presented as something new and fresh. It's 6-month old rancid milk that's still sitting in the hot sun.

To avoid the gatekeeping complex maybe just avoid these topics if they are so triggering

Or have an actual conversation

 

[MarkT]

It’s very simple. Just make it so teams have to be cap compliant in the playoffs. You can still use LTIR during regular season if you do have injuries, but when playoffs come, gotta be cap compliant. Problem solved

What about Black Aces? Or do you just mean roster on the ice? In that case, you're talking about a functionally higher cap, since the regular cap includes healthy scratches and players on IR. So I don't see your solution as very simple.

 

[the_fan]

What about Black Aces? Or do you just mean roster on the ice? In that case, you're talking about a functionally higher cap, since the regular cap includes healthy scratches and players on IR. So I don't see your solution as very simple.

I mean if you’re not using LTIR during regular season, you gotta stay cap compliant having a full healthy roster including scratches. Just apply the same rule in the playoffs. If you do have a player on LTIR for the regular season but you know the player will be back anytime in the playoffs, you can’t go crazy and start trading for expensive players, and that’s the whole point.

 

[MarkT]

I mean if you’re not using LTIR during regular season, you gotta stay cap compliant having a full healthy roster including scratches. Just apply the same rule in the playoffs. If you do have a player on LTIR for the regular season but you know the player will be back anytime in the playoffs, you can’t go crazy and start trading for expensive players, and that’s the whole point.

But the roster works differently in the playoffs. Are you suggesting that the Black Aces would also need to fit under the cap? Or are you also suggesting a change to the way playoff rosters work?

I guess my point is that my suggestion solves the same problem, but without having to change the rules in the playoffs or muck around with the salary cap.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Tie a weight to the coach, player, Gm and owner and throw them in the lake like they used to do with potential witches.

If they float the injury is left, if they sink they faked it

 

[the_fan]

But the roster works differently in the playoffs. Are you suggesting that the Black Aces would also need to fit under the cap? Or are you also suggesting a change to the way playoff rosters work?

I guess my point is that my suggestion solves the same problem, but without having to change the rules in the playoffs or muck around with the salary cap.

Perhaps make it so scratches don’t count against the cap in the playoffs.

 

[Suntouchable13]

You guys are such whiners, honestly. I don't want to see parity, I want to see great teams load up. If someone doesn't like it, maybe their team should beat Vegas? The way you guys proposing shit, will make the NHL and the trade deadline very boring.

 

[Da McBomb]

Just have a Canadian team 'cheat' for once and do what Vegas is doing and I'm sure Bettman and the NHL would then step in and close this loophole real fast.

 

[MarkT]

Perhaps make it so scratches don’t count against the cap in the playoffs.

Okay. But now you've actually functionally increased the cap, because teams now have their scratches' salaries to work with.

You guys are such whiners, honestly. I don't want to see parity, I want to see great teams load up. If someone doesn't like it, maybe their team should beat Vegas? The way you guys proposing shit, will make the NHL and the trade deadline very boring.

I love the trade deadline as much as anyone (I used to book off work just to watch James Duthie suffer). I just love fairness more, and I don't think it's fair that teams who gets injuries to key players at the right times get to load up, and teams without injuries have to still stay below the cap. As an Avs fan, if Landeskog returns for game 1, I believe that is not fair to the team they are playing.

 

[Forge]

The best idea I know of (I take no direct credit because I'm sure others have thought of this too) is the following:

That's it. It's just that simple. If Vegas wants Mark Stone to play in the playoffs, they would have three options:

1. Dress him in game 82 and have him play.
2. Activate him but leave him as a healthy scratch.
3. Put him on regular IR, which would make him ineligible to play for 7 days.*

Teams aren't going to activate hurt players....I think that's that's going to be an NHLPA issue.

I also wouldn't give you the entire playoffs. Maybe the first round. There are absolutely injuries that are going to happen where the person is able to come back around the end of round 1, early round 2 or later. The playoffs last too long for that.

So I think the only real option here would be that if you're on LTIR in game 82, you automatically revert to regular IR on the first day of the playoffs and you're eligible to come off in 7 days.

 

[MarkT]

Teams aren't going to activate hurt players....I think that's that's going to be an NHLPA issue.

Obviously. Reread point #3 in the post you quoted.

I also wouldn't give you the entire playoffs. Maybe the first round. There are absolutely injuries that are going to happen where the person is able to come back around the end of round 1, early round 2 or later. The playoffs last too long for that.

If you think the player may come back later in the playoffs, simply go with option #3.

So I think the only real option here would be that if you're on LTIR in game 82, you automatically revert to regular IR on the first day of the playoffs and you're eligible to come off in 7 days

There is no IR in the playoffs - you would need to add a new rule for that.

 

[the_fan]

Okay. But now you've actually functionally increased the cap, because teams now have their scratches' salaries to work with.

I think that’s doable. Everything stays the same in regular season, in the playoffs the actual team you ice, has to be cap compliant, or to keep it more simple, just apply the exact same regular season rule to the playoffs. The entire roster including scratches needs to be cap compliant in the playoffs

 

[MarkT]

I think that’s doable. Everything stays the same in regular season, in the playoffs the actual team you ice, has to be cap compliant, or to keep it more simple, just apply the exact same regular season rule to the playoffs. The entire roster including scratches needs to be cap compliant in the playoffs

That's a much bigger change than what I'm suggesting though. Why not just go with the simpler, smaller change that achieves the same results?

 

[Forge]

Obviously. Reread point #3 in the post you quoted.

If you think the player may come back later in the playoffs, simply go with option #3.

There is no IR in the playoffs - you would need to add a new rule for that.

I'm fine with adding that rule. That's the one that i think makes the most sense if you're trying to "fix" this issue.

But also? I just don't care about the rules the way they are now. They don't bother me. And I don't think the owners much care either. They certainly haven't shown an issue with it yet. Maybe they get tired of Vegas exposing the rule, but I don't think they will unless VGK goes on a run of like 3 cups in 4 years

 

[Bringer of Jollity]

What about Black Aces? Or do you just mean roster on the ice? In that case, you're talking about a functionally higher cap, since the regular cap includes healthy scratches and players on IR. So I don't see your solution as very simple.

Why not continue to require a nominal 23-man roster that can be adjusted prior to each game? Thus a Black Ace can still be added in, but you have to deactivate another player for that game to do so. That 23-man roster for each game needs to be cap compliant, so you're dealing with same number of players, same cap number. Would require more work from the capologists and league office, but it shouldn't be information too difficult to gather and approve.

 

[Taluss]

All teams should have the opportunity to spend the same amount.

So in this year's case Vegas put *imput amount* on LTIR. Allow other owners to be able to go over the cap by that much as well for the remainder of the season

 

[MarkT]

Why not continue to require a nominal 23-man roster that can be adjusted prior to each game? Thus a Black Ace can still be added in, but you have to deactivate another player for that game to do so. That 23-man roster for each game needs to be cap compliant, so you're dealing with same number of players, same cap number. Would require more work from the capologists and league office, but it shouldn't be information too difficult to gather and approve.

That would be fine. Still way more complex and a bigger change than what I'm suggesting.

 

[Guttersniped]

or just implement the cap in the playoffs

Zero interest in this.

I want playoff hockey to have the best line-ups and the best hockey of the year.

We don’t need teams in the playoffs to potentially lose players, by being forced to put them on the IR, or icing less than a full team because injuries put them in cap trouble.

Stop trying to ruin the playoffs for everyone else.

 

[amnesiac]

Zero interest in this.

I want playoff hockey to have the best line-ups and the best hockey of the year.

We don’t need teams in the playoffs to potentially lose players, by being forced to put them on the IR, or icing less than a full team because injuries put them in cap trouble.

Stop trying to ruin the playoffs for everyone else.

so you dont have a problem with what Vegas is doing? how is THAT not ruining the playoffs for everyone else?

If they took a chance and invested in a guy whos constantly injured and may be an issue come playoff time, thats their problem. But using a blantant loophole which permits them to add 1-2 star players for the playoffs when they normally could not is just as bad as the Devils trying to sign Kovalchuk at a cheaper AAV by front loading a contract.

Bettman did something about the Devils when they attempted to use a loophole, but for some reason turns a blind eye when Tampa and Vegas do something similar.

 

[the_fan]

That's a much bigger change than what I'm suggesting though. Why not just go with the simpler, smaller change that achieves the same results?

The problem with your suggestion is, the injury timeline might actually be that the player can’t play in game 82, but would be ready within a week which is when playoffs start. He might miss the 1st game but be ready for the 2nd game of the first round. Seriously, the easiest thing to do is just apply the exact same regular season rule to the playoffs.

 

[King Woodballs]

As long as the teams and players are happy with what’s happening. It will not change.

 

[Taluss]

so you dont have a problem with what Vegas is doing? how is THAT not ruining the playoffs for everyone else?

The problem isn't what Vegas is doing. It's other teams not having the opportunity to do the same.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Good thing literally nobody said anything of the sort. I love that you're even bolding the word that I never used.

Oh, sorry. Let's try this again, see if it fits better.

You: "If enough fans see a problem, the owners should listen."
[A bunch of fans cry about a problem]
[Owners listen]
Owners: "Go f*** yourselves."

Well, there we go! The owners listened! Not a f***ing thing changed, but hooray, we're following the letter of what you really said without you being offended about other words involved while laying out exactly what's going to happen.

I said the owners should listen, because the owner of any business should listen if enough customers are upset about some aspect of their business.

By this same stroke of logic, adults should listen to their friends if if enough friends are upset about some aspect of the adult's life.

Quaint, beautiful, so logical. Unfortunately, reality is a bitch. Who knows, though. You should start a boycott if [when] the owners don't listen to you. I'm sure you'll show them.

I have to assume at this point you've just dealt with one too many whiny children because that the only thing that would explain the tone of your posts. I'll try not to take it personally.

I don't care if you take it personally or not. I've dealt with too many people that keep spouting the same crappy idea as if it's brilliant and simple, when 30 seconds of critical thinking reveals massive problems with it.

Like ... you know, you did as well when you pitched your idea as being so simple. Which, again, 30 seconds of critical thinking reveals massive problems with it.

Most of your post was talking about a scenario that would never happen.

You know what would never happen? The NHLPA agreeing to let teams force players into the lineup even when the player isn't healthy. Like, say, what's spelled out in Exhibit 25-A of the CBA where it specifically states the player has a right to a 2nd opinion regarding the [team] physician's determination of his fitness to play.

"There is no f***ing way the NHLPA is agreeing to a rule change that forces a player that might still be injured to have to play in a game"
That's your main point, but why would any team do this when they could instead put the player on IR?

1. If the player is already on IR, there's nothing else to be done. There's no well, we'll really put him on IR option. If he's on LTIR, he's not going on Super-LTIR or something.

2. To "Dress him in game 82 and have him play" or "Activate him but leave him as a healthy scratch" a player on IR - which is what you were referring to - necessarily has to come off IR. By definition, he can't be on IR and be on the Active Roster, much less be on IR and play in a game.

3. To come off IR, the team has to sign off that the player is fit to play. And, implicitly, the player has to agree he's fit to play - otherwise, he has the right to a second opinion so that he's not forced off IR when he's not fit to play.

4. To go back to an earlier comment of yours:

Nowhere in what I posted is the idea that an injured player would be forced to play.

If a player is on IR and not fit to play, under your idea he would necessarily be forced off IR to play - which means, (a) the team's physician has signed off that the player can play, and (b) if the player thinks he's not fit to play, he can't exercise his right to a second opinion. I know, I DIDN'T SAY FORCED! Unless you're going to go into some bizarre it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is argument, that requires some measure of nonconsent by the player.

Which, the NHLPA is going to interpret as "you're forcing the player to do ______."

Which, the NHLPA is never going to allow to happen.

If you want to discuss the logistics of your idea and try to find something workable that covers situations without creating unintended problems or harming parties who've otherwise done nothing wrong, I'm happy to help with that. I've tried this over the years, I can assure you it's nowhere near as simple as you or anyone else want to pretend it is. But if you're going to go on about how your points are being misrepresented while I quote your exact words and explain what they imply, or you're going to go full-defendant legalese like you did up top, or anything else that signals you're going to ignore explanations so you can keep saying you're right, I'm done.

 

[Rschmitz]

Move the TDL to right around the winter break. Gives fans something to entertain themselves with while no hockey, gives teams less opportunity to abuse LTIR, and gives players time to transition to their new team and so fewer players behind held out. It also gives players actual time to gel with their new teams and to make a difference.

 

[GKJ]

The issue with LTIR is less the Mark Stones, and more the Robin Lehners, which is to say the players who will never play again having their contracts exploited. Otherwise, Mark Stone is fair game and should remain that as he’s not retiring. Banning guys from playing in the playoffs will never, ever happen, nobody wants that nor should want it.