At this point I'm just going to start quoting from my own post because nobody seems to be able to read it:
If a player is not healthy enough to play in game 82, the team simply puts him on regular IR. They can even do this earlier so that the player will be available to start the playoffs. The problem you're referring to is not a problem.
Maybe avoid pretending you know what I think, when we both know you have no idea what I'm thinking and never will.
Or, ignore me if you've got that much angst about what I have to say.
well I think its pretty obvious that Stone (and Kucherov) could (have) come back before game 1 of the playoffs unless youre naive as hell.
In which case being on regular IR or being a healthy scratch will count against the cap in the playoffs. I think we’re saying the same thing, and I agree with that. Same rules for regular season and playoffs. That’s the easy way to go.
It's been an ongoing thing since the Hawks did it with Kane all those years ago. Tampa spoke up and nobody cared, so then Tampa used it with Kucherov. Then Vegas did it, and did it again, and I'm still not seeing the same level of outrage from players, coaches, managers and owners that I see from fans online.
This. I don't care what "great" idea people have for "fixing" the cap for the playoffs, as long as there's ANY aspect of it that can cause players to have to come off IR to play in the playoffs despite being hurt or having to miss any amount of the playoffs because of an injury, where they might be healed enough to play before that mandatory waiting period is over, that idea is a complete non-starter with the NHLPA.
Parity would be okay if it wasn't artificially forced down your throat. But here it's simply the league trying to create the illusion of parity for monetary gains.
why are you so mad? LOLOL
Hm. Please point to any post I have made where I claim that it is likely that the owners are going to approve my idea? I'm arguing that they should do this, not that they are likely to. I've never met the owners, so I'm not going to make any definite claims about what they will or won't do.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.
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.
Right. Which is why in most cases, teams would simply change their status from LTIR to IR. I wonder why you quoted option 1 and option 2 from my post but ignored option 3, where I mentioned moving the player to standard IR.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.
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.
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.
Why do you, like other people from time to time, think you know what I think when we both know you have no idea what I think?
You're going into Clinton talk here.
If you don't like how I communicate, put me on ignore. I promise I'll get over it pretty quickly.
1. LTIR is a subset of IR. It's not a distinct grouping.
Your actual idea is ... well, let's go right back to the source, lest you bitch and complain I inserted a word incorrectly:
1 and 2 require the player to be taken off IR, which I've explained to you at least 3 times and to others about a combined 99,003 times is never getting past the NHLPA.
"I don't like what you have to say, so you must be the problem and not me."
Logic and morality says that if you can't play the last game of the regular season you shouldn't be able to play first game of the playoffs a couple of days later. And the logical thing to do would be to expand the ineligibility for the entire first round.
I have this weird thing about wanting people to respond to the actual content of what I say and the intended meaning behind it. I know. It's really strange.
Yeah, it's a really hard thing to prove. I'm not sure why you tried to claim that the owners would never do something. It's not really logical to make definite claims about things not being possible when you don't have any real proof of that.Proving Non-Existence
Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove...www.logicallyfallacious.com
I've dealt with worse. I'll manage.
Let's see...
Who are you even talking to? It's clearly not me.I love how you assumed that in option 1 and 2, the player would be injured. Why would anyone suggest that? It's asinine. In Stone's case, Vegas would only use 1 or 2 if he was healthy.
Good thing my idea isn't that anyone has to play in game 82. You might want to read my idea again. or I can explain it again if you like. IT sounds like you heard a similar idea before and you're confusing that with the idea I posted. I've heard ideas where the player would have to actually play in game 82 to be eligible in the playoffs, which is a stupid idea in my opinion for the reasons you listed here.
I doubt you would be able to get consensus on that. Other people's sense of logic and morality are likely to lead them to suggest different timelines.
Because there isn't one.
I understand your idea, and the bottom line is, you’re suggesting that teams can use LTIRI have this weird thing about wanting people to respond to the actual content of what I say and the intended meaning behind it. I know. It's really strange.
Yeah, it's a really hard thing to prove. I'm not sure why you tried to claim that the owners would never do something. It's not really logical to make definite claims about things not being possible when you don't have any real proof of that.
I've dealt with worse. I'll manage.
Let's see...
Me: "I understand this would require changes to the wording of the CBA"
You: "You can't move a player from LTIR to IR unless you're changing the CBA for that. Which, you're going to have to change lots of other stuff in the CBA to match, which I'm confident you and others haven't touched the first letter or punctuation mark on."
Me:
I love how you assumed that in option 1 and 2, the player would be injured. Why would anyone suggest that? It's asinine. In Stone's case, Vegas would only use 1 or 2 if he was healthy.
Obviously option 3 was the intended idea for if the player was still injured. And I know I put it in small text, but my suggestion would be if a player was going to be ready for the playoffs, the team would move them from LTIR to IR 7 days before the start of the playoffs, not game 82.
Good thing my idea isn't that anyone has to play in game 82. You might want to read my idea again. or I can explain it again if you like. IT sounds like you heard a similar idea before and you're confusing that with the idea I posted. I've heard ideas where the player would have to actually play in game 82 to be eligible in the playoffs, which is a stupid idea in my opinion for the reasons you listed here.
I understand your suggestions, and the bottom line is, you’re suggesting that the team can’t use LTIR to load up and then be over the cap in the playoffs because the player either plays game 82, or activated and is a healthy scratch, or put on regular IR. All this is what I’m suggesting. Be cap compliant in the playoffs. You can still use LTIR in the regular season and trade for all the players you want, but once the playoffs start you gotta be cap compliant periodI have this weird thing about wanting people to respond to the actual content of what I say and the intended meaning behind it. I know. It's really strange.
Yeah, it's a really hard thing to prove. I'm not sure why you tried to claim that the owners would never do something. It's not really logical to make definite claims about things not being possible when you don't have any real proof of that.
I've dealt with worse. I'll manage.
Let's see...
Me: "I understand this would require changes to the wording of the CBA"
You: "You can't move a player from LTIR to IR unless you're changing the CBA for that. Which, you're going to have to change lots of other stuff in the CBA to match, which I'm confident you and others haven't touched the first letter or punctuation mark on."
Me:
I love how you assumed that in option 1 and 2, the player would be injured. Why would anyone suggest that? It's asinine. In Stone's case, Vegas would only use 1 or 2 if he was healthy.
Obviously option 3 was the intended idea for if the player was still injured. And I know I put it in small text, but my suggestion would be if a player was going to be ready for the playoffs, the team would move them from LTIR to IR 7 days before the start of the playoffs, not game 82.
Good thing my idea isn't that anyone has to play in game 82. You might want to read my idea again. or I can explain it again if you like. IT sounds like you heard a similar idea before and you're confusing that with the idea I posted. I've heard ideas where the player would have to actually play in game 82 to be eligible in the playoffs, which is a stupid idea in my opinion for the reasons you listed here.
Yeah, I think we're both aiming for the same goal. I just think that while both solutions require changes to the CBA, my solution requires smaller changes.
Yup, and I don’t really care how they get there as long as they make the change. I know people say, well it’s the rules and everyone can play the LTIR game, but that’s not really true. Everyone can’t use the LTIR and load up because players mostly choose where they want to be traded to because they have no trade lists and stuff.
