TSN: Suspended D Voynov signs in KHL

[YP44]

Still wish this guy signed in Anaheim. Quality player

I think LA still holds his rights so he would be a traded there first

 

[saintunspecified]

Not to mention that he kinda has to play. Roster rules means he cannot play in Europe (not sure for the AHL) during those 41 games.

That's the other part I was thinking about - the lack of transfer/other agreements between the NHL and the KHL. That lack of agreement potentially makes very long suspensions farcical. Players without NHL contracts who faced a long suspension in the NHL could go play in the KHL and there's very little than the NHL can do about it.

I think all this means is that it is possible for this suspension to blow up in the league's face in a big way *if* a team signs Voynov next year. I don't think the league needs to actively collude, and tell the teams not to sign Voynov. Any team with the smallest bit of sense should understand this.

 

[MXD]

That's the other part I was thinking about - the lack of transfer/other agreements between the NHL and the KHL. That lack of agreement potentially makes very long suspensions farcical. Players without NHL contracts who faced a long suspension in the NHL could go play in the KHL and there's very little than the NHL can do about it.

I think all this means is that it is possible for this suspension to blow up in the league's face in a big way *if* a team signs Voynov next year. I don't think the league needs to actively collude, and tell the teams not to sign Voynov. Any team with the smallest bit of sense should understand this.

Well, they could really be playing anywhere but the AHL (I think) when suspended.

When I was saying a player can't really play in Europe, I was more referring to the fact any player joining the NHL after signing a past after Dec 1st has to go through waivers. Again, -- not sure if this rule applies to players signed to AHL deals.

 

[Garl]

Right, the "some other person who was convicted was actually innocent" defence.

All it proves is that the other guy was innocent.

It's a terrible argument.

It's called false equivalence.

Does it prove that a conviction does not always mean guilt?

 

[NyQuil]

Does it prove that a conviction does not always mean guilt?

In this particular case, it proves absolutely nothing.

Someone accused of a different crime under different circumstances was found guilty and later exonerated.

To try and apply that situation to this one is ridiculous.

That would be like me throwing you out of an airplane and expecting you to survive because Vesna Vulovic did once.

So tell me, womens rights champion, why did Marta choose to stay with Slava and go back to that backwards country. She had him in her hands, if she decided to press the charges, he would have been jailed, stripped from all of his posessions and deported with no pardon afterwards. And instead, she goes with him and they have two children together. Why?

You think the fact that she is still with Slava proves that he didn't do it?

Do you know anything about female assault victims?

Maybe she forgave him. Maybe she thinks he's still worth living with. Maybe she's emotionally or financially dependent on him.

It has no bearing on whether the original assault occurred.

A court of law determined that it did, using the available evidence, including the wife's testimony.

 

[MMC]

Because this thread is no longer about Voynov signing and has devolved into personal attacks, closed.