Vegas about to circumvent cap again? UPD: Mark Stone back practicing.

[pantherbot]

Something could get done, when Both sides can agree on a solution, that doesn’t involve some of the suggestions like banned from round 1.
Likely could be something like the 20 skaters for the game have to be cap compliant or maybe up to some small percentage over.
Being cap complaint would probably eliminate most trades, so maybe a little over.

AGAIN, there would be no ban for any players. The suggested solution that a player on LTIR is ineligible for round 1, saying that's a ban, is as much a stretch as saying a player that has to be sent to the minors because the team needs to be cap compliant in the regular season is a ban.

It's a team and player choice. If they want to be playing in round 1, then active and get off LTIR. There would be no ban. There is no situation where a player that would play for round 1 would not be able to unless they were not going to play anyways. No players should have any objection to this.

The easiest rule to implement would be a team must submit a cap compliant roster 2 days after game 82, and any players on LTIR are ineligible for Round 1 except if the player was on LTIR to start the season, keep no cap in playoffs. It's the same effect as keeping the cap in place for round 1, except you wouldn't need to do all the complicated calculations.

 

[Chaos2k7]

In reality, and not some nebulous idea of "keeping trying," there aren't that many possible solutions to this. But the first question that has to be answered is what the priority is. I laid out the two central priorities that are at odds in my last post. They can only choose one of them. To fix this problem, they'd have to change the current priority. I have doubts that they will.

They will arbitrarily pick a point in time and a team, and throw the book at them. This is the MO of the league, to think it's not coming is burying your head in the sand.

Someone will be made an example to the rest, once they finally have had enough of it.

The camels back always breaks, the question is do you want your franchise involved in it once the shit hits the fans.

Was the Kovalchuk contract the only ine of its kind? Nope just the last example right before the league had enough.

Was the punishment they got fair in that situation? It won't be in this one either.

Chicago and Tampa Bay started this, Vegas is on another level. Some GM will convince a desperate owner moving forward and that franchise will pay for everyone sins. Count on it.

 

[Golden_Jet]

AGAIN, there would be no ban for any players. The suggested solution that a player on LTIR is ineligible for round 1, saying that's a ban, is as much a stretch as saying a player that has to be sent to the minors because the team needs to be cap compliant in the regular season is a ban.

It's a team and player choice. If they want to be playing in round 1, then active and get off LTIR. There would be no ban. There is no situation where a player that would play for round 1 would not be able to unless they were not going to play anyways. No players should have any objection to this.

The easiest rule to implement would be a team must submit a cap compliant roster 2 days after game 82, and any players on LTIR are ineligible for Round 1 except if the player was on LTIR to start the season, keep no cap in playoffs. It's the same effect as keeping the cap in place for round 1, except you wouldn't need to do all the complicated calculations.

Like I said, in the post you quoted, need to come with a solution both sides agree to, that isn’t one of them,
Looks like a ban, smells like ban, it’s a ban.

 

[Jets]

There’s nothing stopping the NHL from just changing LTIR so that rather than getting full relief for a players entire cap hit, they get relief equal to a buried cap hit (1.150M this season).

That allows you to add a minimal salary or call up a player to replace your LTIR guy, and not cause any cap issues with calculations or trying to make playoff caps work…

 

[Tawnos]

They will arbitrarily pick a point in time and a team, and throw the book at them. This is the MO of the league, to think it's not coming is burying your head in the sand.

Someone will be made an example to the rest, once they finally have enough of it.

Yes, that thing the league did once really qualifies as being their MO. It also wasn't arbitrary the one time they did it, but rather the most flagrant example. Kovalchuk wasn't the first example, but his contract was by far the most extreme.

I'm just not as convinced at you that they will have had "enough of it" when presented with the alternatives.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

There’s nothing stopping the NHL from just changing LTIR so that rather than getting full relief for a players entire cap hit, they get relief equal to a buried cap hit (1.150M this season).

Other than ....... you know ........ the NHLPA, since it gets a say in that since it would be a CBA change.

And, probably, GMs around the league since in a situation like Toronto the Leafs would be stuck with ... [does teh actuarials] ... about $11 million in dead cap space from completely legitimate injuries that the Leafs have no control over.

 

[Derailed75]

They will arbitrarily pick a point in time and a team, and throw the book at them. This is the MO of the league, to think it's not coming is burying your head in the sand.

Someone will be made an example to the rest, once they finally have had enough of it.

The camels back always breaks, the question is do you want your franchise involved in it once the shit hits the fans.

Was the Kovalchuk contract the only ine of its kind? Nope just the last example right before the league had enough.

Was the punishment they got fair in that situation? It won't be in this one either.

Chicago and Tampa Bay started this, Vegas is on another level. Some GM will convince a desperate owner moving forward and that franchise will pay for everyone sins. Count on it.

That would require the other owners (IE the league) to give a shit. By the shear fact that Chicago, TB, and now Vegas who have done it multiple times without even being scolded have done this tells me the owners dont care there for will not take action.

 

[Chaos2k7]

That would require the other owners (IE the league) to give a shit. By the shear fact that Chicago, TB, and now Vegas who have done it multiple times without even being scolded have done this tells me the owners dont care there for will not take action.

And just like Kovalchuk they didn't care about Luongo, or Weber contracts, until suddenly they did.

If you all think it won't be addressed at some point, remember me when they suddenly care and one team is punished more than the others. Hopefully it will be your favorite team affected, maybe then you will see things clearer.

Our GM had the chance to game this system too this very season, he didn't.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Just because you can't come up with one now, doesn't mean there isn't one, or that the search for said solution should be halted until it falls into the laps of the BoG.

It's a competitive advantage, anyone with eyes can see it, and it should be addressed.

No one is saying it shouldn't be addressed. Some of us are trying to impress on numerous others that this "one size fits all" sledgehammer idea that has been floated 500 times, and will probably be floated 500 more, isn't it.

And no, I'm not saying "until you have the perfect solution, we can't have a solution." But I am saying that a completely shitty solution with about 5 seconds of thought, if that, may [will] end up being worse than a better solution that involves some thought, discussion and scenario-testing to make sure it doesn't create unintended problems. I prefer my solutions to be good, viable and not create problems that then needed to be solved that should have been forseeable, were forseeable, but there was a rush to implement a solution for the sake of being able to say "we did something."

 

[Jets]

Other than ....... you know ........ the NHLPA, since it gets a say in that since it would be a CBA change.

And, probably, GMs around the league since in a situation like Toronto the Leafs would be stuck with ... [does teh actuarials] ... about $11 million in dead cap space from completely legitimate injuries that the Leafs have no control over.

Fair. I guess you’d have to create a third IR.

IR = same as today
STIR = short term IR (gain relief equal to buried hit, player can return this season/playoffs)
LTIR = player will not return this season, full relief granted

 

[Ted Hoffman]

i just love how you guys have seemingly put more thought and consideration into this problem than the nhl has.

Honestly, that's not a surprise given how "contracts that are too long" were "solved" and a few of us had better solutions that would have truly solved the problem. Or, at the very least, been a lot better solution than what we have now.

Fair. I guess you’d have to create a third IR.

IR = same as today
STIR = short term IR (gain relief equal to buried hit, player can return this season/playoffs)
LTIR = player will not return this season, full relief granted

The NHLPA isn't going for a designation of IR where the player can't return to play at all, where there might be a possibility that the player could in fact return to play - which means, everyone is going to sit on "STIR" which leaves teams in the Toronto situation.

 

[Chaos2k7]

No one is saying it shouldn't be addressed. Some of us are trying to impress on numerous others that this "one size fits all" sledgehammer idea that has been floated 500 times, and will probably be floated 500 more, isn't it.

And no, I'm not saying "until you have the perfect solution, we can't have a solution." But I am saying that a completely shitty solution with about 5 seconds of thought, if that, may [will] end up being worse than a better solution that involves some thought, discussion and scenario-testing to make sure it doesn't create unintended problems. I prefer my solutions to be good, viable and not create problems that then needed to be solved that should have been forseeable, were forseeable, but there was a rush to implement a solution for the sake of being able to say "we did something."

Agreed, but no fan or fan base will come up with the perfect solution, doesn't mean you stop discussing the issue or sweep it under the rug until the right one is found.

It's an obvious oversight in the last CBA. Once they rewrite it, the work will begin on how to exploit the new version of said rules. Then we will discuss the new issues.

Perfect solutions in ideal situations and perfect solutions in practice are two seperate entities.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

This is a rule literally everyone can take advantage of and y’all mad at Vegas? For what?

Idiocy all around.

 

[pantherbot]

Like I said, in the post you quoted, need to come with a solution both sides agree to, that isn’t one of them,
Looks like a ban, smells like ban, it’s a ban.

It's not, but you can keep saying it is.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Agreed, but no fan or fan base will come up with the perfect solution, doesn't mean you stop discussing the issue or sweep it under the rug until the right one is found.

Fine, discuss it until your heart is content. But let's discuss it by offering rational ideas that are plausible, not ill-fated shitty ideas that are certain to be dead on arrival at the NHLPA's doorstep.

It's an obvious oversight in the last CBA. Once they rewrite it, the work will begin on how to exploit the new version of said rules. Then we will discuss the new issues.

Is it an "obvious oversight," though? I mean, I recall pointing out in 2006 that it wasn't clear how the cap was going to apply in the playoffs and by 2007 the league had stated it didn't, but I don't ever recall me or anyone else saying wow, so the cap doesn't apply in the playoffs? That means someone could park guys on LTIR, made deadline moves, get to the end of the season, then have everyone come back and on the roster because the cap doesn't apply in the playoffs.

I certainly expected that if a team tried that, the league would shoot it down. That's the "oversight" part: I didn't think the league would just waive a white flag and do everything short of having Robin Pemberton go in front of all the GMs and say "have at it, boys." But, I also foresaw after the Daniel Briere contract and then the Zdeno Chara contract that teams could abuse the rules to sign ultra-long, ultra-front loaded contracts in a way that was clearly intended to circumvent the cap, and I didn't expect the league would jam both hands up its ass and do nothing about it as contract after contract got passed to Central Registry and the league stamped APPROVED on each one given that Article 26 gave it wide discretion to put an end to that stuff.

Which brings me right back to: there are rules in place to put an end to this already. The league chooses not to enforce them. The solution doesn't have to be "create more rules," it can be very simply "enforce the rules that exist." And if the league isn't going to do that, I don't know why anyone thinks the league is going to tack on more rules that, if not thought out properly, may leave leeway for teams to exploit that the league is again not going to do anything about - which, at 115 pages and counting just for this, will send the same people back into the same angry frenzy yet again.

Perfect solutions in ideal situations and perfect solutions in practice are two seperate entities.

True, and I've never said otherwise. But let's at least try for a good solution, not a f***ed-up one.

 

[Chaos2k7]

Fine, discuss it until your heart is content. But let's discuss it by offering rational ideas that are plausible, not ill-fated shitty ideas that are certain to be dead on arrival at the NHLPA's doorstep.


Is it an "obvious oversight," though? I mean, I recall pointing out in 2006 that it wasn't clear how the cap was going to apply in the playoffs and by 2007 the league had stated it didn't, but I don't ever recall me or anyone else saying wow, so the cap doesn't apply in the playoffs? That means someone could park guys on LTIR, made deadline moves, get to the end of the season, then have everyone come back and on the roster because the cap doesn't apply in the playoffs.

I certainly expected that if a team tried that, the league would shoot it down. That's the "oversight" part: I didn't think the league would just waive a white flag and do everything short of having Robin Pemberton go in front of all the GMs and say "have at it, boys." But, I also foresaw after the Daniel Briere contract and then the Zdeno Chara contract that teams could abuse the rules to sign ultra-long, ultra-front loaded contracts in a way that was clearly intended to circumvent the cap, and I didn't expect the league would jam both hands up its ass and do nothing about it as contract after contract got passed to Central Registry and the league stamped APPROVED on each one given that Article 26 gave it wide discretion to put an end to that stuff.

Which brings me right back to: there are rules in place to put an end to this already. The league chooses not to enforce them. The solution doesn't have to be "create more rules," it can be very simply "enforce the rules that exist." And if the league isn't going to do that, I don't know why anyone thinks the league is going to tack on more rules that, if not thought out properly, may leave leeway for teams to exploit that the league is again not going to do anything about - which, at 115 pages and counting just for this, will send the same people back into the same angry frenzy yet again.


True, and I've never said otherwise. But let's at least try for a good solution, not a f***ed-up one.

I don't fancy myself smart enough to find the solution, my issue is, with the fans that have taken up the position, that because nothing has happened, nothing ever will, or it's impossible to fix. At some point they will address it, probably in the next CBA.

It's a real issue, and we are looking at the tip of the proverbial iceberg here.

The NHL has always been a reactionary league not a proactive one.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I don't fancy myself smart enough to find the solution, my issue is, with the fans that have taken up the position, that because nothing has happened, nothing ever will, or it's impossible to fix. At some point they will address it, probably in the next CBA.

It's a real issue, and we are looking at the tip of the proverbial iceberg here.

The NHL has always been a reactionary league not a proactive one.

Do I think the league will do something eventually? Yes, it's just a question of what it can get the NHLPA to go along with / what it has to give the NHLPA in return.

Do I think it will look more like "do something" than "fixing the real problem?" Also yes, especially based on recent history.

And therein lies the problem: I want a solution, not "a solution" that creates more problems that have to be solved. Or, creates more problems but those get ignored because "we 'fixed' the problem." Fans should want that too, they shouldn't be cheering for something out of vengeance at one or two teams that, when implemented, comes back to bite their team in the ass and then they're complaining about how unfair it is. [See: complaints about high cap hits and teams running out of cap space, which is a direct consequence of slapping a "one size fits all" solution across all players that still leaves the door open for exploitation by teams with older players ... which, to be honest, I'm shocked no one has done yet.]

 

[Mubiki]

I think a big part of it is that in the sports culture, there is a very strong "whatever it takes to win" mentality involved. There is even a "you are not trying if you are not cheating" idea in some circles. As a result, you have 2 sides of the opposing force here, one that "it is technically within the rules of the CBA so nothing is wrong here" and the other side of "what about the spirit of the cap (and to an extent, the spirit of sports)?" competing against each other.

I don't think either side is wrong per se, I just think it is differing mentality. I hate to say it, but the "winners" in sports (ie: those winning championships) are likely those that has the "whatever it takes" mentality to them. Every players and every team needs to push the envelop as much as possible to gain an advantage, and that advantage could be the difference between winning and losing. Especially in a matchup of top teams. For example, Vegas is somewhere close to $5m over the cap right now. If you force them to be cap compliant for this series, they likely have to drop one of Marchesault or Hanifin right now. You think they win game 2 without either? I'm not sure. But because they push for that advantage, now they have a comfortable 2-0 lead going home. They are technically "playing within the rules" but I can understand why some fans and media people don't like it.

I understand your point, but I'm confused about the fence sitting.

How is it not clearly wrong?

The mechanic is deliberately designed to allow teams to free up cap space to remain competitive when a player is unable to play. It is not designed to allow teams to ice a roster that would otherwise be impossible. Using something that exists to mitigate risk and protect the competitive environment and exploiting it to gain an undeserved advantage is clearly wrong.

Every argument suggesting otherwise seems to require that we reframe the argument by avoiding the question entirely or creating a false ethical dilemma with a seemingly competing idea. The most common of these arguments seems to be the "Well everyone had this option they just elected not to do it."

This is a cop out of course, because it completely avoids the ethical dilemma entirely by suggesting that the unfairness was created by the inaction of the disadvantaged. It's actually a strange manner of victim blaming. The argument is that the competitive disadvantage was not the result of Vegas' action against expectations but the inaction of 15 other teams who refused to exploit the situation.

Imagine if you and I agreed to a race and when lining up I started early and beat you by two seconds. When you point out that it wasn't fair I tell you that I never explicitly said that you couldn't start running early. I then state that my head start was actually your fault, because you had the option to start early but didn't. Imagine being told that your disadvantage was due to your integrity, by assuming we would race fairly; not ME for blatantly disrespecting any semblance of fair play. It's only sports, so it's not really that important at all, but this would be textbook gaslighting/victim blaming in any context that actually matters.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I understand your point, but I'm confused about the fence sitting.

How is it not clearly wrong?

The mechanic is deliberately designed to allow teams to free up cap space to remain competitive when a player is unable to play. It is not designed to allow teams to ice a roster that would otherwise be impossible. Using something that exists to mitigate risk and protect the competitive environment and exploiting it to gain an undeserved advantage is clearly wrong.

Every argument suggesting otherwise seems to require that we reframe the argument by avoiding the question entirely or creating a false ethical dilemma with a seemingly competing idea. The most common of these arguments seems to be the "Well everyone had this option they just elected not to do it."

This is a cop out of course, because it completely avoids the ethical dilemma entirely by suggesting that the unfairness was created by the inaction of the disadvantaged. It's actually a strange manner of victim blaming. The argument is that the competitive disadvantage was not the result of Vegas' action against expectations but the inaction of 15 other teams who refused to exploit the situation.

Imagine if you and I agreed to a race and when lining up I started early and beat you by two seconds. When you point out that it wasn't fair I tell you that I never explicitly said that you couldn't start running early. I then state that my head start was actually your fault, because you had the option to start early but didn't. Imagine being told that your disadvantage was due to your integrity, by assuming we would race fairly; not ME for blatantly disrespecting any semblance of fair play. It's only sports, so it's not really that important at all, but this would be textbook gaslighting/victim blaming in any context that actually matters.

The argument isn’t the inaction of 15 other teams, you need to have a player have surgery in February say, before that team can be labeled inactive, assuming they chose to stand pat.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

I understand your point, but I'm confused about the fence sitting.

How is it not clearly wrong?

The mechanic is deliberately designed to allow teams to free up cap space to remain competitive when a player is unable to play. It is not designed to allow teams to ice a roster that would otherwise be impossible. Using something that exists to mitigate risk and protect the competitive environment and exploiting it to gain an undeserved advantage is clearly wrong.

Every argument suggesting otherwise seems to require that we reframe the argument by avoiding the question entirely or creating a false ethical dilemma with a seemingly competing idea. The most common of these arguments seems to be the "Well everyone had this option they just elected not to do it."

This is a cop out of course, because it completely avoids the ethical dilemma entirely by suggesting that the unfairness was created by the inaction of the disadvantaged. It's actually a strange manner of victim blaming. The argument is that the competitive disadvantage was not the result of Vegas' action against expectations but the inaction of 15 other teams who refused to exploit the situation.

Imagine if you and I agreed to a race and when lining up I started early and beat you by two seconds. When you point out that it wasn't fair I tell you that I never explicitly said that you couldn't start running early. I then state that my head start was actually your fault, because you had the option to start early but didn't. Imagine being told that your disadvantage was due to your integrity, by assuming we would race fairly; not ME for blatantly disrespecting any semblance of fair play. It's only sports, so it's not really that important at all, but this would be textbook gaslighting/victim blaming in any context that actually matters.

Isn't that EXACTLY what happened? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a vote after the Hawks/Kane situation, where the GMs were put to a vote on whether to address the LTIR issue, and Tampa was THE ONLY TEAM that voted to do something about it. Tampa saw that there were no appetite for action so they themselves got into gaming the LTIR. This is precisely the situation where the inaction of the "disadvantage" caused the result where we have teams well over the cap playing in the playoff. And honestly, nobody (aside from maybe Arizona due to their ownership situation) is disadvantaged here, any team could pull this off had they wanted to. It take an owner that is willing to spend over the cap, a GM that is aggressive and creative, and some luck with timing in regards to injuries. But there is nothing inherently unique that prevent other teams to pull this off.

I'm not condoning it, I don't like that there is a loophole to be exploited in the CBA. However, as it is currently set up, and as there is apparently no desire from the people running the show to close such loophole, Vegas/Tampa/Chicago did nothing wrong by taking advantage. I don't begrudge them for it, and I don't think there is anything unethical about it. Perhaps my definition of ethical is different than yours?

It does bring into the question the fairness of the game and the perception is not good with some people, but that is a different argument. The perception of fair play is vital to any respectable league, and if the NHL doesn't address this matter and teams continue to repeatedly and aggressively abuse the loophole, they may lose some fans.

 

[Thallis]

Isn't that EXACTLY what happened? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a vote after the Hawks/Kane situation, where the GMs were put to a vote on whether to address the LTIR issue, and Tampa was THE ONLY TEAM that voted to do something about it. Tampa saw that there were no appetite for action so they themselves got into gaming the LTIR. This is precisely the situation where the inaction of the "disadvantage" caused the result where we have teams well over the cap playing in the playoff. And honestly, nobody (aside from maybe Arizona due to their ownership situation) is disadvantaged here, any team could pull this off had they wanted to. It take an owner that is willing to spend over the cap, a GM that is aggressive and creative, and some luck with timing in regards to injuries. But there is nothing inherently unique that prevent other teams to pull this off.

I'm not condoning it, I don't like that there is a loophole to be exploited in the CBA. However, as it is currently set up, and as there is apparently no desire from the people running the show to close such loophole, Vegas/Tampa/Chicago did nothing wrong by taking advantage. I don't begrudge them for it, and I don't think there is anything unethical about it. Perhaps my definition of ethical is different than yours?

It does bring into the question the fairness of the game and the perception is not good with some people, but that is a different argument. The perception of fair play is vital to any respectable league, and if the NHL doesn't address this matter and teams continue to repeatedly and aggressively abuse the loophole, they may lose some fans.

The gist is correct, the teams are not. There were 2 teams that voted to do something about it. One was the Blues. The other is unknown but was confirmed to not be Tampa, despite early reporting that Tampa was.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

How is it not clearly wrong?

Using something that exists to mitigate risk and protect the competitive environment and exploiting it to gain an undeserved advantage is clearly wrong.

Every argument suggesting otherwise seems to require that we reframe the argument by avoiding the question entirely or creating a false ethical dilemma with a seemingly competing idea.

This is a cop out of course, because it completely avoids the ethical dilemma entirely by suggesting that the unfairness was created by the inaction of the disadvantaged. It's actually a strange manner of victim blaming.

You keep positing this in an ethical frame, where your ethics are correct and the ethics of anyone who disagrees with your are wrong. You also keep blurring the line between legality and ethically correct.

In your mind, it may be unethical if I make $25 billion in a year. I may [almost certainly will] think making $25 billion in a year is completely ethical. As long as I'm doing it legally, just because you find something to be unethical doesn't mean you get to impose your ethics on me - and, vice versa. It also doesn't mean I have to submit to whatever demands you want to make such that my income is now "ethically acceptable" to you.

The problem in the context of this thread may well be the rule that is in place. Or, it could be the inaction of the league. [I would argue the latter.] The solution isn't "everyone agree to some gentleman's agreement where we'll do the 'ethically correct' thing" and then punish someone who does something that's still legal, but which others think is unethical. The solution is really "enforce the rules in place," but after that the solution is to change the rule. In this situation, there's no unilateral way to change the rule no matter how strenuously anyone may demand it and "simply do X" has unintended consequences that some don't want to acknowledge.

But pretending we can change things to do X unilaterally, you may find that solution to be ethical. I may find it to be unethical. According to the arguments you keep making, even if the actions I find objectionable are legal under this new rule, because I think they are unethical then you have to accept my ethics and submit to whatever demands I make so that the end result is now ethically acceptable to me.

TL;DR - this isn't an ethical problem. It's a legal (under the terms of the CBA) problem. Until you find a solution that's acceptable to everyone that's a party to the CBA complaining about what's ethical and what's not is useless, and demanding everyone abide by some set of ethics you find to be acceptable is really useless.

 

[2for1PizzaPastuh]

With all the capologists employed by teams nowadays and with the ambiguous writing of the rules, there is no surprise teams push the limits of the said rules.

Doesn't make it right, nor does it mean it should be acceptable. Many laws and rules get amended after unforseen circumstances happen.

But the whole we aren't the first, and therefore it's all good is ludicrous.

This is obviously the most blatant attempt yet, and if not curbed, it's going to get worse, because by the same logic here everyone should just try anything until someone says no, apparently.

When the league comes down on someone and they will, it'll be interesting to see how the fans of those teams react to the it's all good until its not deemed not, positioning on the subject.

That's actually crazy, I didn't even really think about that. I just imagined 16 teams all LTIRing anywhere from $5M to $20M every year before the deadline. LOL!

 

[HamiltonNHL]

That's actually crazy, I didn't even really think about that. I just imagined 16 teams all LTIRing anywhere from $5M to $20M every year before the deadline. LOL!

That would be progress.

So the league fixes the problem.

The salary cap applies to the season and the post season.

 

[BTO]

I'm sure it's some rare medical condition. SalaryCircumventionItis.

NHL can be such head in the sand losers, at times.

It's not that rare it seems.