Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
I think this season is an anomaly but I think during our off-season we should consider if we can update how we handle to better align to the realities of what's happening in the NHL.
I see two paths
- We keep the current approach, which is if the player is on LTIR they aren't retired, but they get hit hard in re-rates. This benefits GMs in some cases (they can continue to use a player this year) but it also hurts GMs in others (e.g. GMs have to keep a non retired player on their roster using up cap space - Colin Wilson, Dustin Byfuglien (bit of a different situation), etc)
- We become more liberal in our definition of retirement and if a player communicates they aren't playing any more, or accepts an off-ice position - we consider them done.
This has been a moving target and we are doing the best to be consistent in how we apply the rule. But I think it's time to figure out how to evolve it given the NHL behaviours in play. To me that's a call we can align on in the off-season.
|
We have rules about signing NHL vets to UFA contracts, that if they retire then we are penalized. But we are using a standard for players that were nothing like this, whose career was cut short and unclear. Today was the first time I've ever heard that player saying they are done is not considered retired. if a player still has a term on his contract yet retires, we have never gone with the contract before. So the rules are being changed as we go to adjust to the situations (a good thing IMO) but those situations by all means aren't the standard now of how we have always done things. How we have always did things was deal with the situation as it happened
the article on Steen very obviously states that he's done in the NHL, calling it a career. Do we think that Boychuck or Steen will ever play another game? Because if we do then it's understandable to do the wait and see.
We created rules and makes teams reconsider signing player that could very likely retire. Now we are trying very hard to not acknowledge and enforce them. That was part of the game of sending in offers on players, do you take the risk to send an offer in or not.
Isn't losing these players from rosters a good thing? That creating holes and making GM's fill those positions help the league be more active. By putting penalties on signing UFA adds a risk factor. I thought this was part of the game and am confused why I'm a bad guy for thinking its a good thing
I'm lost