Canes potentially dealt big blow!!!!

[KevanGuy]

The rumours of the Bruins paying Jonsson 3 MILL to stay in Europe may have actually been true!



http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...40&hubName=nhl

[Young Guns]

LOL! You sure thats not one of your make-belive web sites? That is a costly blow indeed.

[Hanna Sniper]

No big deal, he hasn't retired and i we have a year.... ok by me

[KevanGuy]

I think if he retires from the NHL hes done here too.

[Hanna Sniper]

IF, there's no word of that

[Hanna Sniper]

I'll rather him then a certian some else though

[Sylvanfan]

I think he is still okay for this year...He has to officially retire from hockey in order to be deemed ineligible, or play two consecutive years in Europe from what I understand. Considering that with expansion on the horizon, and rumors that they may extend the rules to three years in Europe to lose CPHL eligibility, the only effect this may have is that the Canes lose the last year of his contract.

[Superfraggle]

Originally posted by Sylvanfan@Apr 7 2005, 05:49 PM
I think he is still okay for this year...He has to officially retire from hockey in order to be deemed ineligible, or play two consecutive years in Europe from what I understand.# Considering that with expansion on the horizon, and rumors that they may extend the rules to three years in Europe to lose CPHL eligibility, the only effect this may have is that the Canes lose the last year of his contract.

Wow...I started to post based on the old rule that, once he retires in the NHL, he retires at the same time in the CPHL. Planning to quote the rule, I went to the page and found that they have already reworded the rule as a result of the Salo situation. Nothing if not efficient. With the way it's now worded, it looks like Sylvanfan is right.

edit: to remove childish jab

[Sylvanfan]

Originally posted by Superfraggle+Apr 7 2005, 11:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Superfraggle @ Apr 7 2005, 11:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sylvanfan@Apr 7 2005, 05:49 PM
I think he is still okay for this year...He has to officially retire from hockey in order to be deemed ineligible, or play two consecutive years in Europe from what I understand. Considering that with expansion on the horizon, and rumors that they may extend the rules to three years in Europe to lose CPHL eligibility, the only effect this may have is that the Canes lose the last year of his contract.

Wow...I started to post based on the old rule that, once he retires in the NHL, he retires at the same time in the CPHL. Planning to quote the rule, I went to the page and found that they have already reworded the rule as a result of the Salo situation. Nothing if not efficient. With the way it's now worded, it looks like Sylvanfan is right. Then again, I've found what we think the rules say doesn't matter so much as what the commissioners decide they mean, so ya never know. [/b][/quote]
Actually the rule was already worded that way at the start of the season. The thing is that Salo retired from hockey, and thats why he was done in the CPHL. Again theres variables in play like an NHL lockout, and looming CPHL expansion so you can't say with much certainty what will happen for sure. Heck he's gotta officially announce that his NHL days are done too in order for it to become an issue.

[Goffie]

From my understanding of the article it does not state that Jonsson is actually announcing his retirement rather he is just going to stay over in europe. So looks like he will be available for this year and next at least!

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally posted by KevanGuy@Apr 7 2005, 06:13 PM
The rumours of the Bruins paying Jonsson 3 MILL to stay in Europe may have actually been true!

LOL, somehow I missed that Bruins bit in my first read, funny



Gibson's suck :P

[Superfraggle]

Originally posted by Sylvanfan+Apr 7 2005, 06:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sylvanfan @ Apr 7 2005, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Wow...I started to post based on the old rule that, once he retires in the NHL, he retires at the same time in the CPHL. Planning to quote the rule, I went to the page and found that they have already reworded the rule as a result of the Salo situation. Nothing if not efficient. With the way it's now worded, it looks like Sylvanfan is right. Then again, I've found what we think the rules say doesn't matter so much as what the commissioners decide they mean, so ya never know.

Actually the rule was already worded that way at the start of the season. The thing is that Salo retired from hockey, and thats why he was done in the CPHL. Again theres variables in play like an NHL lockout, and looming CPHL expansion so you can't say with much certainty what will happen for sure. Heck he's gotta officially announce that his NHL days are done too in order for it to become an issue. [/b][/quote]
Actually, it wasn't. Hate to burst your bubble, but this is how it was worded a month ago: "If a player retires in the NHL he retires at the same time in the CPHL. ". This is how it is worded now: "If a player retires then he retires immediately from the CPHL."

[Wonder_Boy]

Well if Hanna is worried about Jonsson not playing in the NHL again.. I'll give you an offer for the offseason.

To Carolina: DAL 6th 2005

To Dallas: Kenny Jonsson

:P ...

[KevanGuy]

Originally posted by Superfraggle@Apr 7 2005, 07:12 PM
Actually, it wasn't. Hate to burst your bubble, but this is how it was worded a month ago: "If a player retires in the NHL he retires at the same time in the CPHL. ". This is how it is worded now: "If a player retires then he retires immediately from the CPHL."

So who cares if the rules are re-written? Whats the big deal?

[Superfraggle]

Originally posted by KevanGuy+Apr 7 2005, 07:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KevanGuy @ Apr 7 2005, 07:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Superfraggle@Apr 7 2005, 07:12 PM
Actually, it wasn't. Hate to burst your bubble, but this is how it was worded a month ago: "If a player retires in the NHL he retires at the same time in the CPHL. ". This is how it is worded now: "If a player retires then he retires immediately from the CPHL."

So who cares if the rules are re-written? Whats the big deal? [/b][/quote]
I mentioned it originally because the old wording might have allowed for Johnsson to retire right away, whereas the new version doesn't appear to. That last post was merely refuting Sylvanfan's false claim that it wasn't changed. I think the change is a good thing, as it more clearly spells out the way things stand. I also approve very much of the speed with which they fixed it.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally posted by Superfraggle+Apr 8 2005, 01:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Superfraggle @ Apr 8 2005, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

So who cares if the rules are re-written? Whats the big deal?

I mentioned it originally because the old wording might have allowed for Johnsson to retire right away, whereas the new version doesn't appear to. That last post was merely refuting Sylvanfan's false claim that it wasn't changed. I think the change is a good thing, as it more clearly spells out the way things stand. I also approve very much of the speed with which they fixed it. [/b][/quote]
NERD!!!

To be honest I didn't see the new wording that said a player who retires from hockey is retired in the CPHL. It was something that was always known, but not specifically worded in the rules. Again revisions required because of the NHL lockout this past season.

[Superfraggle]

Originally posted by Sylvanfan@Apr 7 2005, 07:59 PM

NERD!!!

To be honest I didn't see the new wording that said a player who retires from hockey is retired in the CPHL. It was something that was always known, but not specifically worded in the rules. Again revisions required because of the NHL lockout this past season.

So you said the rule wasn't changed, but didn't bother to look at the rule just in case it HAD changed and I'm not an idiot? Just remember this in the future: Superfraggle is ALWAYS right...well....almost always...often enough that the odds are pretty good that, in any specific situation, I am PROBABLY going to be right. :P

[notoepik]

Originally posted by Superfraggle@Apr 7 2005, 07:07 PM
Just remember this in the future: Superfraggle is ALWAYS right...well....almost always...often enough that the odds are pretty good that, in any specific situation, I am PROBABLY going to be right. :P

:biglaff:







)

LOL

Not!

[Hanna Sniper]

Ok, Superfraggle. I don’t know but I really believe this thread was a little friendly jab at two teams facing off in the playoffs…. Whether or not Jonsson retires or not I don’t really care, the league decision is perfectly ok by me (when that time comes) I for sure doubt KevanGuy meant for it any more then friendly banter between rivalries. Making this thread into a league issue really takes the true purpose out of the thread. You knew the risk for trading for Salo and accepted them, if you have a problem with it then use the league complaint button or forget about it. And if the league wishes to change any wording to retire Jonsson then that’s prefect ok with me also because the league has the “leagues” best interest in mind and not mine, as it should be.

Just let it go, all this over a 5th rounder

[Superfraggle]

Originally posted by Hanna Sniper@Apr 7 2005, 10:03 PM
Ok, Superfraggle. I don’t know but I really believe this thread was a little friendly jab at two teams facing off in the playoffs…. Whether or not Jonsson retires or not I don’t really care, the league decision is perfectly ok by me (when that time comes) I for sure doubt KevanGuy meant for it any more then friendly banter between rivalries. Making this thread into a league issue really takes the true purpose out of the thread. You knew the risk for trading for Salo and accepted them, if you have a problem with it then use the league complaint button or forget about it. And if the league wishes to change any wording to retire Jonsson then that’s prefect ok with me also because the league has the “leagues” best interest in mind and not mine, as it should be.

Just let it go, all this over a 5th rounder

*sigh* I understand that it was friendly banter. Sylvanfan made a post pertaining to the realities of the situation, and I responded to it. At the end of that post, I lost my head and took a shot at the league. You're right. That was dumb, and it has been edited. I have traded a few emails with the league regarding my complaints and, while not satisfied with the result, I am willing to let it go. The Salo reference was originally just meant to explain the rule change which, as I have stated, I agree with fully. My dispute with the league is over their interpretation of the old rules, not the change of the rule. Rest assured, the 5th never had anything to do with it.

Rebuke delivered, accepted, let's move on.