Kolzig Retires

[Goffie]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=292267

[Swayze11]

I kinda saw this coming. Good thing I dont get hit by a buy-out though.

[Prototype]

The man who took the Nordique to their only playoff birth... god speed Olaf!

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I kinda saw this coming. Good thing I dont get hit by a buy-out though.

Why not?

[Sylvanfan]

He didn't sign him to that contract. He was clever enough to find that out before he claimed him. Tricky Avalanche.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

He didn't sign him to that contract. He was clever enough to find that out before he claimed him. Tricky Avalanche.

Gottcha...I knew he was signed, I just couldn't remember who did it

[Caged Great]

I did, but immediately threw him on waivers.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

He didn't sign him to that contract. He was clever enough to find that out before he claimed him. Tricky Avalanche.

Since when, this is a CPHL first... It's ALWAYS been if the players retires in his 1st year of his contract fee's are paid regardless who currently has him, that has always been the risk for obtaining such risky players

This is new and unfair to the previous teams that have been hit with such fines. All this now does is creat a huge loophole to sign retiring players and trade then off on the first day so it free everyone of any penalities

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Rules

If a player retires in the NHL he retires at the same time in the CPHL. No buyout is required for retired players UNLESS acquired via UFA in the same season.

He's where he was acquired 2 months ago during the UFA process
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ghlight=kolzig

Rules say nothing about which team needs to have acquired him, reason being fines we always handed out.

[Goffie]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

He's where he was acquired 2 months ago during the UFA process
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ghlight=kolzig

Rules say nothing about which team needs to have acquired him, reason being fines we always handed out.

I have to agree with Doug on this one, I know in the past I was hesitant to trade for newly signed UFA's that I thought posed a retirement risk.

[Swayze11]

Its in the rules guys:

If a player retires in the NHL he retires at the same time in the CPHL. No buyout is required for retired players UNLESS acquired via UFA in the same season.

The key point there is "acquire via UFA" I did not acquire him via UFA... I did via waivers.

[I wanna be like Miikka]

Yep I interpreted the rule the same as Pat. As long as you acquired him by other means then it is ok. He acquired him via waivers so based on that should be free of a buyout.

I guess we'll need some clarification.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Its in the rules guys:

If a player retires in the NHL he retires at the same time in the CPHL. No buyout is required for retired players UNLESS acquired via UFA in the same season.

The key point there is "acquire via UFA" I did not acquire him via UFA... I did via waivers.

you didn't but he was acquired through the UFC process, my point being is that GM's have been penalized in the past and all of a sudden the rule is now doing a 360

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...33&postcount=3

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...69&postcount=6

nobody cared here that the Sharks signed the player here then only question was if he was signed during the UFA process. Which he wasn't as the commish responded.

[Sylvanfan]

I know Pat did ask Jeff about it when he was considering making the claim. The ruling was that since he didn't acquire the player as a UFA than he wouldn't be penalized for the buyout. Which leads me to believe if you trade for a guy signed as a UFA than he retires...you shouldn't be on the hook for the cap hit either.

I see where you stand Doug because when I was asked I thought it meant any player signed as a UFA during the summer would carry the retirement buyout risk for that first year regardless who had the player. But to be truthful, it's easier to keep track the way it's been done.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't think he's going to actually retire. This is basically the same situation Mike Rathje was in - if he retires he gives up his contract. He can be placed on Long-term Injury and still collect.

If he does retire screws me too - I would lose the player and the buyout would put me over the cap, while being a short a dman.

Fingers crossed.

Here's a post from Grant who traded for Mike Rathje from me, Grant makes it very clear that he was under the impression that if Rathje retired that he was getting hit by a cap hit.

that two quotes from two commishes

[JiriHrdina]

The rule I've always applied is that the player had to have been actually SIGNED by that team. Now if past teams have been hit with buyouts for players they traded for who then retired - I'll need to see proof of that because I don't recall that ever being the case.

The rules say "UNLESS acquired via UFA" which as far as I know means once he is traded to a new team the GM is off the hook.

As for the posts Doug has produced - I don't remember the Rathje situation at all - perhaps I was confused at the time. Jeff's comments don't seem to clarify the situation one way or the other in that thread...the example in that case wasn't relevant at all since he wasn't a UFA. So other factors never had to be even considered.

If someone can produce an example of when a player retired who was acquired via trade and the buyout was applied then I will look at it. Otherwise the buyout doesn't apply because that's how we have done it to this point.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

As for the posts Doug has produced - I don't remember the Rathje situation at all - perhaps I was confused at the time.

This really surprises me Grant, do you really think you were confused there, and all along whole deal you were feeding me a line to get a player cheaper (I don't believe that by the way). I do honestly think you're above that, as I tell many GM's online you're a great GM to deal with, a very honest one.

thanks goffie, I knew i wasn't alone on this... but i wish I didn't say anything now. on the bright side, hopefully Fleury quits on hockey again

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

This really surprises me Grant, do you really think you were confused there, and all along whole deal you were feeding me a line to get a player cheaper (I don't believe that by the way). I do honestly think you're above that, as I tell many GM's online you're a great GM to deal with, a very honest one.

Cripes dude I don't remember our conversation about the Rathje deal - I barely remember what I just said to my g/f 5 minutes ago let alone an MSN discussion a year ago.

However upon reading the entire thread from that post you pulled out of mine I realized it has nothing to do with our trade for Mike Rathje.

Earlier in the thread I posted:
The Wild get Hatcher.
3 years @ .67, 15%

I signed Hatcher after he was released by Slava as a UFA...so when I said:

"If he does retire screws me too - I would lose the player and the buyout would put me over the cap, while being a short a dman. "

I was not referring to Rathje but rather to Hatcher who I signed as a UFA and as such was subject to any possible buyout at the time of a retirement. At the time I was right up against the cap so I would have gone over.

Mike Rathje was put forth as an example of an NHL player on LTIR who had technically not retired from the NHL but was in sorta a strange limbo. It had nothing to do with our trade. At the time of the post Rathje wasn't even a member of my team anymore.

As far as I know we have always consistently applied the buyout/retirement rule in a consistent fashion but if examples and put forth of where it was not applied this way I will happily reconsider.

Frankly I'm a little miffed that I even had to post such a long winded explanation to defend my integrity as a GM and a commissioner but so be it. I appreciate the fact that you gave me the benefit of the doubt - but I also think these misunderstandings can arise when we search back in posts to try and prove something - the context gets lost and this type of thing happens.

What matters is how the rules have been applied and those are the examples we need if we are to change a ruling like this.

[Da_Chief]

I'm running out of popcorn.

[flambers]

The rules say "UNLESS acquired via UFA" which as far as I know means once he is traded to a new team the GM is off the hook.

That is the way the rule reads and the only way I can ever remember giving out fines to teams... if a UFA player is moved to another team there is no fine remaining if the player retires.

Player has been retired without a fine