Kipper won't agree to be traded

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Complications with the birth...everyone is assuming it has to do with the baby....they shouldn't.

Have a hard time believing that if there were any complications that Kipper would have jumped on a plane 36 hours later for 2 games in Nashville and Columbus.

The flames probably would not have wanted him in the lineup if his head was not 100%.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really, you've never heard of this happening in an office environment? "Bob, you're approaching retirement, we'd like to give your position to Dave because he's just graduated and has a bright future at this company. In the mean time, we're gonna move you to our office in Edmonton so you can help out up there."

That never happens?

Again, why is Kipper under any obligation to help the Flames future prospects? They won't be helping his.

In your example sending him to the AHL is the better comparision. How often does one company trade employees with a competitor.

GM: hey ford we have an older design engineer, can we trade you for one mail room clerk, a middle level manager and a summer student.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frankster

If he doesn't want to leave the city for family reasons, then he should be taking a leave of absence ala Dominic Moore for the rest of the season and then retire. That would have most people here supporting his decision and we wouldn't have a 20+ page thread debating whether he is being selfish and not honouring his contract.

The end result is exactly the same. The Flames still don't end up with assets in exchange for him.

[Notdoneyet]

i think kipper had this in his mind when he signed the last contract. He gave us the last year at 1.5 million to get a better cap hit. There is no way Kipper will play next year in calgary or anywhere else for 1.5 million.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

In your example sending him to the AHL is the better comparision. How often does one company trade employees with a competitor.

What difference does it make if they're sending him to the AHL to open up a spot for another goalie, or trading him to a competitor? Both are moves made for the future that don't benefit Kipper in any way.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The end result is exactly the same. The Flames still don't end up with assets in exchange for him.

End result is the same, but it doesn't leave some of us with a dirty taste in our mouths. One has him leave the team a hero and everyone wanting his number retired. The other has us hoping he never gets mentioned for Forever a Flame.

Requesting a leave of absence and the team trying to trade him makes the team look awful. Stating he won't report if traded makes him look awful.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So because he's a millionaire, he forefeits the same labour rights afforded to the rest of the population. Logical.

It's actually very logical. Kipper is paid millions of dollars a year more than the lowest paid goalie in the NHL because he performs a job that is considered to be worth that much. So his absence will cause his employers enough to make a strong argument for undue hardship: Meaning the Flames likely don't have to accomodate Kipper like other businesses do when employees apply for parental leave.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What difference does it make if they're sending him to the AHL to open up a spot for another goalie, or trading him to a competitor? Both are moves made for the future that don't benefit Kipper in any way.

Then the Flames should do what they need to do, and #### him.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Notdoneyet

i think kipper had this in his mind when he signed the last contract. He gave us the last year at 1.5 million to get a better cap hit. There is no way Kipper will play next year in calgary or anywhere else for 1.5 million.

This is my thought also. There is a good chance that he told the flames his intentions at the start of the season and the media is just getting the info now. To them it looks like he is saying no with a week left until the deadline. To the flames organization they have been told months in advance and are fine with it.

[moon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really, you've never heard of this happening in an office environment? "Bob, you're approaching retirement, we'd like to give your position to Dave because he's just graduated and has a bright future at this company. In the mean time, we're gonna move you to our office in Edmonton so you can help out up there."

That never happens?

Again, why is Kipper under any obligation to help the Flames future prospects? They won't be helping his.

I haven't ever heard of that but guess it is possible.

He knew full well that without a NMC this was a good possibility of happening.

Trading older vets at the end if a deal is not odd. They aren't asking him to do something out of the ordinary.

I do t think Kipper is the devil, hope he gets his number retired here and will cheer for him as loud as I can when he does but I do think he is wrong for doing this and if I were the Flames and he told me that I would say thank you very much you can spend all the time you need with your child we do not need you for rest of season.

No pitchfork, no demonizing him and no but hurt just think he is wrong in his approach.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

He is honoring it, the contract has a provision allowing him to retire.

Originally Posted by rubecube

So because he's a millionaire, he forefeits the same labour rights afforded to the rest of the population. Logical.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really, you've never heard of this happening in an office environment? "Bob, you're approaching retirement, we'd like to give your position to Dave because he's just graduated and has a bright future at this company. In the mean time, we're gonna move you to our office in Edmonton so you can help out up there."

That never happens?

Again, why is Kipper under any obligation to help the Flames future prospects? They won't be helping his.

Your arguments are so flawed I have a migraine. NHL and pro atheletes play in a business where movement across north america is expected and part of their compensation. They live a nomadic lifestyle and are paid to be the best atheletes in their roles, and these roles are only available in certain cities. And transfers between teams and cities is commonplace and expected. Trying to shoe-horn that into an office enviroment for comparison sake is wrong.

[FlameZilla]

Kiprussoff still has 3 or 4 years left in him, if he chooses to keep playing. If he's happy to play the rest of his career in Calgary then I think we are exceptionally lucky. He's not putting up great numbers but that has to do with him being hung out to dry by our embarrassing team defence. Sign him to a 3 year extension at a discount & let him play 40-65 games a year while our young goalies develop.

Problem solved. Thanks Kipper!!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Your arguments are so flawed I have a migraine. NHL and pro atheletes play in a business where movement across north america is expected and part of their compensation. They live a nomadic lifestyle and are paid to be the best atheletes in their roles, and these roles are only available in certain cities. And transfers between teams and cities is commonplace and expected. Trying to shoe-horn that into an office enviroment for comparison sake is wrong.

Just because it's common practice in the profession doesn't mean it's obligated. If he still wanted to be paid not to report, that's a different story. The only reason people are freaking out about this is because they view Kipper as an asset, not a person. If this team was the #1 seed in the conference, with Kipper playing at Vezina-calibre, and ownership wanted to ship him out because he banged Edwards' daughter or something, I think people would be fine with him threatening not to report.

[hurtin_albertan]

Regardless of all of this, and apologies if it's been discussed already as I haven't read the entire thread, but is there really much of a trade market for Kipper at this point anyways? The writing is on the wall that this is Kipper's last season so he'd be purely a playoff rental, and aside from Toronto, Detroit, and possibly St Louis, I don't see any of the current playoff teams going out of their way to acquire Kiprusoff. Even then, I would think that the Flames would want back the kind of package that Vancouver is asking for in Luongo, and that is clearly not flying with other GMs.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FAN

It's actually very logical. Kipper is paid millions of dollars a year more than the lowest paid goalie in the NHL because he performs a job that is considered to be worth that much. So his absence will cause his employers enough to make a strong argument for undue hardship: Meaning the Flames likely don't have to accomodate Kipper like other businesses do when employees apply for parental leave.

If his absence causes them undue hardship, they wouldn't trade him.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Just because it's common practice in the profession doesn't mean it's obligated. If he still wanted to be paid not to report, that's a different story. The only reason people are freaking out about this is because they view Kipper as an asset, not a person. If this team was the #1 seed in the conference, with Kipper playing at Vezina-calibre, and ownership wanted to ship him out because he banged Edwards' daughter or something, I think people would be fine with him threatening not to report.

By signing a contract, he became an asset. Yes, he is still a person, but the team (and it's fans) have every right to view him as an asset.

We are all assets within our own companies. Like it or not, we are all asset assigned values within our own places of employment. Luckily for many of us, relocation is not something we have to do contractually.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If his absence causes them undue hardship, they wouldn't trade him.

Umm... I think you missed the point.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frankster

By signing a contract, he became an asset. Yes, he is still a person, but the team (and it's fans) have every right to view him as an asset.

We are all assets within our own companies. Like it or not, we are all asset assigned values within our own places of employment. Luckily for many of us, relocation is not something we have to do contractually.

Right, but if you are contractually obligated to do something and you don't want to do it, you can do exactly what he's doing.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Your arguments are so flawed I have a migraine. NHL and pro atheletes play in a business where movement across north america is expected and part of their compensation. They live a nomadic lifestyle and are paid to be the best atheletes in their roles, and these roles are only available in certain cities. And transfers between teams and cities is commonplace and expected. Trying to shoe-horn that into an office enviroment for comparison sake is wrong.

Any player, at any time, can, and sometimes does, say 'screw it I don't want to do this any more' there is a huge difference both morally and legally between that and 'screw it I don't want to play for you, or for x amount of dollars, but I do still want to play'.

At 37 with a family Kipper is long into reasonable retirement age for his career, I have no problem with him letting the team know that he isn't interested in playing anywhere else and that, as with any major issue, health etc, he would retire rather than under go some huge upheaval.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FAN

Umm... I think you missed the point.

Possibly. I wasn't really sure what paternity leave had to do with this conversation.