Kipper won't agree to be traded

[Dr. Doom]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agree'd who really wants a goalie long in the tooth with HORRIBLE stats this year to boot? This is a non issue blown up to be something.

That first overall nonsense is just that. Kipper might be worth a 2nd or 3rd and who would even consider it? Not the Leafs who keep being mentioned they have two goalies with far better numbers, and younger.

At this stage let Kipper just ride out into the Alberta sunset. Leave the old man alone!

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

Sure i could if i did not want a cheque at the end of the week.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

I don't think any of us would get away with saying if you want me to report to Timbuktu, I'm not going to. I'll continue to work for you here for the next 6-8 weeks, then retire. Most of us would be shown the door.

His current contract does not give him the right to refuse to be traded.

[moon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

Sure and you can be wrong for doing it as well.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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.

Then retire. If he is traded and refuses to report, he is in violation of his contract. If he retires right now, he's not.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Sure i could if i did not want a cheque at the end of the week.

Which is exactly what Kipper would be doing if he refused to report. It's not like he's quitting and still collecting money.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Frankster

I don't think any of us would get away with saying if you want me to report to Timbuktu, I'm not going to. I'll continue to work for you here for the next 6-8 weeks, then retire. Most of us would be shown the door.

His current contract does not give him the right to refuse to be traded.

Of course it does...all players have that right, it just comes down to whether or not they are willing to be paid any longer if their current team then suspends them.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

Not really. Kipper can threaten to not go to work if traded and act on that threat. Only thing that will happen is that he will be suspended and not be paid. If I was contractually obligated to do something and I don't do it, I may legally be forced to do it or pay for the company's cost of hiring someone else to do the job and or losses.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by moon

Sure and you can be wrong for doing it as well.

If you say so. I don't see how quitting because you're unhappy with your work environment, or because you feel uncomfortable doing something you've been asked to do is wrong. You're not stealing money from them.

Again, really odd hearing all of this coming from such pro free-market folks.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Frankster

Then retire. If he is traded and refuses to report, he is in violation of his contract. If he retires right now, he's not.

Right....and he wont be payed. This is no different than him saying "OK trade me, but when you do, Im going to retire" in which case the deal would be voided immediately by the league...leaving things exactly as they are now.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FAN

Not really. Kipper can threaten to not go to work if traded and act on that threat. Only thing that will happen is that he will be suspended and not be paid. If I was contractually obligated to do something and I don't do it, I may legally be forced to do it or pay for the company's cost of hiring someone else to do the job and or losses.

If you are a self-employed contractor, technically your company can be sued. But if you are a contract employee, then no, you really can't.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by redforever

Hakan Loob decided to call it quits, in his prime, after he won the Cup.

Why is he not being stabbed with a pitch fork?

I don't think the issue is Kiprusoff retiring, the issue is that he would possibly refuse to report to a new club if traded. At least for me that's the issue anyways.

If Kipper wanted to announce his retirement today, I would still have as much respect tomorrow as I did today. But that's not the situation, it's that he would refuse to report if traded, which is basically strong arming the Flames into keeping him.

IMO he either needs to retire or play, irregardless of team. If he wants to retire then retire, if he wants to play then play wherever that may be.

[Robo]

Has this been confirmed yet or is it still just a rumor?

[moon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If you say so. I don't see how quitting because you're unhappy with your work environment, or because you feel uncomfortable doing something you've been asked to do is wrong. You're not stealing money from them.

Again, really odd hearing all of this coming from such pro free-market folks.

He is not quitting though.

He is still collecting his paycheck as far as I can see.

And as far as I know Flames can't stop paying him for these comments.

[afc wimbledon]

I think it is fairly clear what he is saying is I will retire if you trade me.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Right....and he wont be payed. This is no different than him saying "OK trade me, but when you do, Im going to retire" in which case the deal would be voided immediately by the league...leaving things exactly as they are now.

I have stated multiple times that it is purely optics. If he doesn't want to be traded for family reasons because there were major complications with his last child, then request a leave of absence or retire now. That would not leave some of us feeling like he is being a jerk.

Many folks here bagged on Sundin for refusing to be traded (under a NTC) because he wasn't being a team player. Now that it's one of our own, lots seem to be ok with it. I don't get this place sometimes

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by moon

He is not quitting though.

He is still collecting his paycheck as far as I can see.

And as far as I know Flames can't stop paying him for these comments.

If it pissed the Flames off enough to not want to pay him anymore they could easily put him on waivers and then stop paying him once he refuses to report to a new team or Abbotsford. Right now he's still playing when asked, thus fulfilling his contractual obligation.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by moon

He is not quitting though.

He is still collecting his paycheck as far as I can see.

And as far as I know Flames can't stop paying him for these comments.

For the comments...no. But if he was dealt and refused to report, then they most certainly could suspend him. Why bother with making that scenario a reality though when you already know what the outcome would be.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frankster

Many folks here bagged on Sundin for refusing to be traded (under a NTC) because he wasn't being a team player. Now that it's one of our own, lots seem to be ok with it. I don't get this place sometimes

And anyone who did is wrong on that level. A team has no vested interest in a player's future when they trade him, why is a player required to have a vested in his team's future?

[Buff]

This is all a bit moot anyway. Sure he can be traded, but seriously, how many starting goaltenders get traded on trade deadline day, or the days leading up to it, anyway? It isn't likely that a trade would happen this season anyway. So, until something happens, stop getting all worked up about nothing.