Kipper won't agree to be traded

[TheKurgan]

Lost a lot of respect for Kipper. By not agreeing to be traded he is giving a big FU to the Flames organization and Fans. Sure he is within his right, but it just goes to show how little he cares about the future of the team.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by TheKurgan

Lost a lot of respect for Kipper. By not agreeing to be traded he is giving a big FU to the Flames organization and Fans. Sure he is within his right, but it just goes to show how little he cares about the future of the team.

As legitimately pointed out by Rubecube, he has no need to have an investment in this team's future.

Also, it hasn't been actually confirmed by the Flames or Kipper himself that he made these statements.

We (myself included) in this thread are speculating on rumour.

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by TheKurgan

Lost a lot of respect for Kipper. By not agreeing to be traded he is giving a big FU to the Flames organization and Fans. Sure he is within his right, but it just goes to show how little he cares about the future of the team.

Maybe he should also offer to personally pay a signing bonus for a big off-season acquisition to show he cares about the future of this team?

[FAN]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

Umm... I'm pretty sure you're wrong. If you're an employee under contract and you refuse to honour your contract, you can be sued and either be forced to perform your contract or pay the company for damages or cost of replacement. You don't get to walk away and not be paid your salary like Kipper would if he refuses to honour his contract and doesn't play another NHL game.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

Some bonkers, bonkers lines of thought on this board this week. Force Kipper to retire for some comments he made to the media? Comments essentially saying he wants to stay & play for the team we support. Waive him & send him to Abbotsford? The meth must be really heavy in Cowtown these days...

And he probably didn't even make those comments to the media at all. For all we know, this could stem from a private conversation between him and Feaster and was leaked to the media by either party, could be completely fabricated by a media blowhard, or something in between.

Although it makes moving an "asset" nearly impossible now, I prefer that (if true) he made his intention to retire clear before a potential trade deal was in place. He's got the right to quit whenever he wants, so there's little point in shopping him around because he's at the point in his career where he'd rather walk away from the game than put his family through a move right now.

[evil1]

Kipper gets to decide if he wants to play & the Flames decide if they want to play him.

Kipper wants to live with his family, & doesn't want to move them at this time.

Kipper puts family first.

Good on Kipper.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Originally Posted by evil1

Kipper gets to decide if he wants to play & the Flames decide if they want to play him.

Kipper wants to live with his family, & doesn't want to move them at this time.

Kipper puts family first.

Good on Kipper.

What just happened here?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FAN

Umm... I'm pretty sure you're wrong. If you're an employee under contract and you refuse to honour your contract, you can be sued and either be forced to perform your contract or pay the company for damages or cost of replacement. You don't get to walk away and not be paid your salary like Kipper would if he refuses to honour his contract and doesn't play another NHL game.

Only if it was written into the contract. Most contract work I've done has never had anything like that in the verbiage. Most contracts usually require you to give notice, but that's about the thick of it.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you even know that any of this is true, or are you getting yourself this worked up over a rumour?

lol, how am I getting myself worked up. I mentioned this yesterday, I'm not worked up at all and find this topic and reaction it causes interesting. In my first posts I stated that everything I said was assuming the rumors were true but, giving Kipper the benefit of the doubt for now. this whole thread is based on rumour, figured that the opinions presented all reflect the fact that we are discussing a rumour and that it didn't need to be re-iterrated every single post.

Discussing rumours or speculation is fun, and its the only reason a site like this exists. If all we could discuss was proven facts, we'd be limited to boring game day threads for a terrible team.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

So if what is being claimed about his stance is true, then Miikka should announce his retirement effective immediately and not take his remaining $1.5 mm (approx) that he would be paid for the rest of the season.

IF he is attempting to give himself a NMC, he is not acting in good faith. I see no reason the Flames should continue to pay him. Trade him, force him to retire.

Actions have consequences. Acting in bad faith, if true, should have financial consequences for Kipper.

How is he acting in bad faith if the Flames still want him to play for them? As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, they can force him into retirement pretty easily.

[rubecube]

Really, for all we know, he could've said this last summer or at any time during his wife's pregnancy. Is it still wrong then? Should he just have retired on the spot, even if the Flames still wanted him to play at that point?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really, for all we know, he could've said this last summer or at any time during his wife's pregnancy. Is it still wrong then? Should he just have retired on the spot, even if the Flames still wanted him to play at that point?

Varying levels of wrong depending on when, why and what his stipulations were. For example, if he said over a year ago, I'm not gonig to accept a trade in the last year of my contract, or after my wife gives birth, but I'll waive my NMC now if you want to move me, then much less wrong. Still manipulates the terms of his deal, and forces the Flames hand a bit more than it should but he gives some pretty good options and notice for the team to deal, so not that bad.

If if found out his wife was pregnant 9 months ago and simply said, hey btw, my wifes pregnant, I'd like to keep playing but if you trade me I won't accept it and I'm out, still pretty shaddy.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Only if it was written into the contract. Most contract work I've done has never had anything like that in the verbiage. Most contracts usually require you to give notice, but that's about the thick of it.

Umm... ever heard of breach of contract lawsuits?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FAN

Umm... ever heard of breach of contract lawsuits?

Not applicable here.

[Bmuzyka]

Okay, lets try and put this in terms that other people can understand. Kipper is an asset to the Flames organization. They own a contract, guaranteeing his Service to play and they pay him. He is allowed to retire at any time. The Flames are allowed to Trade assets with other teams at nearly anytime they want (So long as that asset does not have a NMC).

Hypothetically, numerous teams are lining up to trade for Kipper, offering a First round draft pick, and maybe a prospect) because they are willing to part with their assets to make Kipper their asset.

This rumor now comes out, and no one knows from whom, or even if its true. If you were an NHL GM, would you be willing to part with Assets for one who is rumored to be retiring if he is traded and not finishing out his contract? This rumor, no matter if its true or not, or who started it, has de-valued Kipper.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. New York wants to trade Rick Nash (If he has a No Movement Clause), but he has threatened to retire if he is traded. Calgary is willing to part with a First Round Draft Pick for him. The Deal goes through, we lose a draft pick, and Nash retires. Wouldn't everyone around here be asking for Feaster's Head?

The fact is, no team is going to want to trade for Kipper now. The Flames are contractually allowed to trade him, but his value just went from Descent to Zero.

No matter where this originated, the situation sucks for the Flames

[moon]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

What just happened here?

I thought it was my phone.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Not applicable here.

That was my point which rubecube keeps trying to make applicable. Professional sports is quite different from your average "real life" profession. My point is that in real life, Kipper would have been able to apply for parental leave but given that he makes millions his company might not have to accomodate his request due to undue hardship. And if Kipper still chooses to breach his contract, Kipper could be legally required to either fulfill his contract, pay for damages, or pay for the cost of replacement.

[moon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really, for all we know, he could've said this last summer or at any time during his wife's pregnancy. Is it still wrong then? Should he just have retired on the spot, even if the Flames still wanted him to play at that point?

Probably not but my guess is my view and Flames management view is likely different on this.

I would have dealt him last offseason if could be regardless of this situation.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

The fact is, no team is going to want to trade for Kipper now. The Flames are contractually allowed to trade him, but his value just went from Descent to Zero.

No matter where this originated, the situation sucks for the Flames

I agree this sucks for the Flames if they were thinking of trading Kipper. But then again, maybe we have something like the Nabakov situation. If Kipper doesn't want to retire from the NHL he will have to report to the team he's traded to because he would be under contract for another year.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

Okay, lets try and put this in terms that other people can understand. Kipper is an asset to the Flames organization. They own a contract, guaranteeing his Service to play and they pay him. He is allowed to retire at any time. The Flames are allowed to Trade assets with other teams at nearly anytime they want (So long as that asset does not have a NMC).

Hypothetically, numerous teams are lining up to trade for Kipper, offering a First round draft pick, and maybe a prospect) because they are willing to part with their assets to make Kipper their asset.

This rumor now comes out, and no one knows from whom, or even if its true. If you were an NHL GM, would you be willing to part with Assets for one who is rumored to be retiring if he is traded and not finishing out his contract? This rumor, no matter if its true or not, or who started it, has de-valued Kipper.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. New York wants to trade Rick Nash (If he has a No Movement Clause), but he has threatened to retire if he is traded. Calgary is willing to part with a First Round Draft Pick for him. The Deal goes through, we lose a draft pick, and Nash retires. Wouldn't everyone around here be asking for Feaster's Head?

The fact is, no team is going to want to trade for Kipper now. The Flames are contractually allowed to trade him, but his value just went from Descent to Zero.

No matter where this originated, the situation sucks for the Flames

Don't use logic in here, it's Kipper, he played good in net for us, rabble rabble.