Kipper won't agree to be traded

[Enoch Root]

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

Yes, it sucks for the Flames.

That does not mean that Kipper has done anything wrong.

[transplant99]

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

Any GM trading for Kipper would easily be able to find out what his intentions really are before agreeing to a deal...all itb would require is a quick call to his agent with the OK from the Flames management.

No Calgary wouldnt lose a pick because the deal would be voided by the league.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FAN

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

Yes, and that generally applies to project work and is usually specified in the contracts. Apples to oranges.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

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

Yes, discussing a player as an employee and invoking standard labour practices/rights is illogical. Good call.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FAN

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.

I would imagine that the standard player contract dictates what occurs in such a situation, and I can't imagine that paying for the cost of replacement would be considered. You also can't force someone to fulfill a contract, and an action for damages seems highly unlikely. I would expect it would be the same as any other holdout we've seen, the player isn't paid and his contract doesn't toll until he reports.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yes, and that generally applies to project work and is usually specified in the contracts. Apples to oranges.

No it's not apples to organges. I think you need to throw whatever you have about contracts out the window here. There is a reason contractual rights are so important to NHL contracts, it's because NHL teams want players to honour their contracts. That's why they make it impossible for players to play for another NHL team without completing their contracts. Specific performance is of utmost importance here.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

I would imagine that the standard player contract dictates what occurs in such a situation, and I can't imagine that paying for the cost of replacement would be considered. You also can't force someone to fulfill a contract, and an action for damages seems highly unlikely.

Unless you're Kevin Lowe...

[SuperMatt18]

If this is true I understand the reasons why Kipper is doing what he is doing, (family etc)...doesn't mean I don't think he is wrong for doing it.

He is paid handsomely for being a hockey player, but one of the drawbacks is that your job description calls for you to potentially be moved at any time....even within a month of your newborn child being born.

If he really wanted this protection he should have negotiated it as part of the contract, and lets be serious he could have had the NTC for the full term if he really wanted. Fact is he didn't negotiate that NTC for the full length of the contract, and if the rumors are true he is now trying to force a hypothetical NTC by holding the team hostage and threatening to retire if moved.

If this is the case Kipper should just retire right now irregardless of the trade. His family is obviously in a situation where he cannot be away from them for a month or two and him being away from them on the road for a week or two at a time is likely just as stressful.

If you believe Keenan and Warrenner (I do) it is obvious that he is retiring in the offseason, and the Flames clearly are not making the playoffs this season. In that case why even play the last 17 games (with the majority on the road) if you cannot take being away from your family.

I guess the $ 1 million dollars left for Kipper to earn while probably playing 12-14 games over the next 30 days is a factor, because if he is declining a trade he shows he doesn't care very much about the chance to go out winning a cup.

EDIT: This is all assuming no complications with Kipper's childs birth. If there are complications I fully understand his position and respect his request to not be traded.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by valo403

I would imagine that the standard player contract dictates what occurs in such a situation, and I can't imagine that paying for the cost of replacement would be considered. You also can't force someone to fulfill a contract, and an action for damages seems highly unlikely. I would expect it would be the same as any other holdout we've seen, the player isn't paid and his contract doesn't toll until he reports.

You're missing the point. rubecube was trying to relate NHL contracts to "real life" contracts. Here, Kipper can be traded, not report, and choose to retire from the NHL and his "punishment" would be that he would be suspended and not paid his NHL salary. In real life he can and likely would be sued for breach of contract. somehow rubecube thinks that's not the case in real life.

[Southside]

Hartley interview indicates newborn was preemie and still in neonatal. I would do the same as Kipper and totally respect and understand his position.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FAN

No it's not apples to organges. I think you need to throw whatever you have about contracts out the window here. There is a reason contractual rights are so important to NHL contracts, it's because NHL teams want players to honour their contracts. That's why they make it impossible for players to play for another NHL team without completing their contracts. Specific performance is of utmost importance here.

Okay, let's play your silly game. You're a lawyer for the Flames or the team Kipper plays for. What monetary damages are you suffering by having him retire/refuse to report?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FAN

No it's not apples to organges. I think you need to throw whatever you have about contracts out the window here. There is a reason contractual rights are so important to NHL contracts, it's because NHL teams want players to honour their contracts. That's why they make it impossible for players to play for another NHL team without completing their contracts. Specific performance is of utmost importance here.

Are you seriously arguing that a court would grant an order requiring Kipprusoff to play hockey for whatever team held his rights?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

Are you seriously arguing that a court would grant an order requiring Kipprusoff to play hockey for whatever team held his rights?

No, he's trying to argue that there are situations in real life where an employee could be sued for breach of contract by refusing to perform his/her duties, which I never said couldn't happen. Basically he's trying to argue that Kipper is wrong by strawmanning my analogy.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, let's play your silly game. You're a lawyer for the Flames or the team Kipper plays for. What monetary damages are you suffering by having him retire/refuse to report?

The cost of finding a replacement at the very least. You're really being silly here.

Originally Posted by valo403

Are you seriously arguing that a court would grant an order requiring Kipprusoff to play hockey for whatever team held his rights?

If this was real life without a collective bargaining agreement? Yes. Kipper would be required to either perform his contract, pay for damages, or pay for the cost of replacement.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FAN

You're missing the point. rubecube was trying to relate NHL contracts to "real life" contracts. Here, Kipper can be traded, not report, and choose to retire from the NHL and his "punishment" would be that he would be suspended and not paid his NHL salary. In real life he can and likely would be sued for breach of contract. somehow rubecube thinks that's not the case in real life.

Well just because he plays in the NHL doesnt mean this isn't "real life". The only difference here is the terms that govern his contract, which is the point I think you're missing (or someone is missing, I'm a bit lost on who is saying what here). If he was a window washer his "punishment" would likely be payment for damages, if they could be shown.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Southside

Hartley interview indicates newborn was preemie and still in neonatal. I would do the same as Kipper and totally respect and understand his position.

If that is indeed true, while still crappy for the Flames, I hope most people on here will understand why Kipper is (allegedly) doing what he is doing. If we were talking about a health baby/healthy mom after the pregnancy I honestly may harbour some ill will, but if there are any health complications I 100% support Kipper in whatever he chooses to do.

[zunie75]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

I love goalies......they are all a little off.....but I love Kipper and every one that doesn't can ____off.

I guess he isn't tired of carrying this team on his back.

Kipper can retire a Flame.....im happy with that

Plus I dont think we would get very much for him, so I do would rather just keep him.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FAN

The cost of finding a replacement at the very least. You're really being silly here.


If this was real life without a collective bargaining agreement? Yes. Kipper would be required to either perform his contract, pay for damages, or pay for the cost of replacement.

I call BS. Show me the 'cost' of finding another goaltender, I'll show you a phone call to your farm team.

And what's with all the specific performance talk? There is not a chance in hell that it would ever be contemplated, let alone ordered. It's barely ever available, and when it is it's almost exclusively to do with real property and certainly not the physical performance of an individual.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FAN

The cost of finding a replacement at the very least. You're really being silly here.

Sorry he'd have to pay the Flames the costs of finding a replacement when they're trying to trade him away? I also don't know any team in the NHL that he could be traded to that doesn't already have several goaltenders under contract.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well just because he plays in the NHL doesnt mean this isn't "real life". The only difference here is the terms that govern his contract, which is the point I think you're missing (or someone is missing, I'm a bit lost on who is saying what here). If he was a window washer his "punishment" would likely be payment for damages, if they could be shown.

Not every contract is going to contain a clause stating the damages if the performance of the contract is not fulfilled, and even if it is, it might not hold up in court. If a window washer signed a contract to wash a company's windows once a week for a year for $12,000 and the window washer quits after a month, the company will likely sue the window washer and get the window washer to wash the company's windows once a week for another 11 months or pay for the cost of replacement (which could be more $11,000).