[News] Arbitrator reduces Wideman suspension to 10 games from 20

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Players like Hamhuis were barely even in demand as it was and Wideman isn't even in the same league.

That is a certainly incorrect. Hamhuis was very much in demand but would only waive for 2 teams. Plenty of other teams would have loved to have traded for him at the deadline.

Wideman has value and would have had value at the deadline. The ruling certainly made it harder to trade him.

[GioforPM]

If Bettman had come back with 10 games, I bet the Flames/NHLPA would gave gritted their teeth and gone no further.

[Sakic19]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Hmm the CBA says the arbitrator's decision is final via Friedman (last line)

The final line establishing that it is not subject to review is not mirrored in the NFL CBA.

[Locke]

And further the Flames were deprived of the opportunity to trade Wideman at the trade deadline which means that an unreasonable suspension potentially cost the Flames assets.

Further damage that the Flames should demand compensation from the League for.

[Imported_Aussie]

Originally Posted by Robbob

IF compensation if form of a draft pick was given it would probably be more at the end of a round mid to late in the draft. I think 2nd is probably a little high.

We'll take a 4th - have a good record with those

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Hmm the CBA says the arbitrator's decision is final via Friedman (last line)

NSFW!

Originally Posted by Sakic19

The final line establishing that it is not subject to review is not mirrored in the NFL CBA.

Arbitration clauses often have "no further review" language, but you can't escape the courts if there's an excess of authority taken by the arbitrator (in other words, a decision he's not entitled to make).

Not that I think that's the case. He found the loophole to split the difference (as arbitrators are prone to do).

[anyonebutedmonton]

The process that was collectively bargained for was followed. All this outrage seems ridiculous. Happy that Wideman was able to appeal and receive his salary for the additional games missed.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If Bettman had come back with 10 games, I bet the Flames/NHLPA would gave gritted their teeth and gone no further.

I doubt it. How could the 19 or so lawyers involved make any money off that?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Locke

And further the Flames were deprived of the opportunity to trade Wideman at the trade deadline which means that an unreasonable suspension potentially cost the Flames assets.

Further damage that the Flames should demand compensation from the League for.

What matters is that we get his contract gone for next season. One year of Wideman with some % retained should be more than appealing to any of 15-20 teams in the league. He's a decent player, and when he's making 2.5M you can live with his warts.

Like Russell, when you're paying him $5M+, he becomes a boat anchor real quick.

[Aegypticus]

if the NHL did appeal to some court, how likely are they to ignore that clause in the CBA? Regardless of the answer to that, how could the PA see further appeal as anything other than dirty pool by the league, keeping in mind that both sides agreed to that clause and now one side might want to do an end run?

I've been on the side of the NHL in previous CBA negotiations, but I don't think I will be next time.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

The process that was collectively bargained for was followed. All this outrage seems ridiculous. Happy that Wideman was able to appeal and receive his salary for the additional games missed.

It isnt outrage, its fairly standard Tort.

There is still a losing party here and thats the Calgary Flames.

[sureLoss]

NHLOA probably has to be upset with this. An NHL executive pretty much undermined their case.

My opinion on the question of intent is supported by an important piece of new evidence, in the testimony of Stephen Walkom, the NHL’s Senior Vice President and Director of Officiating. Mr. Walkom summarized his testimony as follows:
“My testimony is that he [Wideman] was upset, he’s skating to the bench, and he made a mistake, and he cross-checked the Linesman, and he knocked him to the ice with enough force to hurt him, even though he probably didn’t intentionally mean to hurt him.”

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

I doubt it. How could the 19 or so lawyers involved make any money off that?

Because their bosses don't want to spend money on a probable loser?

Which is a factor in the NHL decision to go any further, too. I bet they spent way more than will be returned to Wideman, and they may owe some legal costs to the NHLPA and the Flames.

[dino7c]

Devils lose a first rounder for cap circumvention...and then have it given back

Kings suspend a player for cap relief before he is proven guilty of anything

Flames get screwed by NHL and won't be compensated in any way just watch

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Compensation should be cap relief for next season.

Wideman was counting against the cap for those 9 games he shouldn't have been suspended for.

Flames owners should also be compensated the same salary they paid for a player that should have been playing for them.

These should be the minimum repercussions.

I think it's important to include the subpoena of Wideman's phone records, which led to Bettman upholding the 20 games. A slimy move to prove intent, yet had little to no effect on the 3rd party decision.

The NHL looks extremely vindictive here.

[Fan in Exile]

Interesting. Bettman's decision looked legally sound enough but you never know until you actually review the record rather than the aspects emphasized by the decision-maker to justify his decision.

I thought 10 games was the most likely outcome in the first place because intent to injure is hard to establish. I am still not convinced that Wideman put his hands up in defence rather than giving him a shot with his stick. It looked to me like there was a bit of extra aggression there rather than just a defensive reaction but I can't say it's unreasonable to read it that way.

I do think the system here has failed on account of delay. That needs to be fixed or they have to allow the player to play until the process is complete. I don't think it hurt the Flames in particular but it has definitely had a negative impact on Wideman and is wrong in principle to sit out a suspension while it is still under appeal.

[sureLoss]

News Update

NHLPA's response:
http://www.nhlpa.com/news/nhlpa-stat...deman-decision

"Given that it was undisputed that Dennis suffered a concussion mere seconds prior to his collision with linesman Don Henderson, we felt strongly that there should have been no discipline. Nonetheless we are pleased that Arbitrator Oldham found that the collision was not intentional and that the suspension was reduced to 10 games. We respect the process and the decision and we look forward to Dennis returning to the ice tonight with his teammates."

[ken0042]

Going deep into the "what if" well.....

In the last 9 games the Flames have 5 games that they lost by a single goal. I am counting two games where the lost by two goals, and the opposing team had empty net goals.

If the Flames had 5 more points in the standings, they would now only be 6 points out of a wild card spot; with two games in hand on Colorado. Might have made for a more exciting final 4 weeks of the season.

Like I said, going VERY deep into that "what if" well.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Sakic19

The final line establishing that it is not subject to review is not mirrored in the NFL CBA.

That final line is called a "privative clause", and there is much disagreement as to whether it binds a court from reviewing an arbitrator's decision. The law is all over the place especially when comparing different jurisdictions.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

News Update

NHLPA's response:
http://www.nhlpa.com/news/nhlpa-stat...deman-decision

They read the decision wrong. It said the collision was intentional but there was no intent to injure.