2022/2023 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Monahan will never agree to be on the LTIR. Since he has a veto that seems unlikely.

What is your source on a veto? It seems that the IR portion is a medical decision. The LT(IR) is a team/cap decision. I don't see how the player has a say.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Monahan doesn't have a choice. If he's not cleared to play they can put him on. If they don't have room to remove him, they can keep him on. Them the rules.

They really are not. The player has to sign the Injured Reserve Form for one. No signature, no injury reserve form. In the event that the player was legitimately injured and went on the LTIR and then was no longer injured and wanted to play but the team did not have room they would have to find room because they would have a right to be removed from LTIR. If the team did not remove him, I would assume the PA would file an immediate grievance that they would win in a nanosecond. Them the rules.

[Willi Plett]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I am not sure if it was mentioned yet, but the Rangers signed Kakko (2 years - $2.1 million AAV).

So you can probably take him out of the trade proposal and offer sheet scenarios.

I was actually wondering the opposite. Is there a win-win trade that could be made. NYR D looks very weak to me - I could be wrong I don’t know the young players on their D at all! Would a signed Kylington be attractive to them? A shot at Valimaki? One of those plus picks?

We need to add to forward ranks and have a glut of D. There may even be some risk of losing one of our young D on waivers.

[Willi Plett]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

They really are not. The player has to sign the Injured Reserve Form for one. No signature, no injury reserve form. In the event that the player was legitimately injured and went on the LTIR and then was no longer injured and wanted to play but the team did not have room they would have to find room because they would have a right to be removed from LTIR. If the team did not remove him, I would assume the PA would file an immediate grievance that they would win in a nanosecond. Them the rules.

We should just send him to Tampa. Everyone signs the form there.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

What is your source on a veto? It seems that the IR portion is a medical decision. The LT(IR) is a team/cap decision. I don't see how the player has a say.

https://cdn.nhlpa.com/img/assets/fil...A_2013_CBA.pdf

Source is the CBA. Section 16.11. Exhibit 28. In order to be on the LTIR, the player first has to be on the IR. Form requires the players signature. Teams cannot just say “I want to ruin this guys career and prevent him from playing so that he can maybe get a new contract because I have a cap problem”. That is why the Flames cannot just say that Lucic is injured and should be on the LTIR. They need his signature to go on the IR.

Even after the signatures of all relevant parties, the league still had the right to challenge it and send it to another doctor. Don’t think they ever do, but that is in the CBA as well.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

They really are not. The player has to sign the Injured Reserve Form for one. No signature, no injury reserve form. In the event that the player was legitimately injured and went on the LTIR and then was no longer injured and wanted to play but the team did not have room they would have to find room because they would have a right to be removed from LTIR. If the team did not remove him, I would assume the PA would file an immediate grievance that they would win in a nanosecond. Them the rules.

You're going to have back that up with facts because that's not what the CBA said when it was discussed around Eichel/Vegas.

The CBA is explicit actually about the opposite. If a player is deemed eligible to play but the LTIR period has not passed, they are not able to lace them up until the payroll is fixed.

You're right that the NHLPA would file a grievance, but they wouldn't alter the CBA within a nanosecond, it would be drawn out. The NHL has known of the LTIR issues since Kane and has intentionally not altered them throughout the Kucherov and Eichel saga, they knew of the issues around it and have decided not to fix it.

A Player with a Player Salary of $1.5 million becomes unfit to play for
more than 24 calendar days and 10 NHL Regular Season games. At the
time the Player becomes unfit to play, his Club has an Averaged Club
Salary of $69.5 million, and the Upper Limit in that League Year is $70
million. The Club may replace the unfit-to-play Player with another
Player or Players with an aggregate Player Salary and Bonuses of up to
$1.5 million. The first $500,000 of such replacement Player Salary and
Bonuses shall count toward the Club's Averaged Club Salary, bringing the
Averaged Club Salary to the Upper Limit. The Club may then exceed the
Upper Limit by up to another $1 million as a result of the replacement
Player Salary and Bonuses. However, if the unfit-to-play Player once
again becomes fit to play, and the Club has not otherwise created any
Payroll Room during the interim period, then the Player shall not be
permitted to rejoin the Club until such time as the Club reduces its
Averaged Club Salary to below the Upper Limit.

When I said them the rules, I actually meant them the rules. Not my own belief like you.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

You're going to have back that up with facts because that's not what the CBA said when it was discussed around Eichel/Vegas.

The CBA is explicit actually about the opposite. If a player is deemed eligible to play but the LTIR period has not passed, they are not able to lace them up until the payroll is fixed.

You're right that the NHLPA would file a grievance, but they wouldn't alter the CBA within a nanosecond, it would be drawn out. The NHL has known of the LTIR issues since Kane and has intentionally not altered them throughout the Kucherov and Eichel saga, they knew of the issues around it and have decided not to fix it.



When I said them the rules, I actually meant them the rules. Not my own belief like you.

Kucherov and Eichel were supportive of being on the LTIR. In Eichel’s case he was unwilling to get medical treatment to get off the LTIR and wanted alternative treatment. Neither of your two examples were circumstances where the player was fit to play, wanted to play and was prevented by the club. You read a requirement to get salary below the cap as a right to leave a player on the LTIR in perpetuity. I am sure that if a player took it to arbitration, it would be a quick and swift victory for them. A team has lots of options to get below the cap. They could trade the player in question along with a 1st round pick to probably almost any team in the league and get below the cap. They could take a player off their existing roster and trade them. There is no reasonable excuse as to why they could not become cap compliant within hours of an arbitrators decision.

That exact same section that you cited, a paragraph before says that a team is allowed to make a transaction during the Roster Freeze period under Article 13 in order to become cap compliant. It is the only time that a team can move a player during the holiday roster freeze. A reasonable interpretation of that section when a player is willing to play would be that the team has to immediately become cap compliant so the player can play somewhere, not that they can just keep the player on LTIR.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Monahan will never agree to be on the LTIR. Since he has a veto that seems unlikely.

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

What is your source on a veto? It seems that the IR portion is a medical decision. The LT(IR) is a team/cap decision. I don't see how the player has a say.

I don't see anything in the CBA where a player has a veto over LTIR. The player is required to sign off on the move to IR/LTIR, but this is not a veto. This is an administrative function to notify the league when a player is injured to begin the clock for tracking of such information. It is all related to medical treatment, insurance, roster limit management, and tracking possible cap relief. This isn't a mechanism to give a player a veto over going on LTIR. Once the form has been submitted for tracking purposes it is on the team doctors to clear the player, and a notification sent to the league to activate said player through submission of another form. Only the doctor can clear the player. They player doesn't have the option of vetoing anything and forcing their way onto the roster. If the player has a beef about being on LTIR they can launch a grievance with the NHLPA. The veto thing doesn't exist according to the CBA document you posted.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I don't see anything in the CBA where a player has a veto over LTIR. The player is required to sign off on the move to IR/LTIR, but this is not a veto. This is an administrative function to notify the league when a player is injured to begin the clock for tracking of such information. It is all related to medical treatment, insurance, roster limit management, and tracking possible cap relief. This isn't a mechanism to give a player a veto over going on LTIR. Once the form has been submitted for tracking purposes it is on the team doctors to clear the player, and a notification sent to the league to activate said player through submission of another form. Only the doctor can clear the player. They player doesn't have the option of vetoing anything and forcing their way onto the roster. If the player has a beef about being on LTIR they can launch a grievance with the NHLPA. The veto thing doesn't exist according to the CBA document you posted.

I would interpret the signing of the original IR form as a veto, they cannot even get on the IR without their signature. The CBA is silent on who determines when the player is fit to play, presumably that would come from a medical professional either employed by the team or the player.

[Harry Lime]

The New York Rangers have signed forward Kaapo Kakko to a two-year contract extension with an AAV of $2.1 million.

Calgary should have doubled it. Oh, well. (Also, I realize that he would have to be willing to sign it)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Iginla led the Flames with 67 points one year.

Was he "not impressive" either?

Point totals often are as much about the team make up as they are about individual skill sets.

He had 67 points in (a) 75 games and (b) at the height of the dead puck era, in a year when there were only 12 guys above a PPG. Moreover, Iginla was coming off a year where he led the league in points so it was a one off. Barzal got over PPG once, in his rookie year, and last year he had 59 points in 73 games, in a year that saw a huge resurgence in scoring.

Not even close.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I would interpret the signing of the original IR form as a veto, they cannot even get on the IR without their signature.

Looks to me to be an administrative function, not granting the player any control over whether they go on IR or not. Again, this is a tracking mechanism, and since insurance is involved in this, I think the player wants to make certain they have their John Hancock on anything associated with injury treatment. The NHLPA would certainly want that clearly logged in the event of any grievance pertaining to injury and treatment, especially if it is related to or blossoms into a long-term injury situation.

The CBA is silent on who determines when the player is fit to play, presumably that would come from a medical professional either employed by the team or the player.

The CBA is very clear on who determines when the player is fit to play.

"A Player will be eligible for activation to play in NHL Games beginning on the 8th day following the date of injury, illness or disability for which the player was placed on the Injured Reserve List or any day thereafter that the Player is medically cleared to play by the Club physician."

The club's doctors control this. No imaginary player veto.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He had 67 points in (a) 75 games and (b) at the height of the dead puck era, in a year when there were only 12 guys above a PPG. Moreover, Iginla was coming off a year where he led the league in points so it was a one off. Barzal got over PPG once, in his rookie year, and last year he had 59 points in 73 games, in a year that saw a huge resurgence in scoring.

Not even close.

The Isles struggled mightily to score, from top to bottom.

It was more a symptom of a system (or whatever else) that was neutering offense.

Barzal with a guy like Gaudreau probably produces at a better clip than Lindy.

He has to do a lot of heavy lifting in NYI.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He had 67 points in (a) 75 games and (b) at the height of the dead puck era, in a year when there were only 12 guys above a PPG. Moreover, Iginla was coming off a year where he led the league in points so it was a one off. Barzal got over PPG once, in his rookie year, and last year he had 59 points in 73 games, in a year that saw a huge resurgence in scoring.

Not even close.

He had 67 in 82 games in 05-06. The new NHL. Thornton had 125 pts Jagr 123. There was 7 players with over 100.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

The Isles struggled mightily to score, from top to bottom.

It was more a symptom of a system (or whatever else) that was neutering offense.

Barzal with a guy like Gaudreau probably produces at a better clip than Lindy.

He has to do a lot of heavy lifting in NYI.

Barzal to me is just one of those guys who Flames fans have fixed on. He's good but not that good, and if you go on Isles' boards, they are quite frustrated with him a lot of the time. and if the reason he lacks production is a focus on D, that's not very good either. He was 19th out of 20 among Isles' forwards in defensive stats.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Valimaki and Mackey would need to pass through waivers. Meloche?

They would, but not a lot of guys get picked up that day, and realistically would you trade a midling forward and a 24 year old prospect for Kadri? Yes. So the cap space exists, if they want to take that risk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

He had 67 in 82 games in 05-06. The new NHL. Thornton had 125 pts Jagr 123. There was 7 players with over 100.

And 94 in 70 the next year, followed by 98 and 89. He had bad years sometimes. Barzal is consistently in the 60s, outside of his rookie year when he was sheltered behind Tavares.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And 94 in 70 the next year, followed by 98 and 89. He had bad years sometimes. Barzal is consistently in the 60s, outside of his rookie year when he was sheltered behind Tavares.

Ya, I’m definitely not arguing any of that. He’s also not near as good as Iggy was. Barzal is still a good player though. He definitely doesn’t have that many good quality players to play with. Playing for Trotz can definitely stifle offensive production.

[GioforPM]

Even if there was a player veto, name me a player who has vetoed LTIR. And tell me why Monahan is the guy who'd stick his neck out and go against team wishes. Just because a guy chose to play hurt and maybe hurt the team in the process doesn't mean he would refuse LTIR. More likely he didn't know the severity and thought it was like other injuries he'd played through.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by #-3

They would, but not a lot of guys get picked up that day, and realistically would you trade a midling forward and a 24 year old prospect for Kadri? Yes. So the cap space exists, if they want to take that risk

I expect a team like Chicago would easily claim Valimaki.