2022/2023 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[Flames1217]

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.

Thorton never had 125 points.

Iggy also played with alot lesser players than Thorton and Jagr.

Iginla during his prime was legit the best winger on the planet, he literally did it all. Jagr is although a top 3 all time great talent and a tier above Iggy.

The fact that Iggy put up numbers like he did, with the players he played with speaks for itself. What a Warrior.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flames1217

Thorton never had 125 points.

Iggy also played with alot lesser players than Thorton and Jagr.

Iginla during his prime was legit the best winger on the planet, he literally did it all. Jagr is although a top 3 all time great talent and a tier above Iggy.

The fact that Iggy put up numbers like he did, with the players he played with speaks for itself. What a Warrior.

Thornton did have 125 that year and it was definitely an off year for Iggy. which he followed with a great year at 94 points and then a better one at 98 (3rd in the league).

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by 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.

He's already on IR (has been since the last few weeks of last season), they just need to create a situation in which they don't have the cap room to take him off IR before he's medically cleared to come off.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

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.

The CBA says the opposite several times. You can't just say that it's a reasonable interpretation because you think that's how it should be. You're pretty much making up your own rules and then saying that's what it is. But even the LTIR (Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception) is distinct from the IR. You've said to get on the LTIR you need to be on the IR but, as far as I can tell, that's not supported by anything in the CBA.

Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception to the Upper Limit.
In the event that a Player on a Club becomes unfit to play (i.e., is injured, ill or disabled and unable to
perform his duties as a hockey Player) such that the Club's physician believes, in his or her
opinion, that the Player, owing to either an injury or an illness, will be unfit to play for at least (i)
twenty-four (24) calendar days and (ii) ten (10) NHL Regular Season games, and such Club
desires to replace such Player, the Club may add an additional Player or Players to its Active
Roster, and the replacement Player Salary and Bonuses of such additional Player(s) may increase
the Club's Averaged Club Salary to an amount up to and exceeding the Upper Limit, solely as,
and to the extent and for the duration, set forth below. If, however, the League wishes to
challenge the determination of a Club physician that a Player is unfit to play for purposes of the
Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception, the League and the NHLPA shall promptly
confer and jointly select a neutral physician, who shall review the Club physician's determination
regarding the Player's fitness to play.

Since at least Kane the NHL has realized the blindspots in the CBA to game the system. They've had ample time to change it, they have chosen not to. As it stands now, a plain reading of the CBA says that a player deemed unfit to play by the team's doctor (or neutral physician if the NHL deems it necessary) is enough to put a player on the LTIR if the team so chooses. A player put on the LTIR must remain on it for the 24 days/10 game period regardless of health, it's a minimum. But if a player becomes fit to play the team can only active him once they make room. There's nothing that they must, which is why Kane and Kucherov could stay on the LTIR until the playoffs when the team "made room" and why Vegas got around playing musical chairs last year.

Yes, I agree that a player could challenge the CBA but to act like challenging the CBA would be a walk in the park that would be immediately decided is not really based on anything except your own thoughts on how things should be, not what they actually are.

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by Flames1217

Thorton never had 125 points.

Actually in 05-06 he did. His player card on NHL.com splits the points on two lines:
BOS 33 pts
SJS 92 pts

If you were just scanning to see 125 I can see how it would easily be missed.

https://www.nhl.com/player/joe-thornton-8466138

Edit: damn he had a great 7 season run from 02-03 to 09-10:
101, 73, 125, 114, 96, 86, 89 (and to cap off the decade 77, 70 and 40 in 48)

[Flames1217]

Sorry I am wrong!

Never knew Thorton had such a beast season..

Sorry!

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

The CBA says the opposite several times. You can't just say that it's a reasonable interpretation because you think that's how it should be. You're pretty much making up your own rules and then saying that's what it is. But even the LTIR (Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception) is distinct from the IR. You've said to get on the LTIR you need to be on the IR but, as far as I can tell, that's not supported by anything in the CBA.

Below is section 16.11(b) of the CBA

16.11(b) A Player on whose behalf a Club has exercised the Bona Fide Long Term Injury/Illness Exception shall be placed on Injured Reserve for the period of such Exception, including any period the Player is on a Bona Fide Long Term Injury/Illness Exception Conditioning Loan.

In order to have a Bona Fide long term injury you have to be on the IR. CBA is crystal clear on that, it is in black and white. You are pretty much making up your own rules when you post on this and then saying that is what it is. The Bona Fide Long Term injury is not distinct from the IR, regardless of the number of times that you say it is. In order to be on the IR the player must sign off on the IR form.

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Since at least Kane the NHL has realized the blindspots in the CBA to game the system. They've had ample time to change it, they have chosen not to. As it stands now, a plain reading of the CBA says that a player deemed unfit to play by the team's doctor (or neutral physician if the NHL deems it necessary) is enough to put a player on the LTIR if the team so chooses. A player put on the LTIR must remain on it for the 24 days/10 game period regardless of health, it's a minimum. But if a player becomes fit to play the team can only active him once they make room. There's nothing that they must, which is why Kane and Kucherov could stay on the LTIR until the playoffs when the team "made room" and why Vegas got around playing musical chairs last year.

Yes, I agree that a player could challenge the CBA but to act like challenging the CBA would be a walk in the park that would be immediately decided is not really based on anything except your own thoughts on how things should be, not what they actually are.

This is just not true. In black and white it is clear in the CBA that in order to have a Bona Fide Long Term injury you must first be on the IR. In order to be on the IR the player has to sign off on it. That is veto one for the player. CBA is silent on how you get off the IR, but any reasonable interpretation of section 50.10 reads that after the player waives their veto over being put on the IR, once they are ready to play (and they say they are ready to play) a team must move forthwith to allow them to play. All your examples did not give a #### whether they played or not because they were getting paid and had a longterm contract. For Monahan he will be getting paid but will not have a contract after this year. Therefore he will have an incentive to get off the IR and start playing again, assuming he is ever put on the IR.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Below is section 16.11(b) of the CBA



In order to have a Bona Fide long term injury you have to be on the IR. CBA is crystal clear on that, it is in black and white. You are pretty much making up your own rules when you post on this and then saying that is what it is. The Bona Fide Long Term injury is not distinct from the IR, regardless of the number of times that you say it is. In order to be on the IR the player must sign off on the IR form. .

Reread what it says. It's the opposite. In going on LTIR they are placed on IR.

The CBA is clear that once on LTIR a player can only be removed once the team makes room. There is no use of "immediately." In fact they are crystal clear that a player is to remain on LTIR if the team does not have room. It didn't contemplate using LTIR as a way to Robida Island players but the teams began doing so and they've yet to act on it. You're also using the word veto where there is none in the CBA. A signature is not a veto. An injured player not signing the document would be going against the CBA, not granting him permission to avoid the CBA's rules.

Any determination that a Player is eligible to be placed on the Injured Reserve
List, or designated as Injured Non-Roster, shall be made by the Club's physician in accordance
with the Club's medical standards and documented by a verification signed by the Club physician
and countersigned by a Club executive in the forms attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 28
(which shall also be signed by the Player) and 28-A, respectively. Such forms must be received
by Central Registry and sent to the NHLPA and the Player, all in accordance with Exhibit 3,
prior to the Player being added to the Injured Reserve List or designated as Injured Non-Roster,
as applicable.

But none of that matters because Monahan is on the injury reserve.

The Injured Reserve List is a category of the Reserve List. A Club may place a
Player on the Injured Reserve List only if such Player is reasonably expected to be injured, ill or
disabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockey Player for a minimum of seven (7) days
from the onset of such injury, illness or disability. A Player who finishes an NHL Season on the
Injured Reserve List and continues to be disabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockey
Player by reason of the same injury at the time he reports to the Club's Training Camp in the next
League Year, will again be eligible to be placed on the Club's Injured Reserve List. For any
other Player who fails the Club's initial physical examination in any League Year, or is injured,
ill or disabled while not on the Club's Active Roster, he shall not be eligible for, and may not be
placed on, Injured Reserve, but instead shall be eligible to be, and may be designated as, Injured
Non-Roster.

You've made a bunch of interpretations that go against the CBA. I agree that a grievance would likely result in the player's favour but you can't just say it would.

So with respect to Monahan, unless he is cleared by the physician, he is eligible to be placed on the IR by the team because he was injured at the end of last season. That's the Flames choice.

If he is expected to miss 10 games, he can be placed on LTIR. That's the Flames choice.

Once he is able to come back (if 10 games has passed), the only way to activate him is to make room. Otherwise the player cannot be activated. There has yet to be a determination made if the player is healthy and wants to play what happens if the team refuses to make room. The only thing the CBA says is the player is to remain on LTIR, nothing else. Everything else is speculation.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Reread what it says. It's the opposite. In going on LTIR they are placed on IR.

The CBA is clear that once on LTIR a player can only be removed once the team makes room. There is no use of "immediately." In fact they are crystal clear that a player is to remain on LTIR if the team does not have room. It didn't contemplate using LTIR as a way to Robida Island players but the teams began doing so and they've yet to act on it. You're also using the word veto where there is none in the CBA. A signature is not



But none of that matters because Monahan is on the injury reserve.


You've made a bunch of interpretations that go against the CBA. I agree that a grievance would likely result in the player's favour but you can't just say it would.

So with respect to Monahan, unless he is cleared by the physician, he is eligible to be placed on the IR by the team because he was injured at the end of last season. That's the Flames choice.

If he is expected to miss 10 games, he can be placed on LTIR. That's the Flames choice.

Once he is able to come back (if 10 games has passed), the only way to activate him is to make room. Otherwise the player cannot be activated. There has yet to be a determination made if the player is healthy and wants to play what happens if the team refuses to make room. The only thing the CBA says is the player is to remain on LTIR, nothing else. Everything else is speculation.

NVM double post

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Reread what it says. It's the opposite. In going on LTIR they are placed on IR.

The CBA is clear that once on LTIR a player can only be removed once the team makes room. There is no use of "immediately." In fact they are crystal clear that a player is to remain on LTIR if the team does not have room. It didn't contemplate using LTIR as a way to Robida Island players but the teams began doing so and they've yet to act on it. You're also using the word veto where there is none in the CBA. A signature is not a veto. An injured player not signing the document would be going against the CBA, not granting him permission to avoid the CBA's rules.



But none of that matters because Monahan is on the injury reserve.


You've made a bunch of interpretations that go against the CBA. I agree that a grievance would likely result in the player's favour but you can't just say it would.

So with respect to Monahan, unless he is cleared by the physician, he is eligible to be placed on the IR by the team because he was injured at the end of last season. That's the Flames choice.

If he is expected to miss 10 games, he can be placed on LTIR. That's the Flames choice.

Once he is able to come back (if 10 games has passed), the only way to activate him is to make room. Otherwise the player cannot be activated. There has yet to be a determination made if the player is healthy and wants to play what happens if the team refuses to make room. The only thing the CBA says is the player is to remain on LTIR, nothing else. Everything else is speculation.

It is not the Flames choice to put him on the IR because in order for the player to be placed on the IR the form must be signed by the team, the player and the physician. If Monahan does not sign then it is no dice. But at least we agree that a bona Fide long term injury requires a player to be on the IR, so that is progress.

But if a player did not sign the IR form they would not be eligible for the IR, full stop, which would mean they are not eligible for the LTIR. Same way that if a physician did not sign the form the player would not be eligible. The part of the CBA that you quote in your own post uses the word shall. That word means that it is a requirement for those 3 signatures to be on the document in order to place a player on the IR. That means that all 3 signatories can stop, or veto, any placement of a player on the IR.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The part of the CBA that you quote in your own post uses the word shall..

Exactly. A player deemed ineligible to play shall sign the form. Not given the option to sign it. Thanks for agreeing.

[OptimalTates]

If X then Y shall Z doesn't mean that Y gets to determine if Z happens, it means Y has to.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Exactly. A player deemed ineligible to play shall sign the form. Not given the option to sign it. Thanks for agreeing.

We can agree to disagree. Glad you finally admitted that LTIR requires a player to be on the IR. You denied that basic obvious law fact for about 3 posts. Pretty sure the shall is that the signature is required on the document to be executed, not that the player is required to sign it.

[GioforPM]

Well, since Monahan is already on IR he signed the form. Whether it’s a veto or not.

[AC]

https://flamesnation.ca/2022/07/28/f...-summer-is-up/

Not earth shattering, but from Steinberg:

I do think the Flames have been and remain interested in Kadri

[jlh2640]

I can’t believe anyone is sitting here arguing that Thornton is a better player than Iginla. Points are such a small part of the game. And the players you play with are hugely important. In 2005-06 Iginla’s main line mates were a washed up Tony Amonte and Daymond Langkow. Joe Thornton is a stud and one of the best of all time. But he didn’t do even close to what Jarome did for his team. Silly to compare.

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by jlh2640

I can’t believe anyone is sitting here arguing that Thornton is a better player than Iginla. Points are such a small part of the game. And the players you play with are hugely important. In 2005-06 Iginla’s main line mates were a washed up Tony Amonte and Daymond Langkow. Joe Thornton is a stud and one of the best of all time. But he didn’t do even close to what Jarome did for his team. Silly to compare.

I think this can certainly be debated. Thornton made Cheechoo into a 50 goal scorer.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by jlh2640

I can’t believe anyone is sitting here arguing that Thornton is a better player than Iginla. Points are such a small part of the game. And the players you play with are hugely important. In 2005-06 Iginla’s main line mates were a washed up Tony Amonte and Daymond Langkow. Joe Thornton is a stud and one of the best of all time. But he didn’t do even close to what Jarome did for his team. Silly to compare.

This is underrating Thornton and potentially overrating Jarome a little IMO.

In terms of making teammates better I could argue Thornton was probably better at that than Jarome was.

Ask Glen Murray and Jonathan Cheechoo.

They are comparable players for sure - and easily two of the best players in the league from about 2000 - 2010. The top two scorers of that decade too if you look from Jan 1 2000, to Jan 1 2010.

1) Thornton: 248 Goals, 817 Points
2) Iginla: 360 Goals, 737 Points
3) Alfredsson: 281 Goals, 726 points
4) Hossa: 317 Goals, 679 points
5) Jagr: 270 goals, 671 points

It really is a damn shame the Flames weren't able to close the deal for Thornton from Boston and San Jose was...because Iggy and Thornton together would have won a cup.

[MrMike]

Two completely different players in my opinion, next to impossible to compare..

[GioforPM]

Iggy was always going to have less points than some other elite players because he was mainly a scorer, not an assist man.