Kipper won't agree to be traded

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by browna

Also, you start replying to every 3rd hand rumor that may be right, partially right, or flat out wrong, you're going to get every "insider" bouncing rumors out there to look for a response from the Flames...and then no response means something more because it was never responded to.

Slippery slope.

Maybe, but at the same time if its not true, Kipper's legacy is taking a bit of a hit with some of the fans.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Flame On

It's pretty funny that people are arguing that it would be ok to move Kipper; from the Flames organization point of view, if he had a no trade clause. That somehow the team wouldn't have to honor that.
But he's not allowed to do what suits him at a moment in time.

And what's more, he can't stop the team. If they trade him, he retires and hands back 1.5 in cap space to the flames as an added bonus.

5.5 in cap space...1.5 in actual salary

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by moon

I would love to hear the logic on this but based on the faulty logic that others have had when trying to promote this argument I am not expecting much.

Its pretty simple. Teams that are rebuilding are generally "bad". However, even bad teams can win games with good goalies.

Keeping Kipper would give our goalie prospects more time to develop AND he would allow the Flames a better chance at winning games while they rebuild and thus foster a more winning culture, give the young players more confidence, etc.

If we keep some of our current assets (Kipper, Bouw, Wideman, Tanguay, Hudler) and make a few smart trades for prospects and have a good draft then next year we can bring in a lot more youth to the team and give them a chance to win without needing them to be top line players right off the bat.

Basically its the difference between an Oiler rebuild (tanking for years and rebuilding with bad goaltending) versus a Senators rebuild/retool where they keep some of their good veterans as centerpieces of the team to bring youth in around.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

There is no chance the flames will lose a pick if Kipper retires early. The NHL is not going to want to open that "can of worms". There are a lot of other contracts like Kippers out there and they are not going to want to ding all the teams for it. It will make the remaining front loaded contracts even harder to move then they are now. NHL and NHLPA do not need to go to war over this.

Besides which, New Jersey got the choice of which year (within 3 years) where had to give up the pick.

I doubt that would change for the very very slim chance this might possibly happen to Calgary.

[GrrlGoalie33]

There is a BIG difference between saying "I am retiring" and saying "If you trade me I won't report".

One comes off as a guy who is finishing his career for whatever reason. The other comes off as a guy who is being a petulant little child.

[You Need a Thneed]

If Kipper doesn't want to report anywhere else, and just wants to retire, trade him to the Islanders. They like to pay goalies to not play.

Allows them to pay even less in actual salary next year as well.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Ped

Besides which, New Jersey got the choice of which year (within 3 years) where had to give up the pick.

I doubt that would change for the very very slim chance this might possibly happen to Calgary.

I wouldn't hold out too much hope that our 1st round draft picks are going to be ones that you could give up easily in that short of a time span.

There is a very real chance that 2013 will be our "best" pick to yield over the next 3 drafts.

[North East Goon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

If Kipper doesn't want to report anywhere else, and just wants to retire, trade him to the Islanders. They like to pay goalies to not play.

Allows them to pay even less in actual salary next year as well.

florida might be interested in some fake spending dollars as well, maybe I can get my Bjugstad after all.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frankster

There is a BIG difference between saying "I am retiring" and saying "If you trade me I won't report".

One comes off as a guy who is finishing his career for whatever reason. The other comes off as a guy who is being a petulant little child.

No, it comes off as a guy who doesn't want to move. If my work told me they were transferring me to Kitimat, I'd probably tell them I'm quitting. That makes me childish?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Frankster

There is a BIG difference between saying "I am retiring" and saying "If you trade me I won't report".

One comes off as a guy who is finishing his career for whatever reason. The other comes off as a guy who is being a petulant little child.

If he was 24 I'd agree, but at 37 with three kids, one newly born with health issues it amounts to the same thing.

The Flames screwed themselves.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No, it comes off as a guy who doesn't want to move. If my work told me they were transferring me to Kitimat, I'd probably tell them I'm quitting. That makes me childish?

If you signed a contract that had that as a real possibility and the nature of your business was such that transfers were commonplace... Yes. It would.

[moon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No, it comes off as a guy who doesn't want to move. If my work told me they were transferring me to Kitimat, I'd probably tell them I'm quitting. That makes me childish?

No offense to you but my guess is your value to your company is different than Kippers.

I may be wrong but your company probably can't trade you for another worker that helps them in the future.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Frankster

There is a BIG difference between saying "I am retiring" and saying "If you trade me I won't report".

One comes off as a guy who is finishing his career for whatever reason. The other comes off as a guy who is being a petulant little child.

Not really. Because in both cases, he would end up retiring. So he's giving a heads up to not bother trading for him if it's true. He's not interested in playing in any other city and is ready to end his career within the next year.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

florida might be interested in some fake spending dollars as well, maybe I can get my Bjugstad after all.

Even when the deal was signed, I saw that there was potential for him to be traded to a team who wanted a player that had a higher salary cap than salary.

Kipper can be valuable to team in that way whether he plays for them or not.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

If you signed a contract that had that as a real possibility and the nature of your business was such that transfers were commonplace... Yes. It would.

How long have you been working for? Any contract at any company has that possibility.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

If he was 24 I'd agree, but at 37 with three kids, one newly born with health issues it amounts to the same thing.

The Flames screwed themselves.

Source? What kind of health issues?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Source? What kind of health issues?

Complications with the birth...everyone is assuming it has to do with the baby....they shouldn't.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by moon

No offense to you but my guess is your value to your company is different than Kippers.

I may be wrong but your company probably can't trade you for another worker that helps them in the future.

Really, you've never heard of this happening in an office environment? "Bob, you're approaching retirement, we'd like to give your position to Dave because he's just graduated and has a bright future at this company. In the mean time, we're gonna move you to our office in Edmonton so you can help out up there."

That never happens?

Again, why is Kipper under any obligation to help the Flames future prospects? They won't be helping his.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Not really. Because in both cases, he would end up retiring. So he's giving a heads up to not bother trading for him if it's true. He's not interested in playing in any other city and is ready to end his career within the next year.

It's all about optics. One has him leaving mid-season, the other has him retiring at the end of the season. The end result may be the same, but how we all end up feeling about it is totally different.

I love Kipper the goalie as much as anyone else, but the statement if you trade me I won't report is selfish nearing Lindros levels.

If he doesn't want to leave the city for family reasons, then he should be taking a leave of absence ala Dominic Moore for the rest of the season and then retire. That would have most people here supporting his decision and we wouldn't have a 20+ page thread debating whether he is being selfish and not honouring his contract.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Complications with the birth...everyone is assuming it has to do with the baby....they shouldn't.

Either way it is a scare, makes a guy think, he has spent vast amounts of time away from his family, he got to sit in a delivary room and watch an ECG go nuts and consider life, for a few seconds, with a dead wife or child (and trust me on this as I have been there, it may not be logical but its where your head goes when your loved one is in trouble).

He has no responsibility to carry on being a good little soldier for the Flames, they screwed up their future, not him.