Kipper won't agree to be traded

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But again, how does this concern Kipper? The team isn't acting in his interests by trading him, why should he agree to act in theirs?

He is bound by the terms of his contract. The team is bound by theirs as well, they pay him on time, they meet his signing bonus, yada, yada, yada.

If he refuses to report, he is not honouring his part of the contract. If he doesn't want to honour it, he should just retire.

Yes, same end result for the Flames, but one is obviously far better for the club and the player. Though, I guess Kipper has never really cared about his image in the community.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I have no problem with players privately asking for a trade. Publically demanding one is different.

If Kipper has made these statements, he must have made them knowing they would go public.

[moon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sure...when it comes to contributions on the ice...but when it comes to personal reasons off the ice...it should never ever be broached. Its, quite simply, nobody elses business.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I guess. My opinion is to generally keep it to on ice stuff and avoid speculating about personal issues. That really should be between the player and his family. Obviously stuff that gets out into the public (i.e. arrests, cheating, etc.) is fair game.

Fair enough.


I think since this does affect who we will or won't have on the ice it does fall into on ice stuff.

I have also stayed away from speculation on health stuff with mom and baby and only talked in generalities based on contract and NTC stuff.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

But only if we don't trade him, which we are allowed to do. Cake and eat it too, and that's the problem. He's cherry picking scenario's on whether he'd like to honor his contract or not, rather than fully honor it based on the deal he signed.

And he's allowed to forgo his salary, and leave. Same as a player leaving for Russia, same as a player that's too old that feels they just can't do it anymore and retires mid contract, same as a prospect that decides they don't even want to play hockey any more and quit. They don't just do it and get away scot free, they pay for it with the remainder of the contract salary. Which any player in the league can do at any time.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by Flame On

And he's allowed to forgo his salary, and leave. Same as a player leaving for Russia, same as a player that's too old that feels they just can't do it anymore and retires mid contract, same as a prospect that decides they don't even want to play hockey any more and quit. They don't just do it and get away scot free, they pay for it with the remainder of the contract salary. Which any player in the league can do at any time.

Yes, but most simply retire without the alleged statements around Kipper.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Flame On

And he's allowed to forgo his salary, and leave. Same as a player leaving for Russia, same as a player that's too old that feels they just can't do it anymore and retires mid contract, same as a prospect that decides they don't even want to play hockey any more and quit. They don't just do it and get away scot free, they pay for it with the remainder of the contract salary. Which any player in the league can do at any time.

He isn't quitting, retiring or going to Russia.

He isn't forgoing his salary either.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But again, how does this concern Kipper? The team isn't acting in his interests by trading him, why should he agree to act in theirs?



I have no problem with players privately asking for a trade. Publically demanding one is different.

Because part of the reasons the Flames pay Kipper is he has trade value. As somone else pointed out, being moved is part of the job and part of the reality you accept as an NHL player and part of why you get paid. It's why players forgo dollars to negotiate NMC / NTC. Kipper is being paid right now at a rate that was agreed to by both parties and that an NMC or NTC wasn't required for that value.

Kipper is an NHL player with a contract. If he's ready to retire, which I agree is his choice, then that means he should be ready to retire from the NHL in the way his contract was written. If he's only ready to retire if he's not on the Flames, then he's not really ready to retire then, and all he's doing is finding the way to change the terms of his NHL contract after the major terms of that contract that benefited him have already passed?

As I think you said, let's not discuss personal, so let's treat this as a business deal which it is. Tell me how what Kipper has done (if true) is ethical from a business stand point?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Frankster

Yes, but most simply retire without the alleged statements around Kipper.

So you admit its perfectly legitimate, you just don't like the flavor in which it's being done?
Opinion is bitch isn't it.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Flame On

And he's allowed to forgo his salary, and leave. Same as a player leaving for Russia, same as a player that's too old that feels they just can't do it anymore and retires mid contract, same as a prospect that decides they don't even want to play hockey any more and quit. They don't just do it and get away scot free, they pay for it with the remainder of the contract salary. Which any player in the league can do at any time.

Agreed, so why hasn't he done that? Or why didn't he wait until he was traded to figure out if he wants to leave. The guy is un-ethically altering the terms of his deal to suit himself, manipulating the situation. Regardless of his reasons, or whether folks on here think "he's earned" the right to do so, it's exactly what he's doing.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by moon

He isn't quitting, retiring or going to Russia.

He isn't forgoing his salary either.

Yeah we don't know what is happening yet.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Right, but if you are contractually obligated to do something and you don't want to do it, you can do exactly what he's doing.

So if what is being claimed about his stance is true, then Miikka should announce his retirement effective immediately and not take his remaining $1.5 mm (approx) that he would be paid for the rest of the season.

IF he is attempting to give himself a NMC, he is not acting in good faith. I see no reason the Flames should continue to pay him. Trade him, force him to retire.

Actions have consequences. Acting in bad faith, if true, should have financial consequences for Kipper.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Agreed, so why hasn't he done that? Or why didn't he wait until he was traded to figure out if he wants to leave. The guy is un-ethically altering the terms of his deal to suit himself, manipulating the situation. Regardless of his reasons, or whether folks on here think "he's earned" the right to do so, it's exactly what he's doing.

Maybe that's what he intended to do until some dufus wannabe insider leaked something that was said in confidence. Not officially to the team or anything.
To this point Kipper has done nothing.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by moon

He isn't quitting, retiring or going to Russia.

He isn't forgoing his salary either.

Actually, it is worse than that. He probably received more money during his original contract talks because he agreed to waive his NTC during the last two years of the deal.

Trading dollars for security is very common in this circumstance.

If you want the power to dictate where you go, put a NTC or NMC in your contract for the years you desire. It's as simple as that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Agreed, so why hasn't he done that? Or why didn't he wait until he was traded to figure out if he wants to leave. The guy is un-ethically altering the terms of his deal to suit himself, manipulating the situation. Regardless of his reasons, or whether folks on here think "he's earned" the right to do so, it's exactly what he's doing.

Do you even know that any of this is true, or are you getting yourself this worked up over a rumour?

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by Flame On

So you admit its perfectly legitimate, you just don't like the flavor in which it's being done?
Opinion is bitch isn't it.

I've been pretty clear about that with my previous posts if you read them

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Agreed, so why hasn't he done that? Or why didn't he wait until he was traded to figure out if he wants to leave. The guy is un-ethically altering the terms of his deal to suit himself, manipulating the situation. Regardless of his reasons, or whether folks on here think "he's earned" the right to do so, it's exactly what he's doing.

Contingent retirement is neither uncommon, nor unethical. It happens all the time.

YOu said before that he wants his cake and to eat it too - in other words, he still wants to play for the Flames. That is true. But the FLames also still want him to play. If they didn't, they could send him to Abby, thereby forcing that retirement that you think he owes them.

He is saying (allegedly): I only want to play for the Flames, or I will retire.

Nothing wrong with that. THe Flames can keep playnig him or they can force his hand.

This happens every day in large corporations where transfers are common.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by transplant99

For the comments...no. But if he was dealt and refused to report, then they most certainly could suspend him. Why bother with making that scenario a reality though when you already know what the outcome would be.

The $1.5 million in cash they would save this season, plus the cap savings.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

The $1.5 million in cash they would save this season, plus the cap savings.

If they were worried about money (cap savings are irrelevant at this point) they would just waive him and allow him to be claimed IMO...thereby not getting another team involved in an ugly trade/suspend scenario.

[Flash Walken]

Forgive me if this has been answered, but if Kipper retires, doesn't the team have to deal with some sort of back-diving contract enforcement now?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Forgive me if this has been answered, but if Kipper retires, doesn't the team have to deal with some sort of back-diving contract enforcement now?

Kipper's contract is for six years. IIRC that would be for seven year deals.

[FlameZilla]

Some bonkers, bonkers lines of thought on this board this week. Force Kipper to retire for some comments he made to the media? Comments essentially saying he wants to stay & play for the team we support. Waive him & send him to Abbotsford? The meth must be really heavy in Cowtown these days...