[News] Hossa won't play 2017/18 due to side effects of skin condition meds

[sureLoss]

The tacking on of low value years to reduce the AAV was legally allowed by the CBA but was technically a legal grey area of the CBA. The NHL had been warning teams that it was becoming a spiraling out of control problem and they intended to do something about it.

What changed everything was the arbitrator's ruling on the Kovalchuk contract with NJ. He ruled that it was obvious Kovalchuk wasn't going to play those years and that adding on those low value years to lower the cap hit was cap circumvention.

That set a precedent and a legal ruling for cap circumvention on these mega contracts.

The arbitrator's decision in the Kovalchuk ruling also noted the league had already started steps to investigate and potentially withdraw the Luongo, Savard, Pronger, and Hossa contracts.

I believe what happened was that the league realized that a mass withdrawal of contracts for all these players (many already getting paid and served some of those years of the contract) would have been a huge mess for the league.

The compromise was the recapture penalty. Which allowed the contracts to remain, but the penalty was designed to recapture any cap savings if the player retired before the contract ended.

What is really disappointing is the NHL is letting teams to use LTIR to escape the recapture penalty.

[Jason14h]

I have a feeling if a team challenged recapture they could win, which is why the league doesn’t care/do anything

They dropped the ball (somehow) in the original CBA and have now corrected it while pretending something would be done to those teams who embarrassed the CBA rules

The CBA is a contract . You can not have a grey area. The league made up the grey area argument because the players agents and lawyers were smarter then them

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I have a feeling if a team challenged recapture they could win, which is why the league doesn’t care/do anything

They dropped the ball (somehow) in the original CBA and have now corrected it while pretending something would be done to those teams who embarrassed the CBA rules

The CBA is a contract . You can not have a grey area. The league made up the grey area argument because the players agents and lawyers were smarter then them

What? Grey areas happen in contracts all the time. That is why there are courts and lawyers.


An arbitrator ruled that while Kovalchuk's contract did not violate the letter of the CBA, it violated the spirit of the CBA.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I have a feeling if a team challenged recapture they could win, which is why the league doesn’t care/do anything

Considering that every team is represented on the Board of Governors, which signed the CBA that put recapture in place, I'd guess that a team that tried to challenge it wouldn't have a leg to stand on. This wasn't even a union issue; it was management agreeing among themselves to close a loophole that had allowed rich teams to circumvent the cap.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

What is really disappointing is the NHL is letting teams to use LTIR to escape the recapture penalty.

I'm still not convinced that that is actually happening. It was clear that Pronger could no longer play due to injury, which is exactly what LTIR is supposed to be for.

And I find it easier to believe that Hossa genuinely has a serious medical condition that he can no longer play through, than that he, the Blackhawks, the NHL, and the medical profession are secretly colluding to fake his LTIR status just so the Blackhawks can spend more money than every other team. The Wirtz family does not own Gary Bettman.

Besides, as soon as anyone posits a conspiracy theory that requires dozens of conspirators to remain silent against their own interests, I consider that we have crossed into tinfoil hat territory. As Benjamin Franklin said, ‘Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.’

[sureLoss]

^fair enough and probably badly worded on my part.

Meant to say it is unlikely we see anyone hit with the recapture penalty because of LTIR, which is something the NHL should of foresaw and perhaps accounted for.

Most if not all of these players have or will have some medical condition that doctors will say will not let them play again. Whether it is a concussion, bad knee, etc.

Many of them are probably already pushing a medical condition past a limit and still playing through it right now.

[gunnner]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

^fair enough and probably badly worded on my part.

Meant to say it is unlikely we see anyone hit with the recapture penalty because of LTIR, which is something the NHL should of foresaw and perhaps accounted for.

Most if not all of these players have or will have some medical condition that doctors will say will not let them play again. Whether it is a concussion, bad knee, etc.

Many of them are probably already pushing a medical condition past a limit and still playing through it right now.

Example Joffrey Lupul. On a Tuesday, "I could play if they let me." Two days later after some behind the scenes threats and hired goons arriving at his Newport Beach golf course in California. "I made that up, im not physically able to play"

[The Cobra]

The big problem with "punishing" teams who signed those contracts now is that the NHL approved them in the first place. If they hadn't been approved, it's likely that they would not have included the back end years, and the player would have gotten less money overall. There's no way that the players would have gotten such rich contracts, as the teams couldn't have afforded the caps under those original contracts without the back end years.

Blame the original authors of the CBA who left enough holes in it to drive many trucks through. Or the NHL could have simply not approved contracts they thought offended the spirit of the CBA. They choose not to do that and teams, as expected, carried on business accordingly.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm still not convinced that that is actually happening. It was clear that Pronger could no longer play due to injury, which is exactly what LTIR is supposed to be for.

And I find it easier to believe that Hossa genuinely has a serious medical condition that he can no longer play through, than that he, the Blackhawks, the NHL, and the medical profession are secretly colluding to fake his LTIR status just so the Blackhawks can spend more money than every other team. The Wirtz family does not own Gary Bettman.

Besides, as soon as anyone posits a conspiracy theory that requires dozens of conspirators to remain silent against their own interests, I consider that we have crossed into tinfoil hat territory. As Benjamin Franklin said, ‘Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.’

You sir are a salesman's wet dream. I don't believe the earth is flat, don't believe vaccinations cause autism, nor to I believe that the US government orchestrated the 911 attacks. However there's plenty of circumstantial evidence here that you don't need a tinfoil hat to be skeptical. Anyone familiar with insurance or workers compensation knows that doctors can only advise when it comes to pain management so that's actually the easy part for the Hawks. As I said before this is a league that gave the Devils a first round pick back after the Kovalchuk ruling because they really don't want to police themselves to the rules they have set up if they can get around it. Lets not forget this is not just fans as several teams complained about this and they know far more than we do how the inner workings are in a case like this. We joked around after the Mike Richards incident and low and behold it didn't take long for another very convenient set of circumstances for another prominent team to get out of a contract that they exploited to win Stanley Cups. Anyway I have some stuff I would like to sell you.......

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You sir are a salesman's wet dream. I don't believe the earth is flat, don't believe vaccinations cause autism, nor to I believe that the US government orchestrated the 911 attacks. However there's plenty of circumstantial evidence here that you don't need a tinfoil hat to be skeptical. Anyone familiar with insurance or workers compensation knows that doctors can only advise when it comes to pain management so that's actually the easy part for the Hawks. As I said before this is a league that gave the Devils a first round pick back after the Kovalchuk ruling because they really don't want to police themselves to the rules they have set up if they can get around it. Lets not forget this is not just fans as several teams complained about this and they know far more than we do how the inner workings are in a case like this. We joked around after the Mike Richards incident and low and behold it didn't take long for another very convenient set of circumstances for another prominent team to get out of a contract that they exploited to win Stanley Cups. Anyway I have some stuff I would like to sell you.......

Do you also believe we would have lost everything in the O'Reilly fiasco?


The league turning a blind eye probably plays some part of this, but it seems most likely that Hossa was willing to suffer through an annoying skin condition for ~$5M and a decent chance at another cup, but not willing to suffer through it for $1M and less of a chance.

None of us can know how much annoying/suffering is involved. If we could earn $1M to do nothing while doing a favour to an organization that has treated us well for many years, it would be a hard situation to pass up...

I'm not saying it doesn't smell a bit fishy, but all parties are simply making the natural choice in their own best interest

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You sir are a salesman's wet dream.

Thanks for the insult. Gee, now that you've called me names, it's completely obvious that you were right, and I don't know how I could possibly have been so out to lunch. Yup, you sure know how to win an argument.

Lets not forget this is not just fans as several teams complained about this and they know far more than we do how the inner workings are in a case like this.

As they say on Wikipedia: *citation needed. Which teams complained?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The big problem with "punishing" teams who signed those contracts now is that the NHL approved them in there first place.

The teams that signed the contracts also signed the CBA that imposed the recapture penalty. I don't see the problem.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Do you also believe we would have lost everything in the O'Reilly fiasco?


The league turning a blind eye probably plays some part of this, but it seems most likely that Hossa was willing to suffer through an annoying skin condition for ~$5M and a decent chance at another cup, but not willing to suffer through it for $1M and less of a chance.

None of us can know how much annoying/suffering is involved. If we could earn $1M to do nothing while doing a favour to an organization that has treated us well for many years, it would be a hard situation to pass up...

I'm not saying it doesn't smell a bit fishy, but all parties are simply making the natural choice in their own best interest

With the O’Reilly fiasco, wasn’t the CBA still in draft form?
I don’t know for certain but somehow seem to think it was

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The teams that signed the contracts also signed the CBA that imposed the recapture penalty. I don't see the problem.

The problem I was referring to relates to changing the rules retroactively to have recapture when players are placed on LTIR.

Yes the Hawks signed the recapture rules after the fact, but they didn't agree that there would be recapture if Hossa was placed on LTIR.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

With the O’Reilly fiasco, wasn’t the CBA still in draft form?
I don’t know for certain but somehow seem to think it was

I think that is right.

It was far from clear as to what would have happened in the ROR situation.

I don't believe that Calgary would have gotten screwed over there.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Yes the Hawks signed the recapture rules after the fact, but they didn't agree that there would be recapture if Hossa was placed on LTIR.

And there is no recapture from placing Hossa on LTIR, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And there is no recapture from placing Hossa on LTIR, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

They won a bunch of cups and the Flames didn’t.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

With the O’Reilly fiasco, wasn’t the CBA still in draft form?
I don’t know for certain but somehow seem to think it was

It hadn't been ratified but the MOU was in place and binding. And the rules were clear (and the same as in the previous CBA). The league wouldn't have had discretion to let it slide or impose some lesser penalty - it wasn't a grey area. The consequences were automatic - O'Reilly would have to clear waivers.

Feaster said he had a different interpretation but never said what it was or how he came to it, and the NHL had already made its position clear. It's also apparent that Feaster never checked with the league about any interpretation.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It hadn't been ratified but the MOU was in place and binding. And the rules were clear (and the same as in the previous CBA). The league wouldn't have had discretion to let it slide or impose some lesser penalty - it wasn't a grey area. The consequences were automatic - O'Reilly would have to clear waivers.

Feaster said he had a different interpretation but never said what it was or how he came to it, and the NHL had already made its position clear. It's also apparent that Feaster never checked with the league about any interpretation.

I really do not want to open this up again, but the MOU was in fact quite ambiguous. There was a very lengthy thread discussing the wording, and it was easy to see how Feaster interpreted it differently.

I think the likely fall-out, due to the ambiguity, would have been a simple cancellation of the signing. It seems EXTREMELY unlikely to me that the league would leave the Flames without the player, and without the picks, based on a single phrase in the MOU that was obviously(due to the confusion) ambiguous. Just cancel everything and send everyone on their way, is what I believe the outcome would have been.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The league wouldn't have had discretion to let it slide

Why not? Do you think the other 29 teams really wanted that debacle to happen? It would have killed a market/fanbase + hurt HRR, and the teams are perfectly happy to have a safety net in place for unanticipated/unprecedented/crazy situations like that.

FWIW I think Feaster screwed up big time, though.