Friedman: LTIR may be addressed in next CBA

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

No idea. FanIn80 reported that there are 14 teams over the cap. So it only counts as cheating if they traded for someone at the deadline?

Maybe if you can figure out what exactly is going against the spirit of the rules then you’ll be able to solve this very difficult puzzle. There are only a few dozen posts explaining it already, so best of luck, you’ll need it.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Everyone that uses LTIR is over the cap. Only a few manipulate their rosters to ensure that they can vastly exceed the cap with salaries on the ice post-season.

Who’s the arbiter of manipulation? You?

It was just so unfair. Nobody could have traded for Tomas Hertl except those pesky manipulative villains in Las Vegas.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Maybe if you can figure out what exactly is going against the spirit of the rules then you’ll be able to solve this very difficult puzzle. There are only a few dozen posts explaining it already, so best of luck, you’ll need it.

Aww. I’ll need some luck to understand the spirit of the rules? Clearly that’s an objective standard.

Meanwhile the Knights have rings and a banner. I wonder if the spirit of the rules will be the Vancouver or Edmonton argument if the Knights win. Especially if McDavid has the right of way, which I’ve been repeatedly told by Sportsnet is in the spirit of the rules.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Aww. I’ll need some luck to understand the spirit of the rules? Clearly that’s an objective standard.

Meanwhile the Knights have rings and a banner. I wonder if the spirit of the rules will be the Vancouver or Edmonton argument if the Knights win. Especially if McDavid has the right of way, which I’ve been repeatedly told by Sportsnet is in the spirit of the rules.

I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve volunteered in youth sports where 8 year olds understand what the “spirit” of rules are. If you’re not there yet, you’re not there, and it’s pretty clear there’s not a whole lot anyone can do for you since you don’t understand 40% of what’s being said, play dumb on the other 40%, and spend the last 20% mocking arguments you’re the first one to make.

This is a message board where we talk hockey. This should be significantly less difficult a topic to grasp than you’re making it out to be.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve volunteered in youth sports where 8 year olds understand what the “spirit” of rules are. If you’re not there yet, you’re not there, and it’s pretty clear there’s not a whole lot anyone can do for you since you don’t understand 40% of what’s being said, play dumb on the other 40%, and spend the last 20% mocking arguments you’re the first one to make.

This is a message board where we talk hockey. This should be significantly less difficult a topic to grasp than you’re making it out to be.

You don’t know what to tell me, then you tell me about 8 year olds.

We are talking about hockey, and winning at hockey. With millions of dollars on the line. If you want to implement the 8-year-old spirit of the game, have at it. Does that mean McDavid doesn’t get to dive anymore? Otherwise if he does, there’s not going to be an ice cream treat after the game? Who’s playing dumb here? Good luck trying to guess; you’ll need it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

You don’t know what to tell me, then you tell me about 8 year olds.

We are talking about hockey, and winning at hockey. With millions of dollars on the line. If you want to implement the 8-year-old spirit of the game, have at it. Does that mean McDavid doesn’t get to dive anymore? Otherwise if he does, there’s not going to be an ice cream treat after the game? Who’s playing dumb here? Good luck trying to guess; you’ll need it.

After this post? I don’t think you’re playing.

[butterfly]

Crosby signed a long term illegal contract, such a “cheater”. The spirit of the game! Dont’cha know.

[PepsiFree]

Keep going. You’re doing great, hun.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Keep going. You’re doing great, hun.

Bless your heart!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

You don’t know what to tell me, then you tell me about 8 year olds.

We are talking about hockey, and winning at hockey. With millions of dollars on the line. If you want to implement the 8-year-old spirit of the game, have at it.

Having money on the line doesn't excuse foul play. In fact, it makes it all the more important that the game be seen to be honest, and that the rules not be biased towards one participant over another. Time and time again, the league has intervened and made new rules to eliminate various kinds of unfair advantages. Most people don't watch competitive sports if they think the outcome is predetermined.

Just because something is comprehensible to an 8-year-old, doesn't mean it is beneath the dignity of an adult. If you think it is, you had better not watch hockey at all, because 8-year-olds are watching it, too.

Does that mean McDavid doesn’t get to dive anymore? Otherwise if he does, there’s not going to be an ice cream treat after the game? Who’s playing dumb here? Good luck trying to guess; you’ll need it.

I'm going to be charitable and assume that you're the one playing dumb, because the alternative is that you're not actually playing. Everyone in this thread understands what we are talking about – except you.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Who even cares if it’s “clever” (it’s not) or whether it’s technically cheating or just abusing the rules?

Signing a player to a contract beyond when they’re likely to retire was also whatever happy go lucky thing we want to pretend this is, and they ended that. The end.

Where were your complaints about the kipper contract. The Flames really started that. Or is it only cheating if you don't like it?

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve volunteered in youth sports where 8 year olds understand what the “spirit” of rules are. If you’re not there yet, you’re not there, and it’s pretty clear there’s not a whole lot anyone can do for you since you don’t understand 40% of what’s being said, play dumb on the other 40%, and spend the last 20% mocking arguments you’re the first one to make.

This is a message board where we talk hockey. This should be significantly less difficult a topic to grasp than you’re making it out to be.

How good are these 8 year Olds on their understanding of the CBA?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Tiger

How good are these 8 year Olds on their understanding of the CBA?

I'm not sure which of these two things you are doing:

1. Implying that because some rules are complex, it is impossible for there to be other rules that are simple and can be understood by simple people.

2. Making a complete non sequitur.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Just because something is comprehensible to an 8-year-old, doesn't mean it is beneath the dignity of an adult. If you think it is, you had better not watch hockey at all, because 8-year-olds are watching it, too.



I'm going to be charitable and assume that you're the one playing dumb, because the alternative is that you're not actually playing. Everyone in this thread understands what we are talking about – except you.

Does everyone in this thread understand what you're talking about? Probably, but I disagree with you and think butterfly is closer to correct. The spirit of the rules argument is kinda weak. There are rules and they are within them. More likely people are angry because they are jealous.

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

A yeah, a different kind of cheating for sure but still finding a way to cheat "within the rules"

Super clever alright. It'll be nice when they fix the CBA so teams can't legally cheat the salary cap with LTIR

Do you hear yourself... "legally cheat" ... oxymoron. Legally cheating is what those 8 year olds would cry if they were losing a game bad and accusing the winner of.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm not sure which of these two things you are doing:

1. Implying that because some rules are complex, it is impossible for there to be other rules that are simple and can be understood by simple people.

2. Making a complete non sequitur.

I'm saying professional sports is a business and playing within the rules for your advantage is your job and there is no points for spirit. Don't be naive.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Does everyone in this thread understand what you're talking about? Probably, but I disagree with you and think butterfly is closer to correct. The spirit of the rules argument is kinda weak. There are rules and they are within them. More likely people are angry because they are jealous.

You're making up a motive that you understand – the jealousy that an unsuccessful crook feels towards a successful one – to take the place of the real motive, which you obviously do not understand: the contempt that an honest person feels for a crook.

Originally Posted by Tiger

I'm saying professional sports is a business and playing within the rules for your advantage is your job and there is no points for spirit. Don't be naive.

I'm saying that professional sports is a particular kind of business – show business. The game must not only be played by the rules, but the rules must be seen to be fair and evenly applied, or people will not enjoy the show. This goes double when the game is the occasion of large-scale gambling. Neither bettors nor bookmakers take it kindly when a competition is fixed behind their backs.

It isn't naive to remember what the game is actually for.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're making up a motive that you understand – the jealousy that an unsuccessful crook feels towards a successful one – to take the place of the real motive, which you obviously do not understand: the contempt that an honest person feels for a crook.



I'm saying that professional sports is a particular kind of business – show business. The game must not only be played by the rules, but the rules must be seen to be fair and evenly applied, or people will not enjoy the show. This goes double when the game is the occasion of large-scale gambling. Neither bettors nor bookmakers take it kindly when a competition is fixed behind their backs.

It isn't naive to remember what the game is actually for.

And to both points. Until the rules are changed they are doing what you're saying... playing within the rules.. you're just upset about the rules, not the knights, you're just taking out on the knights. Jealousy comes in many forms. No crooks within the rules. Or should it be " legal crooks"

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Where were your complaints about the kipper contract. The Flames really started that. Or is it only cheating if you don't like it?

Where were my complaints 17 years ago? I don’t know man, where were you 17 years ago?

We’re not even talking about backdiving contracts, that was already solved because… you guessed it… it was against the spirit of the rules.

Originally Posted by Tiger

How good are these 8 year Olds on their understanding of the CBA?

Terrible, probably. They’re 8. But they do have the ability to understand concepts like “why rules exist” and “why certain rules are created” and therefore understand the “spirit” of the rules, so it’s surprising that a few of you don’t.

[dino7c]

If Stone comes back for game one it will be pretty hard to defend Vegas here (if they play the Oilers I am all for it) Same guy, two years in a row with a recovery that matches up exactly with game one of the playoffs to keep them cap compliant.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Tiger

And to both points. Until the rules are changed they are doing what you're saying... playing within the rules.. you're just upset about the rules, not the knights, you're just taking out on the knights. Jealousy comes in many forms. No crooks within the rules. Or should it be " legal crooks"

The purpose of the salary cap is to prevent a small number of rich teams from buying a competitive advantage, thereby pricing the numerous poorer teams out of the league. Acquiring players on LTIR, and then activating them once the cap is lifted, circumvents that purpose.

The purpose of LTIR is to allow teams to replace players who suffer major injuries during the season with equivalent players (if they can get them). Acquiring a player who is already on LTIR does not serve that purpose.

It's already against the rules for a team to stash a player overseas on their protected list, and then bring him back just in time for the playoffs. They used to call that the Ruotsalainen rule, after the Finnish player whom the Edmonton Oilers never brought over except for their playoff runs. Now, if you try to do that, you have to put the player on waivers before you can dress him. Acquiring a player on LTIR with the intention of activating him only in the post-season has the exact same effect. If the one kind of transaction is against the rules, they both should be.

The rules are not perfect, and unscrupulous operators will always find loopholes of one sort or another. The solution to this is to amend the rules, not to applaud the people who abuse them.

The league can't unilaterally change the LTIR rule, because an important part of that rule is written in the CBA. That doesn't mean that the rule should be allowed to stand as it is, or that abusing it in this way is right.