Commissioner for a Day

[Kin]

Lots of penalties like slashing and boarding have potential major and match penalties attached to them if there's a larger element of danger involved in the infraction at the time. I think you can still protect against that without the need for an automatic additional 2 minutes for drawing blood.

No, I agree I'd get rid of the 2/4 thing. What I'm saying is that the potential for damage with high sticks is so great, even when it's entirely accidental like with Berard, that there should be a more severe penalty for it than just two minutes so as to emphasize the importance of keeping sticks down.

 

[Guilt Trip]

~No offside. You want to plant a guy in the other teams zone, go for it.
~Goalies can play the puck wherever they want. Only the NHL punishes talent. Also no restrictions to where a goalie can go.
~ No shootouts. Keep OT, play 3 on 3 until someone wins. Also in OT, you are not allowed to exit/carry the puck out of the zone once entering it.
~As mentioned. Penalty is full length regardless if team scores.
~Automatic game for fighting

4. Contracts:
- allow mutually-agreed termination of contract, provided player must not re-sign with same team or be traded back to that team during that season

This is already allowed. Player has to pass through waivers before contract is terminated.

 

[Deebo]

Treat high sticks like boarding/charging a major at the discretion of the ref in case of injury.

I like that major vs. minor can be reviewable next season.

 

[Bullfrog]

4. Contracts:
- allow mutually-agreed termination of contract, provided player must not re-sign with same team or be traded back to that team during that season

This is already allowed. Player has to pass through waivers before contract is terminated.

This isn't truly a mutual termination though. This is the club choosing to terminate a contract.

I'm talking about a mutual termination where the club and player can just decide to rip up a contract and move on their merry way.

 

[bustaheims]

4. Contracts:
- allow mutually-agreed termination of contract, provided player must not re-sign with same team or be traded back to that team during that season

This is already allowed. Player has to pass through waivers before contract is terminated.

It's only allowed in very specific circumstances - it usually means the player is leaving the NHL.

 

[Guilt Trip]

4. Contracts:
- allow mutually-agreed termination of contract, provided player must not re-sign with same team or be traded back to that team during that season

This is already allowed. Player has to pass through waivers before contract is terminated.

It's only allowed in very specific circumstances - it usually means the player is leaving the NHL.

Most do leave the NHL but specific only circumstances? Don't buy it. Patrik Berglund was a scratch a few games, didn't like his situation in Buffalo and refused to show, so he and the Sabres came to an agreement and his contract was mutually terminated. While he didn't play for another NHL team, there was nothing stopping him from doing so. In this instance the player initiated the parting by forcing the Sabres to suspend him by not showing up.



CapFriendly
‏ @CapFriendly

CapFriendly Retweeted Chris Johnston

With Patrik Berglund having been placed on 'unconditional waivers' for the purpose of mutual contract termination, his remaining cap hit for this season of $2,235,484 will come off the #Sabres salary cap, as will his $3.85M cap hit for the 3 years remaining on his deal after that

 

[Bullfrog]

In that case, he failed to fulfill the terms of his SPC, which allowed the club to terminate the contract.

 

[Guilt Trip]

In that case, he failed to fulfill the terms of his SPC, which allowed the club to terminate the contract.

But it was initiated by HIM, not the team. He showed up, became a healthy scratch a few times, said screw this and didn't show. HE forced the Sabres to do something and when the sides got together after the Sabres had no choice but to suspend him, THEY mutually terminated the contract.

 

[pmrules]

I agree, there has to be a way to move anchor players for a maxed out team.  I would take one of the 3 following situations:

1.  Each team gets 1 cap free buyout (Full $ to player) of a player once every 2 years - player becomes UFA regardless of status. This along with a 5 year max contract would work well for me and might result in more player movement. It would save certain teams from seriously hurting themselves by giving up a first round pick to unload a contract anchor (I know I know don't sign the anchor in the first place - yet most teams will have someone). 

2.  Trading of cap space which has been talked about before?  Not sure where I fall on that one.

3.  One designated player drafted by your team exempt from counting against the cap.

 

[bustaheims]

Most do leave the NHL but specific only circumstances? Don't buy it. Patrik Berglund was a scratch a few games, didn't like his situation in Buffalo and refused to show, so he and the Sabres came to an agreement and his contract was mutually terminated. While he didn't play for another NHL team, there was nothing stopping him from doing so. In this instance the player initiated the parting by forcing the Sabres to suspend him by not showing up.

You don?t have to buy it. It?s explicitly defined in the standard player contract. Contracts can only be terminated for a material breach of contract or other failure to meet the terms of the contract. Berglund failed to show for team mandated activities like practices and such, which constituted a material breach. Other players left for a European team - also a material breach.

 

[bustaheims]

https://twitter.com/capfriendly/status/1075481378081378305

 

[bustaheims]

In that case, he failed to fulfill the terms of his SPC, which allowed the club to terminate the contract.

Exactly. Berglund may have wanted out, but the Sabres had no options until he breached his contract. And, if they didn?t want to, they would not have had to. Berglund didn?t actually initiate anything. He simply opened up the option, and the Sabres chose to take it.

 

[bustaheims]

For the record, here is the section of the SPC that governs "mutual" termination:

14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:

(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.

(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

In the event of termination under Paragraph 14(a) or (b) the Player shall only be entitled to compensation due to him to the earlier of the date such notice is personally delivered to him or the date such notice is e-mailed to him.

In the event this SPC is terminated by the Club while the Player is "away" with the Club for the purpose of playing games the installment then falling due shall be paid on the first weekday after the return "home" of the Club.

You'll notice that there's nothing in that language that allows the player to trigger it - or even have a say in it - and that the only way the team gets an out is through the player breaching their contract (like not showing up for practices or other team events, showing up to camp not remotely in shape for reasons not due to a hockey-related injury, etc.)

 

[CarltonTheBear]

For the record, here is the section of the SPC that governs "mutual" termination:

14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:

(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.

(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

In the event of termination under Paragraph 14(a) or (b) the Player shall only be entitled to compensation due to him to the earlier of the date such notice is personally delivered to him or the date such notice is e-mailed to him.

In the event this SPC is terminated by the Club while the Player is "away" with the Club for the purpose of playing games the installment then falling due shall be paid on the first weekday after the return "home" of the Club.

You'll notice that there's nothing in that language that allows the player to trigger it - or even have a say in it - and that the only way the team gets an out is through the player breaching their contract (like not showing up for practices or other team events, showing up to camp not remotely in shape for reasons not due to a hockey-related injury, etc.)

I think that this is definitely a tricky situation and we haven't really seen an example yet where it happened and then the player signed back in the NHL so I genuinely don't know what the official rule is. But wouldn't you say that the player could initially "trigger" it by refusing to render his services?

Let's use Zaitsev as an example. Maybe Dubas couldn't trade him and come training camp he's still a Leaf. If Dubas went to Zaitsev and was like, "hey if you don't show up to camp we'll terminate your deal, you cool with that?" and Zaitsev said "hells yeah baby let's do this I want out" wouldn't you classify that as a "mutual" termination?

 

[Kin]

I think that this is definitely a tricky situation and we haven't really seen an example yet where it happened and then the player signed back in the NHL so I genuinely don't know what the official rule is. But wouldn't you say that the player could initially "trigger" it by refusing to render his services?

Let's use Zaitsev as an example. Maybe Dubas couldn't trade him and D, you cool with that?" and Zaitsev said "hells yeah baby let's do this I want out" wouldn't you classify that as a "mutual" termination?

I appreciate that this doesn't answer the hypothetical there but it feels like there's kind of a built-in safe guard against that happening where the only reason Dubas wouldn't be able to trade him is if he weren't worth the contract he was under(signifying he'd be unable to get a similar deal as a free agent) so you'd essentially be asking a player to give up money he wouldn't then earn back.

I don't know what kind of deal Zaitsev could have gotten as a UFA but you'd have to figure he'd be giving up at least 10 million or so in guaranteed money. You'd have to really want out.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I appreciate that this doesn't answer the hypothetical there but it feels like there's kind of a built-in safe guard against that happening where the only reason Dubas wouldn't be able to trade him is if he weren't worth the contract he was under(signifying he'd be unable to get a similar deal as a free agent) so you'd essentially be asking a player to give up money he wouldn't then earn back.

I don't know what kind of deal Zaitsev could have gotten as a UFA but you'd have to figure he'd be giving up at least 10 million or so in guaranteed money. You'd have to really want out.

Yeah I just used him as a completely random example to have faces/names instead of Player A and Team B.

I do think that shows though that finding a situation where a mutual termination of a NHLer who wants to continue playing in the NHL that makes sense for both the player and the team is pretty rare.

 

[Bullfrog]

CtB, meet Mr Marleau

 

[CarltonTheBear]

CtB, meet Mr Marleau

As a 35+ deal even if it was mutually terminated the cap hit would have still stayed. Checkmate!

 

[Bullfrog]

Well, I thought we were talking hypothetically where the league doesn't suck.

 

[Guilt Trip]

For the record, here is the section of the SPC that governs "mutual" termination:

14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:

(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.

(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

In the event of termination under Paragraph 14(a) or (b) the Player shall only be entitled to compensation due to him to the earlier of the date such notice is personally delivered to him or the date such notice is e-mailed to him.

In the event this SPC is terminated by the Club while the Player is "away" with the Club for the purpose of playing games the installment then falling due shall be paid on the first weekday after the return "home" of the Club.

You'll notice that there's nothing in that language that allows the player to trigger it - or even have a say in it - and that the only way the team gets an out is through the player breaching their contract (like not showing up for practices or other team events, showing up to camp not remotely in shape for reasons not due to a hockey-related injury, etc.)

I think that this is definitely a tricky situation and we haven't really seen an example yet where it happened and then the player signed back in the NHL so I genuinely don't know what the official rule is. But wouldn't you say that the player could initially "trigger" it by refusing to render his services?

Let's use Zaitsev as an example. Maybe Dubas couldn't trade him and come training camp he's still a Leaf. If Dubas went to Zaitsev and was like, "hey if you don't show up to camp we'll terminate your deal, you cool with that?" and Zaitsev said "hells yeah baby let's do this I want out" wouldn't you classify that as a "mutual" termination?

That's exactly what I'm saying. In this case the player was happy until his role was diminished and he was a healthy scratch a few games. He could have just been a healthy scratch and received his full pay but he chose not to. He basically said F this and didn't report, which forced the Sabres to do something and the end result was a terminated contract.