Commissioner for a Day

[CarltonTheBear]

I will say in the case of Berglund I don't think we were just dealing with a case of a player angry about his lack of playing time. It seems like there was some personal things going on where he just needed to get away from hockey for a bit.

 

[Deebo]

I think special teams already have too big an influence on the outcome of games, so I would be against changing the icing on the PK and minor penalties ending after a goal rules. That would just make special teams that much more influential.

 

[Bullfrog]

I thought about that too, Deebo. That's why I really think shorter, one minute penalties are appropriate for minor offences.

 

[Kin]

I think special teams already have too big an influence on the outcome of games, so I would be against changing the icing on the PK and minor penalties ending after a goal rules. That would just make special teams that much more influential.

It's a double edged sword though. Ideally making penalties more, well, penalizing would lead to teams adapting and eventually taking fewer penalties making special teams less influential.

 

[Andy007]

I think special teams already have too big an influence on the outcome of games, so I would be against changing the icing on the PK and minor penalties ending after a goal rules. That would just make special teams that much more influential.

It's a double edged sword though. Ideally making penalties more, well, penalizing would lead to teams adapting and eventually taking fewer penalties making special teams less influential.

Yea and with your idea about streamlining the rule book (along with abolishing silly penalties like 4 mins for any blood on a high stick and the puck over boards delay of game) I think it could work pretty smoothly.

My only minor tweak would be that I wouldn't implement both the inability to ice the puck and having to withstand the full time of a penalty; it would have to be one or the other.

 

[bustaheims]

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?

I'd still say no, because the team still has the option not to terminate the contract. They could simply suspend the player (which would remove the cap hit temporarily) or try to trade them. The team still has options. The player doesn't.

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?

Sure, that would be more mutual, but, as Nik points out, that's quite unlikely a scenario unless the player is leaving for Europe. I imagine most of those terminations are agreed to by both parties before hand.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'd still say no, because the team still has the option not to terminate the contract. They could simply suspend the player (which would remove the cap hit temporarily) or try to trade them. The team still has options. The player doesn't.

The question was though if a team and a player both mutually want out of a contract, is there any mechanism in the CBA to allow for that? I'm not talking about a player refusing to honour his contract and just hoping to force the team to terminate the deal instead of suspending him. I'm saying if both sides wanted out the player and the team could sit down and agree that if the player refuses to report to the team that the team would respond by going through the process of terminating the deal. Both sides get out of the deal, both sides are happy.

Like I've said though, I do agree that it would be an incredibly rare circumstance for something like this to happen. Either a player won't want to give up his money or a team won't want to lose a player for nothing.

 

[bustaheims]

The question was though if a team and a player both mutually want out of a contract, is there any mechanism in the CBA to allow for that? I'm not talking about a player refusing to honour his contract and just hoping to force the team to terminate the deal instead of suspending him. I'm saying if both sides wanted out the player and the team could sit down and agree that if the player refuses to report to the team that the team would respond by going through the process of terminating the deal. Both sides get out of the deal, both sides are happy.

Like I've said though, I do agree that it would be an incredibly rare circumstance for something like this to happen. Either a player won't want to give up his money or a team won't want to lose a player for nothing.

Technically, yes, but, it would almost certainly be considered cap circumvention, so . . . in reality, no.

 

[Bullfrog]

The question was though if a team and a player both mutually want out of a contract, is there any mechanism in the CBA to allow for that? I'm not talking about a player refusing to honour his contract and just hoping to force the team to terminate the deal instead of suspending him. I'm saying if both sides wanted out the player and the team could sit down and agree that if the player refuses to report to the team that the team would respond by going through the process of terminating the deal. Both sides get out of the deal, both sides are happy.

Like I've said though, I do agree that it would be an incredibly rare circumstance for something like this to happen. Either a player won't want to give up his money or a team won't want to lose a player for nothing.

Technically, yes, but, it would almost certainly be considered cap circumvention, so . . . in reality, no.

Agreed, you can't agree to default on your contract obligations.

Anyway, all I was suggesting was that there was a legit way to simply agree to mutually cancel a contract that would release the player into free agency and release the team from any obligations (including cap hit.) Some cap recapture might be required to make it fair, though the impact would be somewhat mitigated by capping contract length and the existing year-by-year fluctuation limits.

 

[bustaheims]

Anyway, all I was suggesting was that there was a legit way to simply agree to mutually cancel a contract that would release the player into free agency and release the team from any obligations (including cap hit.) Some cap recapture might be required to make it fair, though the impact would be somewhat mitigated by capping contract length and the existing year-by-year fluctuation limits.

I agree. Some sort of mutual opt-out could be an interesting addition. Maybe with some limitations on only being able to used on contracts of a certain length, or with a maximum number of years remaining on the deal or something.

 

[Kin]

My only concern there would be if a team was in a contract like the Zaitsev one if fans(or the teams themselves) wouldn't think that they were helping the team by trying to make the player so unhappy he wanted out.

 

[bustaheims]

My only concern there would be if a team was in a contract like the Zaitsev one if fans(or the teams themselves) wouldn't think that they were helping the team by trying to make the player so unhappy he wanted out.

That's fair, though, I'm also not sure how much worse people would make it for players they don't like than they already do - which, really, is just a sad statement on the state of humanity in this day and age.

 

[Kin]

That's fair, though, I'm also not sure how much worse people would make it for players they don't like than they already do - which, really, is just a sad statement on the state of humanity in this day and age.

I'm thinking Larry Murphy/"Muskoka 5" but, like, every year.

 

[Frank E]

That's fair, though, I'm also not sure how much worse people would make it for players they don't like than they already do - which, really, is just a sad statement on the state of humanity in this day and age.

I'm thinking Larry Murphy/"Muskoka 5" but, like, every year.

I never understood the Larry Murphy hate thing.

 

[Kin]

I never understood the Larry Murphy hate thing.

I think it was a combination of things with the biggest factor being that, independent of Murphy, the team was falling apart.

 

[bustaheims]

That's fair, though, I'm also not sure how much worse people would make it for players they don't like than they already do - which, really, is just a sad statement on the state of humanity in this day and age.

I'm thinking Larry Murphy/"Muskoka 5" but, like, every year.

I never understood the Larry Murphy hate thing.

People were really upset about trading Dmitri Mironov for him, obviously.

 

[Andy007]

That's fair, though, I'm also not sure how much worse people would make it for players they don't like than they already do - which, really, is just a sad statement on the state of humanity in this day and age.

I'm thinking Larry Murphy

At least we got "future considerations" for him

 

[hockeyfan1]

Some proposals:

Draft Lottery
This idea may not be well received but it wouldn?t hurt to wonder what would happen if it actually comes to fruition:

a) Keep the current draft lottery system for qualified teams ? in odd numbered years
b) Give ALL teams a chance to draft for the 1st pick ? in even numbered years

For example:
Let?s say next year (2020) is an even numbered year, allow all teams a chance to draft for the #1 pick. 
The following year (2021), an odd-numbered year, gets back to the bottom qualifying teams to participate in the draft lottery system as it currently is.

It?s possible that these changes (a) in particular will prevent too much tanking and also (b) avoid the ?Oilers syndrome?  where the same team gets to draft for the #1 too many times over the course of several draft lottery years.

Salary Cap
Many of us certainly prefer an elimination of the current salary cap, hence no cap.  While that may seem enticing for many fans, it?s doubtful the league will endeavour to return to the no cap era.

The best option then, as has already been discusses & polled in these quarters here, would be an NBA-style cap-like structure ? soft cap/luxury/ (hard cap-end limit).  Not that the league should mandate a complete adherence to NBA CBA style agreement (perhaps too complicated and overdone in some regard), but one of variance pertaining to some sort of revisions that would allow it (cap structure)  greater flexibility for both teams & players.

Head Shots
Hits to the head or when the head is the primary point of contact regardless of how it was done should be outrightly banned.

As we all know, international ice hockey rules differ from the NHL?s.  While the IIHF drew up stricter penalties, game misconducts, suspensions, etc., that?s nice but personally I don?t think it goes far enough or would go far enough in the NHL.

I?d advocate that if any player either causes deliberate attempt to injure (a cross check to the head, charging, elbowing, etc. where the head is either the primary or even secondary point of contact ? by secondary, I mean when a cross-check is given or a player is driven into the boards and the force or structure of the hit sends him head first into either the boards or the ice ? the suspension should be:

a)  20 games without pay.  These are the key words here, without pay. 

Then, should the opposing player be deemed to be placed on LTIR with a concussion that will keep him out longer than two-three months:

b)  The NHL would reserve the right to review and elevate the original suspension to 40 games either without pay or with 1/4 of pay or less.

At first glance, these rules may not seem strict enough, after all what?s 20 games or even 40 going to do.  However, maybe there should be a 30, 50, game suspension but if you don?t attach it to something of value then it?ll be next to meaningless.  A player can be suspended all he wants and continue to pocket his pay.  By withholding pay during the suspended period, it would definitely make note only a statement of seriousness, but also the intent to drive the point home where it hurts ? the pocketbook.

 

[Kin]

All current suspensions are suspensions without pay.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Well, then, they would have to include a fine ? not to the team ? to the player.  Plus, the offending individual should be suspended for as long as the opposing player is out for, whatever that will be ? the suspension will still stand plus the extra.