GM's not happy with Lamoriello

[Triumph]

What exactly was the Fischer situation before the CBA was signed? I just don't know it that well.

The Fischer situation pre-CBA signing was that Fischer was healthy and playing hockey, then it was revealed he had a heart condition early last season. I'm not sure why Fischer can't get LTIR - is it because his injury is not necessarily hockey related? Seems ridiculous.

Elias wasn't signed before the CBA was signed - Lou was granted an exemption for who knows what reason. Lou knew that Elias had to be qualified and that Elias would sign for whatever Lou offered is probably the reason.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Triumph

[Devils731]

Oh ya, I remember the heart thing. I would say he should be getting LTIR as well.

[mcDevil]

There's no difference. If you can't trade Malakhov, you can't trade Korolyuk - both are players who have no intention of returning to the NHL.

How should Daly and Bettman have done their homework? Should they show up in Miami and offer Malakhov retirement papers? Maybe sign them for him? That's the homework to be done - that's why there are retirement papers. Maybe bring along a mind-reader too, and a soothsayer, so they can predict the future about whether or not Malakhov wants to return.

Not true. They are entirely different.....

Korlyuk: PLAYING

Malakhov: NOT PLAYING, SAYS HE IS RETIRED, AND STATES THAT HE HAS NO INTENTION OF PLAYING EVER AGAIN. BACKS UP THAT STATEMENT BY NOT RETURNING DESPITE 3.6 MILLION DOLLARS AVAILABLE FOR DOING SO. ALSO STATES THAT HE IS NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO PERFORM. THERE IS NO PREDICTING OR MIND-READING - THE WORDS CAME OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH, AND GUESS WHAT? HE'S NOT ON A PLANE TO SAN JOSE EITHER. In this case "the future" in terms of his cap hit, is only relevant THIS YEAR.

Koryluk: Under 35

Malakhov: Over 35

Koryluk: Does not count against anybody's cap.

Malakhov: Traded to avoid counting against cap.

How should they have done their homework? How about by picking up the phone? Their job is to detemine the validity of trades. They can not do so by just ruling - they have to confirm the facts. Again, if he never signs papers, is he not retired, ever? This is one of the problems with what has been done - A PLAYER CAN SIMPLY AGREE TO NEVER SIGN HIS RETIREMENT PAPERS as a condition of recieving a long-term contract. SO THAT HE CAN PULL THIS NONSENSE AGAIN.

The proof will be in the pudding, and that proof will be when this "loophole" is removed from the CBA, to remove any ambiguity in the minds of people who simply want an outcome in favor of their team, at the expense of the league.

In the meantime, people can continue to be hypocrites and complain about people like Clarke, for exercising rights under the CBA that clearly were put in to be exercised, instead of some "unwritten rules".

Edited October 6, 2006 by mcDevil

[nj96]

You really can't talk about intentions or what they think. The CBA is what it is. Both players are spoken for one way or another and allowed, by the terms of the contract between the players and the league, to be traded. As long as he doesn't fail a physical, he's still a non-injured, active player. Everyone knows Malakhov isn't going to lace them up ever again but it doesn't matter as long as he's still considered an active (albeit suspended) player in the eyes of the contract.

Everyone knows OJ killed his wife (except for the real killer) but you don't see him in jail, do you? Teams of lawyers can do amazing things - especially when given the ambiguous wording that's found in the CBA!

-Dan

[mcDevil]

You really can't talk about intentions or what they think. The CBA is what it is. Both players are spoken for one way or another and allowed, by the terms of the contract between the players and the league, to be traded. As long as he doesn't fail a physical, he's still a non-injured, active player. Everyone knows Malakhov isn't going to lace them up ever again but it doesn't matter as long as he's still considered an active (albeit suspended) player in the eyes of the contract.

Everyone knows OJ killed his wife (except for the real killer) but you don't see him in jail, do you? Teams of lawyers can do amazing things - especially when given the ambiguous wording that's found in the CBA!

-Dan

Bettman is capable of voiding anything that is not in the best interests of the game. He is supposed to be deciding what the intentions of deals are, to determine their validity. You said it yourself - "EVERYONE KNOWS MALAKHOV ISN'T GOING TO LACE THEM UP EVER AGAIN" And that's the whole point. Bettman knows it. He's just too much of a weasel to do anything about it. Just like he doesn't have the balls to admit the trapezoid exists because of Brodeur. (though the trapezoid has had very limited effect, IMO)

Just admit it - Lou's "luck" or "cleverness" is directly proportional to the weasly-ness of Gary Bettman. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Heck, more GM's should take advantage of that schmuck, until the schmuck has to slink out of town and back to the world of basketball before he finishes turning our sport into basketball on ice.

Edited October 6, 2006 by mcDevil

[jkrdevil]

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING indicates that he will change his mind. It comes down to the intent of the trade, which is clearly circumvention. Why should he have talked to Malakhov? Because he needs to determine whether or not he is a legitimately tradeable commodity. IT IS HIS JOB. And Koryluk isn't counting against anybody's cap space.

Actually the fact that he didn't sign his retirement papers is an indication that he might change his mind. There is a reason why some players don't immediatly sign the retirement papers that way there isn't a period where they can't come back to play if they change their mind.

That is the reason why there is retirement papers so that they can be able to tell who is a retired player or not where it is in writing. You can't just go by what the player says to a reporter because one minute he could say he's retired and the next he could say he's not.

[NJDevs4978]

How does this Wing fan know that Lou was given an exemption because the NHL wanted to be nice?

I agree Fischer should be off the cap, the problem is twofold one his cap number isn't that big so it's not gonna hamper the Wings that much if he's still on the cap and two the NHL seems very undecided about whether 'non-hockey' injuries qualify for LTI which is I guess why there's some ambiguity about whether Elias should have been off the cap last year.

[Triumph]

Not true. They are entirely different.....

Korlyuk: PLAYING

Malakhov: NOT PLAYING, SAYS HE IS RETIRED, AND STATES THAT HE HAS NO INTENTION OF PLAYING EVER AGAIN. BACKS UP THAT STATEMENT BY NOT RETURNING DESPITE 3.6 MILLION DOLLARS AVAILABLE FOR DOING SO. ALSO STATES THAT HE IS NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO PERFORM. THERE IS NO PREDICTING OR MIND-READING - THE WORDS CAME OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH, AND GUESS WHAT? HE'S NOT ON A PLANE TO SAN JOSE EITHER. In this case "the future" in terms of his cap hit, is only relevant THIS YEAR.

Koryluk: Under 35

Malakhov: Over 35

Koryluk: Does not count against anybody's cap.

Malakhov: Traded to avoid counting against cap.

How should they have done their homework? How about by picking up the phone? Their job is to detemine the validity of trades. They can not do so by just ruling - they have to confirm the facts. Again, if he never signs papers, is he not retired, ever? This is one of the problems with what has been done - A PLAYER CAN SIMPLY AGREE TO NEVER SIGN HIS RETIREMENT PAPERS as a condition of recieving a long-term contract. SO THAT HE CAN PULL THIS NONSENSE AGAIN.

The proof will be in the pudding, and that proof will be when this "loophole" is removed from the CBA, to remove any ambiguity in the minds of people who simply want an outcome in favor of their team, at the expense of the league.

In the meantime, people can continue to be hypocrites and complain about people like Clarke, for exercising rights under the CBA that clearly were put in to be exercised, instead of some "unwritten rules".

mcFlyer,

Again, this is why retirement papers exist. You cite Clarke's signing of Kesler as legal according to the CBA - go look in the CBA for the clause that says, "When a player interviewed by a Moscow paper says in a poorly translated article that he's retired, then he's retired, even though he's under contract and hasn't signed his retirement papers."

Lou still had to pay a 1st round pick for this, so it's not like he got off scot-free - he paid a pretty heavy price.

I don't see how this deal isn't in the best interests of the game. To do what - hold up the sanctity of this clause which is basically silly and poorly-written? Boy, you watch out - teams are going to sign players to multi-year deals past 35 and only have to give up a 1st round pick to get out of it. Man, I can't wait for that happen - the league is fvckED when that happens. You speak as though Lou intended for this scenario to play out as it did - you mean he wanted to give up a 1st round pick back when he signed Malakhov last August? Everyone speaks about Lou's machinations as though he anticipated these things back in August of 05 - if he had done that, he never would've signed any of the three M's.

No one wants dead money on their cap and teams will still be very wary of signing players older than 35 to multi-year deals. Who got hurt by this, exactly? I'd like to hear the injured party - it's not Clause 50.d.whatever, it's not the CBA, it's not the Devils, it's not the Sharks, it's not the other 28 teams (all of whom could have done this deal, had they had the cap room for it). So let's hear why this isn't in the best interest of the game? Oh, because you say so.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Triumph

[Derek21]

How does this Wing fan know that Lou was given an exemption because the NHL wanted to be nice?

I agree Fischer should be off the cap, the problem is twofold one his cap number isn't that big so it's not gonna hamper the Wings that much if he's still on the cap and two the NHL seems very undecided about whether 'non-hockey' injuries qualify for LTI which is I guess why there's some ambiguity about whether Elias should have been off the cap last year.

Who knows? It's a mystery. It just seems like there should be consistency with the Fischer case. He almost died on the ice.

It's just confusing.

[mcDevil]

Actually the fact that he didn't sign his retirement papers is an indication that he might change his mind. There is a reason why some players don't immediatly sign the retirement papers that way there isn't a period where they can't come back to play if they change their mind.

That is the reason why there is retirement papers so that they can be able to tell who is a retired player or not where it is in writing. You can't just go by what the player says to a reporter because one minute he could say he's retired and the next he could say he's not.

The fact that he didn't sign his retirement papers is indication that he and Lou could have come to a handshake deal prior to his signing that he not do so, that Bettman should investigate at the very least. This would allow Lou to offer a long-term contract that he could get out of at any time, in order to circumvent the cap.

The fact that it is even a possibility is an indication that Bettman needs to pick up the phone and make some determinations. Malakhov himself has said that no parties whatsoever have contacted him for any reason. That is evidence that San Jose's interests are not in obtaining a real asset, but rather obtaining his cap space for sale.

Edited October 6, 2006 by mcDevil

[mcDevil]

mcFlyer,

Again, this is why retirement papers exist. You cite Clarke's signing of Kesler as legal according to the CBA - go look in the CBA for the clause that says, "When a player interviewed by a Moscow paper says in a poorly translated article that he's retired, then he's retired, even though he's under contract and hasn't signed his retirement papers."

Lou still had to pay a 1st round pick for this, so it's not like he got off scot-free - he paid a pretty heavy price.

I don't see how this deal isn't in the best interests of the game. To do what - hold up the sanctity of this clause which is basically silly and poorly-written? Boy, you watch out - teams are going to sign players to multi-year deals past 35 and only have to give up a 1st round pick to get out of it. Man, I can't wait for that happen - the league is fvckED when that happens. You speak as though Lou intended for this scenario to play out as it did - you mean he wanted to give up a 1st round pick back when he signed Malakhov last August? Everyone speaks about Lou's machinations as though he anticipated these things back in August of 05 - if he had done that, he never would've signed any of the three M's.

No one wants dead money on their cap and teams will still be very wary of signing players older than 35 to multi-year deals. Who got hurt by this, exactly? I'd like to hear the injured party - it's not Clause 50.d.whatever, it's not the CBA, it's not the Devils, it's not the Sharks, it's not the other 28 teams (all of whom could have done this deal, had they had the cap room for it). So let's hear why this isn't in the best interest of the game? Oh, because you say so.

Here is the problem - the first rounder is not even necessary for the exact same machinations to have been pulled off. It could have just been for the bogus player in russia and the nobody defenseman. This opens the door to teams conspiring to trade even less in return for taking on other teams' cap space and an unwritten promise to do the same in return at some future date. Every team has rights to players they don't think will ever play that they can trade in return for cap space. In effect, this legitimizes pure cap space trading, and opens the door to worse examples. that is why the other GM's are saying "It's going to get ugly". Get ready for a lot of bogus things in the future, and be careful, because I'll be back to identify the hypocrites when it happens.

[Triumph]

The fact that he didn't sign his retirement papers is indication that he and Lou could have come to a handshake deal prior to his signing that he not do so, that Bettman should investigate at the very least. This would allow Lou to offer a long-term contract that he could get out of at any time, in order to circumvent the cap.

The fact that it is even a possibility is an indication that Bettman needs to pick up the phone and make some determinations. Malakhov himself has said that no parties whatsoever have contacted him for any reason. That is evidence that San Jose's interests are not in obtaining a real asset, but rather obtaining his cap space for sale.

mcFlyer,

Oh okay, let me get this straight, here's the dialogue pre-signing:

Lou - 'Just so you know, Vlad, when I try to send you to the minors or you decide to retire for injuries which have not been revealed by anyone, don't sign your retirement papers so I can trade you as dead money, even though you will only end up seeing about 1.6 million of the 7.2 million you signed for, and I'll end up having to waste a 1st round pick.'

Vlad - 'Gotcha, Lou - sounds good, where do I sign?'

If that's the case, why would Lou have EVER signed Malakhov to a 2 year deal? Your explanation reeks of after-the-fact deduction.

You don't think Lou would have tried to get Malakhov on IR either this year or last? All Malakhov had to do is show up at Devils' camp, fail a physical - he gets paid $3.6 million to play tennis in Miami, and the Devils keep their 1st round pick in a deep draft. Vlad's made a lot of money, but is he really going to pass up that much coin because he didn't want to spend a week in New Jersey? Something about this doesn't add up, and I suspect more of it is on Vladimir's side than you think.

[mcDevil]

mcFlyer,

Oh okay, let me get this straight, here's the dialogue pre-signing:

Lou - 'Just so you know, Vlad, when I try to send you to the minors or you decide to retire for injuries which have not been revealed by anyone, don't sign your retirement papers so I can trade you as dead money, even though you will only end up seeing about 1.6 million of the 7.2 million you signed for, and I'll end up having to waste a 1st round pick.'

Vlad - 'Gotcha, Lou - sounds good, where do I sign?'

If that's the case, why would Lou have EVER signed Malakhov to a 2 year deal? Your explanation reeks of after-the-fact deduction.

You don't think Lou would have tried to get Malakhov on IR either this year or last? All Malakhov had to do is show up at Devils' camp, fail a physical - he gets paid $3.6 million to play tennis in Miami, and the Devils keep their 1st round pick in a deep draft. Vlad's made a lot of money, but is he really going to pass up that much coin because he didn't want to spend a week in New Jersey? Something about this doesn't add up, and I suspect more of it is on Vladimir's side than you think.

No - in effect the deal was a 1-year, 3.6 million dollar contract, with an option to "re-up" if Lou decided not to pull what he pulled, instead of the 1 year, 1.8 million dollar offer that a legit offer would have entailed.

Ack - no more time to debate. Gotta go. Have a good weekend!

[Triumph]

Here is the problem - the first rounder is not even necessary for the exact same machinations to have been pulled off. It could have just been for the bogus player in russia and the nobody defenseman. This opens the door to teams conspiring to trade even less in return for taking on other teams' cap space and an unwritten promise to do the same in return at some future date. Every team has rights to players they don't think will ever play that they can trade in return for cap space. In effect, this legitimizes pure cap space trading, and opens the door to worse examples. that is why the other GM's are saying "It's going to get ugly". Get ready for a lot of bogus things in the future, and be careful, because I'll be back to identify the hypocrites when it happens.

Huh? No, you're wrong about this. Teams would almost never make unwritten deals with other GMs because that guy could be out of office in a year. The 1st round pick is necessary because the market for Vladimir Malakhov's dead money was very limited (I had thought a 2nd would get it done back in July, with Pittsburgh and Washington the only interested parties). Not many teams have dead money left on their cap, and remember that the salary cap number, not the actual salary paid number, is what goes to the league for possible revenue-sharing.

You won't be back because deals like this will be very rare. Teams would much rather spend up to their cap or self-imposed cap than take on dead money. Teams have already shown an unwillingness to sign players older than 35 to multi-year deals and I guarantee a similar unwillingness will occur even after the Malakhov fiasco - Lou got stuck a 1st round pick, and other teams will be stuck picks if a similar thing happens - which it probably won't, because everything surrounding the Malakhov incident is unclear - (why he left the team, why he refuses to show up at camp to collect a paycheck, why he won't sign his retirement papers, why his agent insists he isn't retired)

No - in effect the deal was a 1-year, 3.6 million dollar contract, with an option to "re-up" if Lou decided not to pull what he pulled, instead of the 1 year, 1.8 million dollar offer that a legit offer would have entailed.

Ack - no more time to debate. Gotta go. Have a good weekend!

Are you kidding? This has to be a joke. He wanted to sign Malakhov for 1 year and dealt a 1st round pick for the privilege of having him? This is total after the fact nonsense - come up with a coherent scenario and perhaps I'll begin to see your point.

[Tretyak 20]

I think there's something everyone's been missing. This trade isn't about "Malakhov" this or "35 yo" that. It's about economics! Pure and simple. One could even go as far as to say (as I will) that it's Capitalism vs. Socialism, and in this case qeue Lou Lamoriello playing Adam Smith.

Please forget for a second the particulars. To a Capitalist - like Lou - everything is just an asset or a liability.

Now let's look at this from the POV of say, Nashville GM Dave Poile. I can only afford to spend around $39 million per season on player salaries. Chances are it'll be years before I have enough revenues to actually meet the cap ceiling. Am I (at $39 mill) playing on a level field with teams who can easily pay $44 mill? Of course not. So shouldn't I still be able to use that extra $5 mill as an asset for my team?

Fact is a GM like Poile would have LOVED to take on Malakhov's salary in exchange for a 1st rounder. It helps his team. It would help ANY small market team. To void such a trade would effectively say that small market teams must remain - even post CBA - in a perpetual economic inequality with big market teams. It mandates that small market GM's are simply not allowed to make the best use they can of their superfluous cap space.

Now look at the other argument. Bettman should not have allowed the trade. Clearly SJ is just getting a "free" 1st rounder in exchange for taking the cap hit of a player who'll never play again.

What would you have had Bettman do? Step in and declare the trade too lop-sided and thus unfair? This is the Socialist argument!! Why does Bettman have the right to declare what is or isn't "fair"!? Let's put it another way. What if I wanted to sell you a pound of gold for $20? Would you take it? What if some Government person stepped in and mandated that you pay me an additional $5,000? Would you still want to buy the gold? Would it take into account my situation and why I wanted to sell it for $20 in the first place?

What you're arguing for is price-fixing - giving the League the final authority to decide what a player's trade value is. Because if Bettman had the precident to step in and invalidate a player-for-player trade, that's exactly the power he'd have. How will that benefit the League?

The fact is what Lou did helped the NHL in the long run. It set a precident so teams can sign important over-35ers to multi-year contracts without worry of injury. It upheld the right of GM's to decide for themselves what a player's value is, and it allows small-market teams to use their excess cap space for their own good, turning a liability into an asset.

[SueNJ97]

The fact is what Lou did helped the NHL in the long run. It set a precident so teams can sign important over-35ers to multi-year contracts without worry of injury. It upheld the right of GM's to decide for themselves what a player's value is, and it allows small-market teams to use their excess cap space for their own good, turning a liability into an asset.

What it also did - whether you agree with it or not - is define exactly when a player becomes nothing but 'Cap space', and thus, according to Bettman, not tradeable, although not, I again point out, according to the CBA. We knew when that happened under the age of 35, it was when they were bought out and nothing remained but the buyout terms on the Cap. That's nothing but Cap space and, therefore, if Bettman wanted to say you couldn't trade 'Cap space', that would be it. Now we know when the definition is set in stone for a player who signed a deal at the age of 35 or older. It's when they sign the retirement papers. Now it is settled. And we don't have to wonder whether the NHL will rule one way for one team and one way for another. Teams know what it is. You can agree with it or not. But everyone knows now.

[LizDevil30]

Who knows? It's a mystery. It just seems like there should be consistency with the Fischer case. He almost died on the ice.

It's just confusing.

I don't understand why he's not off the cap either. Elias off or exempted whatever due to Hep A, Fischer heart problem and like Derek said almost died on the ice, should be exempted also. I don't think it should matter how, what or when the injury occured. If a signed player becomes unable to play due to injury, he should be placed on IR or LTIR until they return or the length of their contract, whatever comes first. Now what happens if a player leaves for personal reasons? Illness in family or substance abuse?

[SueNJ97]

This was posted on OTG from a Wings fan earlier:

Last season the Devils got an exemption for Patrick Elias. This was not a LTI thing, it was an exemption. Lou was one of the biggest supporters of the cap and helped put it in place. He asked for an exemption for Patrick Elias before the cap went in effect so the NHL said okay and granted it. It was sort of like a one-time freebie, like the buyouts without a cap hit.

The Detroit Red Wings asked for a similar exemption for Jiri Fischer, and GM Ken Holland was told something would definitely be done. Then the league backed off and recently told Holland all the Wings could get was LTI for Fischer. Looking at Fischer's situation, perhaps the league should've granted it. Lucky Lou.

ETA -- FREEP:

"I talked to the league a number of times and was given hope that Jiri Fischer would not count against the cap, but as it played itself out, there was nothing in the CBA to allow Fischer to be off the cap," general manager Ken Holland said.

Any thoughts???

I don't understand why they wouldn't allow Fischer off the cap. While it is true that he had a condition that occurs 'naturally' (ie - playing hockey didn't cause him to have a heart condition), if he had never played hockey professionally it is doubtful that he ever would have experienced the type of trauma that he did. He might have had less severe incidents, or he might have gone through life never having it impact him. But the incident that happened had to be in some way related to exerting himself at the level that he did. But we have no idea what doctors said. They may have said it would have happened anyway. In which case I still don't agree with not putting him on LTIE but I can see where it came from.

I'm guessing that the Elias issue was that the illness would never have occured if he hadn't been playing in Russia during the lockout. In that case they may have seen it as 'hockey related'. Not sure but that's the best guess.

[LizDevil30]

Question, when Theodore broke his foot leaving his house, was he put on IR? I'm confused, it sound like only hockey related injuries count? Sue, I think your thinking on Elias and hep A is what the league thought too, yet hep A isn't contracted from playing hockey. It's all so convoluted.

[SueNJ97]

Question, when Theodore broke his foot leaving his house, was he put on IR? I'm confused, it sound like only hockey related injuries count? Sue, I think your thinking on Elias and hep A is what the league thought too, yet hep A isn't contracted from playing hockey. It's all so convoluted.

The exemption does say illness or injury. Re-thinking, I'm wondering if it was the pre-existing condition (ie - from before he joined the NHL) stuff and not the hockey-related illness/injury. I should go back and re-read the CBA on that point. Because if it is an undiagnosed pre-existing condition it may work the way, unfortunately, insurance does on that point. And they are screwed. Not that I agree. But I'm wondering if that was the case.

It says injured, ill or disabled such that they cannot perform their duties as a hockey player, for the 10 games or 24 days. I didn't copy it exactly, but that is what it says. It does say that if the league doesn't believe the club they can get a second opinion from a physician of their own choosing. Doesn't mention pre-existing conditions, but it is worded as 'becomes unfit to play', so that could be what they mean. However, here is the interesting thing. It mentions exemptions for the purpose of going above the cap to replace that player. I'm wondering if the team has cap space for the players it needs to sign, that they don't give the LTIE. That may the answer, but I can't be sure.

Edited October 7, 2006 by SueNJ97