46 replies to this topic

[Majsheppard]

NHL By-law 15.1 C

The making or causing to be made, through any medium, public or private, any statement indicating any intention or desire of or interest in acquiring the services of any person referred to in (a) [players] or (b) [other contracted team employees, ie: coach, GM...] hereof, except when such statement is communicated to the Member Club entitled to such services in a confidential manner or is made during a period when such person remains on a Free Agent List in accordance with Section 9A.5, may, at the discretion of the Commissioner, be deemed to be a contravention of this By-Law.

If the comments reported were actually made by Leipold, then Bettman could decide it's tampering.

While we all know the needs and cap space of different teams, and can assume who they'll be interested in, saying you'll match/beat any offer goes a lot farther. Too far, IMO. Main problem is there isn't likely any way to prove he really said it, unless he was dumb enough to mention Parise's name on tape/email/etc.

Thank you for the quote. Through any medium. I would say that includes the one the owner said. The letter of the law.

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT DISCUSS NAMES TO ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THE ORGANIZATION!

[Majsheppard]

I have a question about the rules that I cannot lock down.

The Wild owner just let it leak out that he will not be outbid for Parise... while he was still under contract and the Devils have exclusive negotiating rights.

Holland said it himself during an NHL Live interview, that he can't name names before July 1st or it would be tampering.

Now we know the Lions lost a draft pick recently when former KC coach Cunningham said he would like to get a player that was undercontract with the Chiefs. I can only assume the same system is in place for all of the sporting leagues.

Now, why hasn't there been any talk about hitting the Wild with a penalty over this?


If the Devils were trying to sign Parise for a hypothetical amount- such as 7 Million- and he was asking for 8 hypothetically, then it is possible by July first they negotiate to somewhere in the middle... such as 7.5. Saying this can allow the agent of Zach to say, he just said they won't be outbid. Not only are we going to get 8 there, we are going to get 9 million there, 8 was the hometown discount for you. We demand 8. Now the Devils are stuck paying 8 or letting Zach walk and get at least 8 from the Wild.

See how that should be cheating? The general feeling seems to be that since the source was a friend who had dinner with him... At least that is what George Malik thinks. I think that is a weak defense. Why doesn't Holland just go out with a Ashar Khan for dinner and give him a list of names and say this is off the record WINK. Then he could write a story and Holland could deny it and say I wouldn't do that because it would be cheating? You know why he doesn't do it, because he is classy.

I just want to know, what are the rules and what should happen? Also, why aren't we more upset about this. I think we should point this out, because it would piss us off if it happened to us. It also could inhibit our ability to get him if we choose to bid for his services.

The link to the source is below.

The Skinny.

Doesn't anyone ever read? Where exactly in your original post do you "clearly state it was second hand"? In fact, in the bolded piece above, you stated that "The Wild owner just let it leak out". No, the entire story is about Lou Nanne, who has absolutely no affiliation with the Wild & is not a journalist, taking the story to the press. By saying "the owner leaked it" you either had to be there to hear the conversation or you're making a "wild" assumption. Unless the NHL has proof, i.e. they heard Leipold tell Nanne to go to the press with the info OR if Leipold himself had made those comments in public or to a member of the press, they're not going to do anything. There's absolutely no evidence that Leipold wanted that in the press, again just assumptions. Bottom line, the NHL isn't going to start handing out fines & taking draft picks away on assumptions. And btw the Nanne situation in no way, shape, or form would compare to Holland going out to dinner with an Ashar Khan, who is a journalist, and dropping information about the who's & how much's they're going after as UFAs. There is a much much greater expectation of conversations being private when had among friends when compared to being had with journalists either on or off the record.

All it is at this point is hearsay...

{heer-say}
Noun
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another & not part of one's direct knowledge
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor

Until it is verified, as in Leipold or Fletcher confirm the conversation went like that, it is 100% NOT tampering & nothing will ever come of it.

Fair enough, I didn't put it in the post... because it is in the link. Shame on me for that. I didn't rewrite the article in my post. HOWEVER... I DID suggest Holland do the same thing and used Hasek as proxy illustrating the SAME situation. I guess I figured you would read the source and then infer I read it as well having linked it and citing it as inspiration for my hypothetical. I guess that is asking a lot, and I should be more clear.

What isn't fair is the comparison with a journalist was made to illustrate what if a journalist made such hearsay. If someone tampers with a journalist they can deny it all the same, and the league would investigate. That is ALL I am asking for... both could deny it and there would be consequences for both.

Edited by Majsheppard, 15 June 2012 - 09:34 PM.

[Majsheppard]

I have a question about the rules that I cannot lock down.

The Wild owner just let it leak out that he will not be outbid for Parise... while he was still under contract and the Devils have exclusive negotiating rights.

Holland said it himself during an NHL Live interview, that he can't name names before July 1st or it would be tampering.

Now we know the Lions lost a draft pick recently when former KC coach Cunningham said he would like to get a player that was undercontract with the Chiefs. I can only assume the same system is in place for all of the sporting leagues.

Now, why hasn't there been any talk about hitting the Wild with a penalty over this?


If the Devils were trying to sign Parise for a hypothetical amount- such as 7 Million- and he was asking for 8 hypothetically, then it is possible by July first they negotiate to somewhere in the middle... such as 7.5. Saying this can allow the agent of Zach to say, he just said they won't be outbid. Not only are we going to get 8 there, we are going to get 9 million there, 8 was the hometown discount for you. We demand 8. Now the Devils are stuck paying 8 or letting Zach walk and get at least 8 from the Wild.

See how that should be cheating? The general feeling seems to be that since the source was a friend who had dinner with him... At least that is what George Malik thinks. I think that is a weak defense. Why doesn't Holland just go out with a Ashar Khan for dinner and give him a list of names and say this is off the record WINK. Then he could write a story and Holland could deny it and say I wouldn't do that because it would be cheating? You know why he doesn't do it, because he is classy.

I just want to know, what are the rules and what should happen? Also, why aren't we more upset about this. I think we should point this out, because it would piss us off if it happened to us. It also could inhibit our ability to get him if we choose to bid for his services.

The link to the source is below.

The Skinny.

Doesn't anyone ever read? Where exactly in your original post do you "clearly state it was second hand"? In fact, in the bolded piece above, you stated that "The Wild owner just let it leak out". No, the entire story is about Lou Nanne, who has absolutely no affiliation with the Wild & is not a journalist, taking the story to the press. By saying "the owner leaked it" you either had to be there to hear the conversation or you're making a "wild" assumption. Unless the NHL has proof, i.e. they heard Leipold tell Nanne to go to the press with the info OR if Leipold himself had made those comments in public or to a member of the press, they're not going to do anything. There's absolutely no evidence that Leipold wanted that in the press, again just assumptions. Bottom line, the NHL isn't going to start handing out fines & taking draft picks away on assumptions. And btw the Nanne situation in no way, shape, or form would compare to Holland going out to dinner with an Ashar Khan, who is a journalist, and dropping information about the who's & how much's they're going after as UFAs. There is a much much greater expectation of conversations being private when had among friends when compared to being had with journalists either on or off the record.

All it is at this point is hearsay...

{heer-say}
Noun
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another & not part of one's direct knowledge
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor

Until it is verified, as in Leipold or Fletcher confirm the conversation went like that, it is 100% NOT tampering & nothing will ever come of it.

Fair enough, I didn't put it in the post... because it is in the link. Shame on me for that. I didn't rewrite the article in my post. HOWEVER... I DID suggest Holland do the same thing and used Hasek as proxy illustrating the SAME situation. I guess I figured you would read the source and then infer I read it as well having linked it and citing it as inspiration for my hypothetical. I guess that is asking a lot, and I should be more clear.

I don't care if it is hearsay, it has the same effect.

The rules say any means, public or private, any medium.

Is there anyone who is a lawyer? Let's just subpoena both of them and demand they say under oath if they had dinner together. Then if they lie we can have a perjury trial that lasts a decade. You know, like baseball.

[Majsheppard]

Also, he said it on radio and is a credible source, an investigation has to happen.

[ogreslayer]

Also, he said it on radio and is a credible source, an investigation has to happen.

No, no it doesn't. Simply put, there was no public comment made by any member, past or present, of the Minnesota Wild organization in regards to going after Parise in free agency. That really is the only way that the league will automatically go after the team for tampering.

Sure, the Devils could file tampering charges & try to convince the Commissioners office to investigate. Realistically, the only way that happens is that Parise ends up signing with the Wild straight out of the gate on July 1st. And if all the league can find is that a 72 year old former GM of a completely different club, popped off at the mouth during a radio interview, nothing will come of it. Unless they can find hard evidence that there was a distinct plan to leak info out to the public (say like in an internal email chain) through Nanne or, like in the case of the Blues tampering w/ Scott Stevens when he was an RFA years ago, the actual existence of a contract that was drawn up & discussed with Parise's agent prior to July 1st, the whole thing will go nowhere.

[ComradeWasabi]

I don't care if it is hearsay, it has the same effect.

Regardless of the effect (the absurdity of which I discussed in my previous post), there is absolutely no proof that Leipold said anything of the sort and as such no case to make for punishing the Wild. End of story.

[esteef]

So the info is out there for Parise to know, just like the Wild wanted, completely stomping on the intent of the tampering rule. Excellent!

esteef

[Majsheppard]

Regardless of the effect (the absurdity of which I discussed in my previous post), there is absolutely no proof that Leipold said anything of the sort and as such no case to make for punishing the Wild. End of story.

Launch an investigation. End of story. Ask them under oath.

[Majsheppard]

This is how the world continues to get worse. Just keep letting people get away with whatever they want.

It confounds me how much people are defeated about things that can be fixed. You know every single rape case is hearsay. Might as well not try with those.

You know what, every police investigation starts with hearsay. Hey, this guy has a motive let us go ask that person questions and look for hard evidence to build a case around. You know what, even though there is a credible source to follow, it is hearsay and we might as well not look into it.

No big deal.


These are rules, if you make them you should enforce them. Sure it is hearsay, maybe it is false and maybe they can't ever prove it. I don't see why you would not try. It doesn't hurt anything to look into it. In the very least if it was a lie and you look into it, we can ignore Nanne for the rest of time.

The only thing that lets some people get away with whatever they want is the indifference of man. Keep being indifferent, it just makes you look weak and pitiful. Make all the posts you want about not bothering, I would wonder what you would say to that if you were the victim of some bending of rules. If a coworker took credit for your work, or you got blamed for something and no one bothered to look into it because it would just be word vs. word.

You really want a world that works that way?!?!?

[ComradeWasabi]

On the first page I quite clearly explained why I really don't care for this to be investigated. I think it's pretty stupid that team officials are not allowed to say that if a player were to make it to market, they would make a strong push for him. Throwing specific numbers around and talking directly to players or agents: those are (and should be) violations of the tampering rule. I simply don't think that saying that you would match any potential offer a player might receive should be considered a violation of the rules. People aren't stupid, everyone in both the Parise in NJ camps are quite aware that he is the marquee free agent forward this off-season and that if he makes it to UFA status, multiple teams will be making significant offers. I don't understand why everybody is supposed to play stupid until July 1st, especially when it comes to such a major free agent. It would of course be quite another matter if, for example, a GM publicly disclosed the terms of the offer he would be making to a free agent. But just to say "I really want him if he becomes available and I'll stop at nothing to try to make it happen" should not be against the rules, at least in my opinion.

Under the letter of the rules, you're right: this should be investigated and something should be done about it. I just don't like the rules. I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I don't think it'll be very productive for either one of us, so I'll leave it at that.

[Buppy]

On the first page I quite clearly explained why I really don't care for this to be investigated. I think it's pretty stupid that team officials are not allowed to say that if a player were to make it to market, they would make a strong push for him. ...
Under the letter of the rules, you're right: this should be investigated and something should be done about it. I just don't like the rules. I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I don't think it'll be very productive for either one of us, so I'll leave it at that.

Not every player is Parise, and you can't have different rules for different players. If Parise, or anyone else, wants to know what other teams are willing to offer, then all he has to do is wait until the 1st and find out. While Parise specifically may know he'll have no shortage of offers, there are a lot of players who don't have that security. They have to choose between the security of getting a contract before there's extra competition from UFAs and possibly getting more money or a better opportunity on the open market.

In my opinion, "we will not be outbid" is basically the same as throwing out a specific number. Worse even, since a specific number could be lower than what someone else offers. Now Parise knows he should talk to Minnesota after any offer, and he can use those comments to push for a higher salary from anyone who makes an offer. Things can move fast on UFA day. If the Wings want to be aggressive, they won't necessarily want to wait around while Parise gets a counter-offer from the Wild. Doing so could mean they miss out on other players.

Would it have made any difference had the story not been released? Likely no one will ever know. But it's pretty simple rule: Don't talk about players under contract to other teams. It's not hard. And there's no reason for it other than to give yourself an advantage over all the teams who follow the rules.

This is how the world continues to get worse. Just keep letting people get away with whatever they want.

It confounds me how much people are defeated about things that can be fixed. You know every single rape case is hearsay. Might as well not try with those. ...

I agree with you in principle, but comparing this to rape makes you sound a little hysterical.

I don't give a s*** if someone jaywalks. Doesn't mean I'm indifferent to every crime. Some things just aren't worth getting worked up over. This specific case, where the potential damage caused is likely somewhere between none and very little, and the potential for actually proving any wrongdoing is virtually nil, is I think one of those things. Certainly not worth the time and expense of a court proceeding. I don't think it would warrant anything more than a fine anyway, even if it was proven (as much as I would like to see Minnesota prohibited from signing Parise, I don't feel that would be justified).

[number9]

Launch an investigation. End of story. Ask them under oath.

It's not about what you know, It's about what you can prove. Not that you know though anyway...

This is how the world continues to get worse. Just keep letting people get away with whatever they want.

It confounds me how much people are defeated about things that can be fixed. You know every single rape case is hearsay. Might as well not try with those.

You know what, every police investigation starts with hearsay. Hey, this guy has a motive let us go ask that person questions and look for hard evidence to build a case around. You know what, even though there is a credible source to follow, it is hearsay and we might as well not look into it.

No big deal.


These are rules, if you make them you should enforce them. Sure it is hearsay, maybe it is false and maybe they can't ever prove it. I don't see why you would not try. It doesn't hurt anything to look into it. In the very least if it was a lie and you look into it, we can ignore Nanne for the rest of time.

The only thing that lets some people get away with whatever they want is the indifference of man. Keep being indifferent, it just makes you look weak and pitiful. Make all the posts you want about not bothering, I would wonder what you would say to that if you were the victim of some bending of rules. If a coworker took credit for your work, or you got blamed for something and no one bothered to look into it because it would just be word vs. word.

You really want a world that works that way?!?!?

First, you don't know what hearsay means...stop using it.

Second, maybe the slope is so slippery because of all the red herring on it...

Third, you remind me of this guy




Your English is fine though

Edited by number9, 17 June 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[ogreslayer]

So let's see...

Did Parise already know the Wild were interested in him before this broke? Yes, unless he doesn't have access to newspapers, tv, radio, or the internet. Since I have never seen an Amish hockey player, I assume he does have access to all of those.

Does Parise already know the maximum any team can offer him? Yes, if he knows anything about the current CBA he does. No team can offer him a salary that is worth more than 20% of their salary cap at the time he is signed. With the current temporary cap set at ~$70m, any team can offer him the maximum of $14m a year. I would think that Parise's smart enough to know he's not getting that type of money though. More realistically, and this is just my opinion, he's probably looking at Brad Richards or Ilya Kovalchuk type money & he knows that already.

So all that Parise got out of Nanne's comments are: The Wild are interested in him & that they think nobody will be able to outbid them for his rights. I would have a feeling he knew all of this to begin with unless he lives in a cave when not at the rink. I'm sure he also knows that Detroit is interested & thinks that nobody will outbid them. Probably the same for the Rangers although he already said he wouldn't consider signing with them.

To recap: No new information really in anything Nanne said & it wasn't direct comments from anyone within the Wild organization. If this were tampering, Lou Lamoriello would already be all over this like he was with the Scott Stevens episode back in 1994 & as of yet, there hasn't been a single peep out of him or anyone within the Devil's organization about it. And as to comparing this to rape & demanding both parties be put under oath? Please, just step away from the Law & Order reruns on cable.

[2probert4]

I agree. It's not reaching out to Parise directly, but saying that in public still qualifies as tampering to me.

Because Craig Leopold, former owner of the Nashville Predaturds, has been one of Bettman's butt buddies for close to 15 years. Leopold did not sell the Preds to Balsillie, so Bettman approved him to buy the Wild. Someone may have posted this prior to this response, but it's always fun to talk crap about Bettman, and anything Predaturds.

[esteef]

Of course Parise knows there will be teams wanting him come July 1, but actually confirming that your team will certainly be one of those teams, and that you're prepared to outpay everyone, in the roundabout way the Wild did I think is tampering. The actual coming out and saying it (through your dinner buddy) is where Parise's assumption becomes a certainty, at least for the Wild, and therefore tampering. Before, Parise just knew there were going to be teams interested, now he knows for sure one of them is the Wild and they might get the first call on July 1 from Parise's agent based on that "leaked" info. Not tampering still? Booools***.

esteef

[LeftWinger]

I would say if Parise ACTUALLY signs a deal with the Wild, then it should REALLY be considered tampering and there should be 29 other teams filing grievances...

If Parise goes elsewhere then it won't matter. But I don't hear "friends" or other GM's out there saying that their "friends" team is going to be paying Parise the moon either, so I have to believe that it was wrong to do of Leopold's "friend" and it should be looked into by the league and the association.

[Dabura]

HANG THE DJ

[Majsheppard]

It's not about what you know, It's about what you can prove. Not that you know though anyway...



First, you don't know what hearsay means...stop using it.

Second, maybe the slope is so slippery because of all the red herring on it...

Third, you remind me of this guy




Your English is fine though

Thank you?

I do know what hearsay is, and I just am saying that there are cases where the only person investigated are done by the recounting of another person towards nothing more than "I heard him yell at him that he was going to kill him." Doesn't mean the person killed someone, just means you should most likely check where the accused was and if they have motive, an alibi, and if there is any actual proof anywhere.

I don't see how anyone can argue against that.

Why not just see if there is some way he can verify that the comments on radio were from a dinner that actually happened. There clearly is a motive to leaking through a friend to get that word out, so it just makes sense to check on an alibi or if there is any proof. Really, is a couple of phone calls to see if they went to dinner together too much to ask?

I might sound crazy, but I just think that there are so many times that things happen that are clearly wrong... and people just roll over and take it. I am sick of it, and no one ever wants to fight back.

Honestly, how crummy has things been getting in other aspects of life when people just say... what are you going to do?

[FlashyG]

Thank you?

I do know what hearsay is, and I just am saying that there are cases where the only person investigated are done by the recounting of another person towards nothing more than "I heard him yell at him that he was going to kill him." Doesn't mean the person killed someone, just means you should most likely check where the accused was and if they have motive, an alibi, and if there is any actual proof anywhere.

I don't see how anyone can argue against that.

Clearly you don't.

What you posted is not hearsay its a witnessed account. Hearsay would be "I heard from majsheppard, that the guy yelled he was going to kill him"

Edited by FlashyG, 19 June 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[joesuffP]

Meh let the wild pay 9 mil for him....if the wings pay any player more than 8 mil a season it better be stamkos, giroux, Crosby... Parise ain't in that category I don't see why people have such a boner for him