Why no Mantha on the PK?

[kickazz 5,459]

20 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Yep. Everyone knows its bogus. His allergy is he's older, less effective, and taking up cap space. The league can't do much about it though, they can't really prove it and they're probably afraid of a grievance/lawsuit from the NHLPA.

 

This is exactly what it comes down to. The NHL didn't "deem" it as legit. It's more like "well we don't want to deal with the NHLPA". Most likely because the physicians gave their expert medical opinion which is as simple as "well the best thing for Hossa is to avoid the allergen". Which is true. The doctor's aren't lying. That really is the best thing. Just like avoiding the sun altogether is the best cure for skin cancer; yet impractical and impossible. 

My point in my post is the entire LTIR is easily exploitable because as long as a higher legit authority gives circumstantial evidence, then the NHL really has no case to decline it. 

If you don't want to die in a plane crash, just don't fly. 

Of course Dickie has his rose-colored glasses on and thinks Hossa quit because it just became oh so unbearable. Even though he probably would have finished his contract if the LTIR system/ loophole didn't exist, just like hundreds of hockey players have done it before. 

I was of the opinion that Kronwall wouldn't be eligible for LTIR but given this Hossa situation, anything is possible. Even the case of "well hockey causes booboos so I want to quit, I have a doctor's note". 

Edited January 2, 2018 by kickazz

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

6 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Yep. Everyone knows its bogus. His allergy is he's older, less effective, and taking up cap space. The league can't do much about it though, they can't really prove it and they're probably afraid of a grievance/lawsuit from the NHLPA.

LTIR is becoming the equivalent of a "therapy" dog. There are legitimate service animals out there, which is fine, but then you have those crazy ladies at Walmart or Meijer who don't have a legitimate claim to one. They just want to take their pet with them to the store so they just claim its a "therapy" dog even tho they have no documentation or proof of it. And the stores won't really do much about it, they're too afraid of "offending" them to require any sort of proof. Instead lets just make the rest of us have to worry about finding pet hair in our food or having our pet allergies aggravated because someone has an unhealthy attachment to their animals.

PET PEEVE! PUN INTENDED!

Therapy dog? I should try that. With a tarantula. Its my therapy spider!

[Buppy 1,720]

14 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Yep. Everyone knows its bogus. His allergy is he's older, less effective, and taking up cap space. The league can't do much about it though, they can't really prove it and they're probably afraid of a grievance/lawsuit from the NHLPA.

LTIR is becoming the equivalent of a "therapy" dog. There are legitimate service animals out there, which is fine, but then you have those crazy ladies at Walmart or Meijer who don't have a legitimate claim to one. They just want to take their pet with them to the store so they just claim its a "therapy" dog even tho they have no documentation or proof of it. And the stores won't really do much about it, they're too afraid of "offending" them to require any sort of proof. Instead lets just make the rest of us have to worry about finding pet hair in our food or having our pet allergies aggravated because someone has an unhealthy attachment to their animals.

PET PEEVE! PUN INTENDED!

First, if pet hair in your food is something that worries you, you should work on your risk assessment.

Hossa's case is the first with a truly suspect "injury", so I don't think we can draw any conclusions. Yeah, it's probably bogus and it's very possible he had always planned on retiring when his salary dropped, and that may also be the case for many of the old long-term deals, but those players are only a small fraction of total LTIR claims.

17 hours ago, kickazz said:

No one says he's lying. But a lot of players are allergic to the material in those equipment and it's not a condition that would make him unable to play hockey. Besides, he can be treated for it. They're using a loop-hole of "It's best to avoid the allergen". No difference than a doctor saying "it's best to avoid the sun so you never get skin cancer". And no different than saying "it's best to not ever drive if you don't want to get killed in a car crash". Well no s hit. 

Bottom line is it's not a life threaning or career ending injury. It actually isn't an injury at all. No part of his body is injured. Hence he shouldn't be on an "Injured reserve" list. It's simply him quitting because of inconvenience and also to avoid recapture penalty for the Hawks. 

In this case the LTIR being used more for early retirement and inconveniences. They should just change the name to Long-term retirement plan. LTRP. 

That way, even though Zetterberg's back is fine medically speaking, he can just get on that ASAP and say "well it's best for me to stop palying hockey because even though my back is technically 100% healed, hockey is such a dangerous sport that I can injure it again".

And then every 38 year old player can do the same thing. "Well you know, my wife is telling me I'm getting older, and I need to spend my time with my kids, she wants me to be around and be a father. Hockey being such a dangerous sport could take my life away and my kids wouldn't have a father anymore, this is why I feel as though I can no longer play, it would be an inconvenience to me and my family". And the doctor could give the report saying "Hockey is a high-contact sport that can cause injuries and be life-threatening, in my expert medical opinion he has a good reason to be placed on the injured reserve". 

Pronger was a start to the LTIR exploitation, Hossa's situation just made it dumber. More will come. Trust me. And I'd say in 10-15 years LTIR will have new rules so teams can't use it as a cap circumvention. Something along the lines of teams still having to have it partly  count towards their cap. 

Well, we are saying he's lying. Not about having the condition, just about the severity of the effects. But his pants are definitely on fire.

But I don't think there will or necessarily should be any major changes to LTIR. Most of the old cap-circumventing contracts are gone or are near the end, and you can't get the same kind of benefits with contracts anymore. Relatively few contracts carry any kind of retirement penalty for the team. The only real issue now would be a team signing a player for more years than they intend to play, with the additional years being essentially deferred pay and LTIR used to offset the post-retirement cap hit. However, that kind of deal is already illegal and the penalties can be severe. It would be very difficult to prove, but I still don't think teams would be too willing to take that risk for what would at best be only a minor benefit.

That said, LTIR is not meant as a retirement benefit, and doesn't (and shouldn't) require a "life-threatening or career-ending injury". If it were to be changed to "partly count toward their cap", it would impact the intended use; allowing teams to continue to ice a competitive and full roster even if they have significant injuries. If there were to be changes, it should be aimed only at retired players. For example: LTIR can only be claimed for a player in active treatment with the probable result of returning to play. Possibly limited only to players who played the previous (or current) season.

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

First, if pet hair in your food is something that worries you, you should work on your risk assessment.

Hossa's case is the first with a truly suspect "injury", so I don't think we can draw any conclusions. Yeah, it's probably bogus and it's very possible he had always planned on retiring when his salary dropped, and that may also be the case for many of the old long-term deals, but those players are only a small fraction of total LTIR claims.

Well, we are saying he's lying. Not about having the condition, just about the severity of the effects. But his pants are definitely on fire.

But I don't think there will or necessarily should be any major changes to LTIR. Most of the old cap-circumventing contracts are gone or are near the end, and you can't get the same kind of benefits with contracts anymore. Relatively few contracts carry any kind of retirement penalty for the team. The only real issue now would be a team signing a player for more years than they intend to play, with the additional years being essentially deferred pay and LTIR used to offset the post-retirement cap hit. However, that kind of deal is already illegal and the penalties can be severe. It would be very difficult to prove, but I still don't think teams would be too willing to take that risk for what would at best be only a minor benefit.

That said, LTIR is not meant as a retirement benefit, and doesn't (and shouldn't) require a "life-threatening or career-ending injury". If it were to be changed to "partly count toward their cap", it would impact the intended use; allowing teams to continue to ice a competitive and full roster even if they have significant injuries. If there were to be changes, it should be aimed only at retired players. For example: LTIR can only be claimed for a player in active treatment with the probable result of returning to play. Possibly limited only to players who played the previous (or current) season.

I must be missing something. Do you mean this was a change made in the 2013 CBA? 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I think its safe to conclude that its a duck. I don't care if every other bird on the pond is a goose. I know a frking duck when I see one.

In other news, Mantha told Detroitredwings.com after practice Tuesday:  "I went pretty hard and it felt good..." I bet it did Anthony, I bet it did.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[Buppy 1,720]

8 hours ago, kickazz said:

I must be missing something. Do you mean this was a change made in the 2013 CBA? 

I just mean that "handshake" deals, anything not expressly stated in the contract (like signing a 7 year contract with the agreement that the player will only actually play 5), are considered circumvention.

 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

I just don't think the league would be ok with them parking in on LTIR if it wasn't verified as a legitimate condition that would seriously harm his health.  

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

I just don't think the league would be ok with them parking in on LTIR if it wasn't verified as a legitimate condition that would seriously harm his health.  

I just don't think you're thinking this through

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

I just don't think the league would be ok with them parking in on LTIR if it wasn't verified as a legitimate condition that would seriously harm his health.  

"Seriously harm his health" isn't a factor. It's more like just not feeling well enough to play as the result of a condition that is expected to last at least 10 games. You could claim LTIR for a player with something like mono. LTIR is not a disability benefit, nor intended for retired players. It's just being used (abused, some might say) to avoid retirement penalties in a handful of cases.

[kickazz 5,459]

21 minutes ago, Buppy said:

"Seriously harm his health" isn't a factor. It's more like just not feeling well enough to play as the result of a condition that is expected to last at least 10 games. You could claim LTIR for a player with something like mono. LTIR is not a disability benefit, nor intended for retired players. It's just being used (abused, some might say) to avoid retirement penalties in a handful of cases.

Yep. Hossa's situation confirms this tbh. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by kickazz