Jump to content


Frozen-Man's Photo

Frozen-Man

Member Since 23 Feb 2008
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 10:21 PM
****-

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Tim Thomas is a dope: It's a scientific fact.

30 January 2014 - 07:22 PM

If he was the best lawyer at the best law firm in the country, and then one year later he was at one of the worst law firms making half as much money, EVERYBODY would agree that he had mismanaged his career. 

 

Whether it was worth it or not, to become a better father, is between God and Timmy.  But the career implications of it are pretty much not debatable.

 

I absolutely disagree with this statement. I'm an attorney and know quite a few attorney's who have left bigger, more prestigious firms to go to smaller firms or even to go into solo practice. They generally make less than half the money they did and almost all of them think it was a wonderful career move. There is motivation behind career choices that goes well beyond just the biggest/most prestigious/best firms and salary.  There are time issues, pressure issues, expectation issues, area of practice issues and many others.

 

Tim may like less pressure, he may like Florida better than Massachusetts, who knows what else but all of those can factor into his career choices.

 

Additionally, you keep saying:

 

He currently plays for a garbage team for half the money he did in his last full NHL season. 

 

While technically this might be true, it is at best misleading. His last full NHL season he made $5M this year his salary is $2.5M but he has $1.25M in bonuses, which are easier bonuses everyone seems to think he will easily meet (similar to the little doubt DeKeyser would reach his bonuses). With his bonuses he would be getting 75% of what he made his last full NHL season. Additionally, the 2012-2013 season that he sat out he was supposed to make $3M. Tim should be making $750k (20%) MORE than that this year. Also, you cannot over look the huge tax saving he is getting being in an income tax free state as opposed to a state that taxes income at 5.3%.

 

He may really like where his career is, he is making a lot of money, playing with very little pressure, warm climate. He may have made a perfect career choice for himself.


In Topic: 10 former players sue NHL for concussions

27 November 2013 - 03:33 PM

 

To respond to the first part of your argument, I agree.  It is fact and situation specific.  And the outcome of this lawsuit will determine where we draw the line concerning employer vs. employee responsibility. 

 

To respond to the second part.  Nobody is talking about separated shoulders, or eye injuries.  I agree, those are inherent risks which come with the game.  I don't think you can get those out of the game without fundamentally changing the way it's played.  But you absolutely can get rid of MOST head trauma without changing the game.  Why?  Because fighting and hitting the head are already against the rules.  Individuals ignore the rules when doing those things.  Make the penalties so stiff that players no longer ignore the penalty, and the behavior will stop.  Sure, accidental hits to the head and/or concussions resulting from the head hitting the boards or the head hitting the ice will still happen.  Nobody is talking in absolutes here.  But if those are the only means of getting head trauma, and they're accidental, then it's reasonable to say that they're accepted risks because accidents can't be avoided  Fights and head hits are not accidental, they're intentional, and they're a violation of the rules.  It's not unrealistic for players to think that they can play hockey without being punched in the face or hit in the head.  Just like they can (and should) expect to play hockey without being slew footed, or given a B.C. two-hander. 

 

The reason that I mentioned separated shoulders and eye injuries is because your post stated:

Most of us live in a country that can send a probe to Mars, clone a sheep, or harness nature to create energy, yet you act like it's unrealistic (and unreasonable) for hockey players to want to play the game they love AND be safe too.

 

Hockey players will never be able to play hockey (in any form that is a semblance to what it currently is) AND be safe too. The game is not safe, it is violent, risky, and dangerous. I understand that your chief complaint is hits to the head and fighting but the point I was trying to make is that your definition of an employer's responsibility:

 

 

 If your employer doesn't do absolutely everything in their power to keep you safe on the job, they're liable to get sued.   

and

Well unless you're a Roman Gladiator it's the responsibility of your employer to make sure you're safe at work.  That's true of every job in the civilized world, and it's true of hockey.

 

There are many things that would completely alter the game of hockey but would be required if an employer must do "absolutely everything in their power to keep [player's] safe on the job" and if "it's the responsibility of your employer to make sure that you're safe at work."

 

The line between employer/employee responsibility and also an athlete's assumption of the risk (which even the term over simplifies it, the legal term is volenti no fit injuria which translates "to a willing person, injury is not done.") For example the illustration that most law schools use is a boxer consents and assumes the risk of the dangers of being punched repeatedly with a gloved fist but does not consent or assume the risk of being hit with a baseball bat. To boil that all down to it being the responsibility of the employer to make sure an employee is safe and that hockey players have a right to play the game they love and be safe ignores to a large degree the violence involved with the the sport/occupation even at the best of times. Whether the league knew and hid information or failed to make reasonable efforts to eliminate unreasonable hazards from the sport. 


In Topic: 10 former players sue NHL for concussions

26 November 2013 - 07:43 PM

 

Well unless you're a Roman Gladiator it's the responsibility of your employer to make sure you're safe at work.  That's true of every job in the civilized world, and it's true of hockey.

I am corporate counsel for a large heavy construction company and you are incorrect that "it's the responsibility of your employer to make sure you are safe at work." While the employer's responsibility for employee safety is very fact fact, industry and situation specific the most general standard is from the US Department of Labor OSHA and states that an employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." U.S.C. 654(a)(1). The problem is that it is very fact and occupation specific, for example what is considered a recognized hazard in highway construction is very different from what is a recognized hazard for for a secretarial firm.  Hockey as a specialty occupation which is inherently dangerous will have a drastic impact on what is considered a hazard in general and when such hazard became a "recognized" hazard in the industry.

 

 

Most of us live in a country that can send a probe to Mars, clone a sheep, or harness nature to create energy, yet you act like it's unrealistic (and unreasonable) for hockey players to want to play the game they love AND be safe too.

 

It is unrealistic for professional hockey players to to want to play the game that they love AND be safe too, they can play a version of hockey but it will be a drastically different game if they are going to play hockey and be safe, there are too many injuries that occur daily from normal legal hockey plays (think about Dekeyser's separated shoulder, Eaves' concussion from a puck, or even Yzerman's eye injury). The vast majority of injuries in the NHL occur from normal legal plays, unless you are talking not about "being safe" and just about concussions from fights illegal hits. The problem is and it will be a detriment to the plaintiff's in this case is assumption of the risk, boxers are aware that injuries occur from boxing matches but the industry still continues even though their employees (i.e. the boxers) are not safe from the moment they step into the ring (and in fact not really safe even during practices). The court will have to decide if they were aware of the inherent risks of playing in the NHL and the dangers associated therewith, this is a hard line to determine and made even more so by the fact that the vast majority of NHL players in every poll taken want to keep fighting in the game. The reality in almost all cases like this is that even if legally they business is likely to prevail it is not worth the PR capital that is spent to fight it and usually they will just settle. 

 

*None of this should be taken to mean that I do not think that ALL employers should take reasonable precautions to protect their employees from unreasonable dangers of their professions. I am merely stating my take from a legal prospective.
 


In Topic: Patrick Eaves on Waivers

14 November 2013 - 01:30 PM

 

Well, that is just s***ty.

 

I was annoyed with Ken Holland before, and have been for some time, but this is the first time that I've started to just not like him. It's not just that it's s***ty to not tell the player, but the whole reason this is happening is because he's made so many blatantly awful signings. Then when a hard working guy with a great attitude is affected by it, you create a situation that allows him to find out he's getting waived by the press. That's just another s***ty thing to do after a slew of bad decisions.

 

 

that makes me feel really bad, that Patty found out from reporters.  What is going on with this franchise?   So not Wing-like...  :nervous:

 

I know, Patty has always seemed to have a great attitude and done everything asked of him and then to not even let him know in person before hand. Unbelievable.


In Topic: Patrick Eaves on Waivers

14 November 2013 - 01:19 PM

 

If true, Holland lost a lot more points in my book than he already has over the last few years. It's one thing to struggle in free agency and replacing players, it's another to just be this lacking in class.


And this is awful. I love Eaves. Injuries haven't helped him the last couple seasons, but the guy has a lot of fight in him and a fair amount of skill. It'll be a shame to see him go. But it's okay, we still have Samuellson, who we can't reasonably trade or waive. Good job, Holland. Keep up the good work, best GM in the league.

 

Apparently that is what happened:

 

“I didn’t even know,” said Eaves after practice, who’s in the final year of his contract. “I knew I wasn’t playing. I just found out from you guys.”

 

http://redwingsfront..._medium=twitter