Goodfella25 Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=241041&...os=secStory_nhl I'm still calling B.S. on this kind of thing. IMO, players should be barred from returning to their former club when dealt as a potential UFA at the trade deadline. Doug Weight did it, and I know there are others. Prospal is the latest. It all just seems so scripted--Prospal and Tampa had this planned since before he was traded to Philly. I wish I didn't have to stick up for the Flyers in ANY situation, but in this case, I do. Isn't it against the rules to negotiate with potential UFAs until the conclusion of the season? I'm really not up on the ins and outs of the CBA so maybe our resident experts can advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=241041&...os=secStory_nhl I'm still calling B.S. on this kind of thing. IMO, players should be barred from returning to their former club when dealt as a potential UFA at the trade deadline. Doug Weight did it, and I know there are others. Prospal is the latest. It all just seems so scripted--Prospal and Tampa had this planned since before he was traded to Philly. I wish I didn't have to stick up for the Flyers in ANY situation, but in this case, I do. Isn't it against the rules to negotiate with potential UFAs until the conclusion of the season? I'm really not up on the ins and outs of the CBA so maybe our resident experts can advise. This one doesn't bother me at all. If Prospal wanted out of Tampa because of Tortorella, he is exactly the kind of player they deserve to get back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 Yeah I'm one of the biggest supporters of the Doug Weight rule but I'm not sure Prospal counts as a UFA playoff rental. I think this is one of the biggest problems with this idea - how do you determine what the intentions are of the teams involved, or do you just blanket lock the UFA's down and say you can't go sign with your old team if they traded you at the deadline? I don't know. I can see the case both ways now, but I still don't like the Weight-style moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted June 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 This one doesn't bother me at all. If Prospal wanted out of Tampa because of Tortorella, he is exactly the kind of player they deserve to get back. Good point. I forgot about the rumblings around the trade deadline that Prospal was in Tortorella's doghouse. Even so, I too can see the arguments for both sides. A poster on TSN.ca mentioned that the NHL did have some kind of a ban on rental or "loaned" players in the 1960s. I'll have to research that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 I'm holding out judgment until I see if Soupy takes discount to sign with the Sabres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFanInRochester Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 I'm holding out judgment until I see if Soupy takes discount to sign with the Sabres. I was waiting for someone to bring that up. I want to see more players bail out of Philly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 I'm holding out judgment until I see if Soupy takes discount to sign with the Sabres. what kool-aid u drinkin'? We'll find someone like soupy for half the cost, if that. U hear me Darcymungo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 This one does seem a bit strange since he was traded back so quickly. There is no way they will ever stop players from returning to the old team in free agency though. Its an open market and they can't limit who players can sign with. The union will never accept that. What happens in the situation where only one team is interested in signing the player? You're essentially blocking that player from playing in the league. I know its not very likely, but its possble, so it should never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 Not a big deal. It was for a 7th round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 Not a big deal. It was for a 7th round pick. I don't think that's the issue. The problem is that if you look at the trade as a whole, it is Prospal and Alexandre Picard for a 7th round pick and most likely a 4th round pick in 2009. Tampa gets Picard and Prospal from Philly while Philly only gets a 7th this year and 4th next year. Does not seem like equal value, but given that Philly was going to lose Prospal to Tampa anyway, getting a 7th this year and a 4th next year is better than the nothing they would have gotten on July 1st. Personally, I don't have a big issue with the Doug Weight, Keith Tkachuk, Mark Recchi situation. Typically, the situation is that these guys are vets and have a home and family that they have set up in those cities and if the team is willing to take the player back, then obviously the player is going to want to go back to that team without disrupting his whole family's life. While as fans, we tend to view these guys as robots that play only for money and have a set dollar value for their services, the fact is they actually are people and there are bigger criteria that go into where they sign than just money. In the situation with these guys, they were all UFAs and planned on going back to their team because they had homes there and liked the city. I don't think you can fault them for that. This is why a lot of UFAs want to re-sign with their team. Obviously, not all, but a lot would rather re-sign and stay in a city they are used to rather than picking up and moving their entire family somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 I don't think that's the issue. The problem is that if you look at the trade as a whole, it is Prospal and Alexandre Picard for a 7th round pick and most likely a 4th round pick in 2009. Tampa gets Picard and Prospal from Philly while Philly only gets a 7th this year and 4th next year. Does not seem like equal value, but given that Philly was going to lose Prospal to Tampa anyway, getting a 7th this year and a 4th next year is better than the nothing they would have gotten on July 1st. Personally, I don't have a big issue with the Doug Weight, Keith Tkachuk, Mark Recchi situation. Typically, the situation is that these guys are vets and have a home and family that they have set up in those cities and if the team is willing to take the player back, then obviously the player is going to want to go back to that team without disrupting his whole family's life. While as fans, we tend to view these guys as robots that play only for money and have a set dollar value for their services, the fact is they actually are people and there are bigger criteria that go into where they sign than just money. In the situation with these guys, they were all UFAs and planned on going back to their team because they had homes there and liked the city. I don't think you can fault them for that. This is why a lot of UFAs want to re-sign with their team. Obviously, not all, but a lot would rather re-sign and stay in a city they are used to rather than picking up and moving their entire family somewhere else. I'm confused(nothing new). Which team is getting shafted. When all is said and done, Tampa got Picard and a 3rd round pick. And Philly got a 7th round pick and Prospal for a couple of months(not sure if those are all the facts). So Philly basically gave up Picard and 3 rounds for a chance to go deep into the playoffs. I think that's pretty fair and I would hope that if the Sabres had a chance to push themselves deeper into the playoffs by doing something like that, they would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 I'm confused(nothing new). Which team is getting shafted. When all is said and done, Tampa got Picard and a 3rd round pick. And Philly got a 7th round pick and Prospal for a couple of months(not sure if those are all the facts). So Philly basically gave up Picard and 3 rounds for a chance to go deep into the playoffs. I think that's pretty fair and I would hope that if the Sabres had a chance to push themselves deeper into the playoffs by doing something like that, they would do it. I agree, I don't see what the big deal is here, Philly and Tampa probably had a verbal type deal in place at the deadline that said that if Philly does not want Propsal longer then just for the playoffs, they would send him back to Tampa for a late pick. I think its alot better then trading the guy away and then having him run back to the original team to re-sign at the start of FA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 I agree, I don't see what the big deal is here, Philly and Tampa probably had a verbal type deal in place at the deadline that said that if Philly does not want Propsal longer then just for the playoffs, they would send him back to Tampa for a late pick. I think its alot better then trading the guy away and then having him run back to the original team to re-sign at the start of FA Assuming he re-signs, Tampa essentially loaned him to Philly for the playoff run. How does that not mess with the integrity of playoffs? In the scenario you're suggesting, what's to stop someone who is out of the playoff picture from sending their superstar to a playoff team for a couple months? Any kind of verbal agreement like that would clearly be a violation of the rules and the league would block the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightrider Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 I don't think that's the issue. The problem is that if you look at the trade as a whole, it is Prospal and Alexandre Picard for a 7th round pick and most likely a 4th round pick in 2009. Tampa gets Picard and Prospal from Philly while Philly only gets a 7th this year and 4th next year. Does not seem like equal value, but given that Philly was going to lose Prospal to Tampa anyway, getting a 7th this year and a 4th next year is better than the nothing they would have gotten on July 1st. They made the playoffs and have gate revenue for 7 extra home games. That's almost enough to pay Briere for a year! Furthermore, was it a given that Torts was going to be dismissed from Tampa? I doubt it if Prospal would have returned if the coaching situation hadn't changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 Assuming he re-signs, Tampa essentially loaned him to Philly for the playoff run. How does that not mess with the integrity of playoffs? In the scenario you're suggesting, what's to stop someone who is out of the playoff picture from sending their superstar to a playoff team for a couple months? Any kind of verbal agreement like that would clearly be a violation of the rules and the league would block the deal. I'm not saying its right, but I just don't see what the problem is if both teams are fine with it. Its just like making a deal at the deadline and then having that player go back to the previous team as a free agent, atleast Philly is getting something back. As for teams loaning superstars for the playoffs, its going to cost the team getting them something valuable in return, so its not like its completly unfair. I doubt the league would approve the deal with a clause about trading back, I am just saying that they may say in an aside "off the record" that if they make the deal, they will work out a deal to return them if they don't want to re-sign them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 I think shrader hit the nail on the head - it messes with the integrity of the playoffs. I'm less concerned with the two teams involved, but more with the other 14 teams vying for a playoff spot. Where does it stop? You have a team that hates another team - maybe the Habs and Leafs - what's to stop Toronto from "loaning" a player to a team scheduled to play Montreal in the playoffs, just to stick it to Montreal? Or someone loaning a player to the Sens to try to keep Buffalo out of the playoffs? If anything has been proven over the last few years, it's the idea that once a loophole is opened a crack, NHL GM's and owners will abuse the crap out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 I think shrader hit the nail on the head - it messes with the integrity of the playoffs. I'm less concerned with the two teams involved, but more with the other 14 teams vying for a playoff spot. Where does it stop? You have a team that hates another team - maybe the Habs and Leafs - what's to stop Toronto from "loaning" a player to a team scheduled to play Montreal in the playoffs, just to stick it to Montreal? Or someone loaning a player to the Sens to try to keep Buffalo out of the playoffs? If anything has been proven over the last few years, it's the idea that once a loophole is opened a crack, NHL GM's and owners will abuse the crap out of it. I'm trying to figure out why that messes more with the integrity of the playoffs than what is already happening. Teams pick up players all the time to proppell them into the playoffs and further with no intention of signing them the next year. We did it with Zubris(maybe we intended to keep him but just couldn't, I don't know). And it's not like these teams pick up these players the day before the playoffs start. They have to play about a quarter of the season with them. I just don't see the scenerio of loaning of players happenning, since most teams are still in the playoff race at the trade dealine and would not be willing to give up a player out of spite. I think this whole idea of "playoff integrity" is kinda silly anyway. If you are on a team and that team wins the Cup...that team won the Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 Assuming he re-signs, Tampa essentially loaned him to Philly for the playoff run. How does that not mess with the integrity of playoffs? In the scenario you're suggesting, what's to stop someone who is out of the playoff picture from sending their superstar to a playoff team for a couple months? Any kind of verbal agreement like that would clearly be a violation of the rules and the league would block the deal. What's to stop them? Probably the fact that any agreement could not be in writing (the league would block it) and the GM getting the stud has nothing but his own integrity compelling him to send the superstar back. "What's that George, you say Mr. Leonsis REALLY wants Ovie back? Yeah, I'll get right on the paperwork to make THAT happen. Oh, can you hold on a sec, I think we've got a bad connectio... " That and the circumvention clause really is about all that'll prevent it. I think shrader hit the nail on the head - it messes with the integrity of the playoffs. I'm less concerned with the two teams involved, but more with the other 14 teams vying for a playoff spot. Where does it stop? You have a team that hates another team - maybe the Habs and Leafs - what's to stop Toronto from "loaning" a player to a team scheduled to play Montreal in the playoffs, just to stick it to Montreal? Or someone loaning a player to the Sens to try to keep Buffalo out of the playoffs? If anything has been proven over the last few years, it's the idea that once a loophole is opened a crack, NHL GM's and owners will abuse the crap out of it. Well, it wasn't a loan, but a similar scenario actually did happen back in '71. The Habs had picked up the Seals #1 pick in the upcoming draft the previous season (horrible trade for the guys with white skates). Midway through the season, the Seals were bad, but so were the Kings. Montreal sent the Kings Ralph Backstrom for a used puck bag and a broken stick. That trade helped ensure that the Seals ended up worst in the league and allowed Moe-ray-all to draft some kid named Lafleur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 What's to stop them? Probably the fact that any agreement could not be in writing (the league would block it) and the GM getting the stud has nothing but his own integrity compelling him to send the superstar back. "What's that George, you say Mr. Leonsis REALLY wants Ovie back? Yeah, I'll get right on the paperwork to make THAT happen. Oh, can you hold on a sec, I think we've got a bad connectio... " Obviously I was stretching reality a bit on what I said, but this Prospal situation, if played out like some were suggesting, would be nearly identical to what I suggested. Yes, Prospal is no star, but that would be the kind of player you'd see in deals like that if GMs ever actually went that route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 I'm trying to figure out why that messes more with the integrity of the playoffs than what is already happening. Teams pick up players all the time to proppell them into the playoffs and further with no intention of signing them the next year. We did it with Zubris(maybe we intended to keep him but just couldn't, I don't know). And it's not like these teams pick up these players the day before the playoffs start. They have to play about a quarter of the season with them. I just don't see the scenerio of loaning of players happenning, since most teams are still in the playoff race at the trade dealine and would not be willing to give up a player out of spite. I think this whole idea of "playoff integrity" is kinda silly anyway. If you are on a team and that team wins the Cup...that team won the Cup. It's all a slippery slope. Right now it's a very simple "it didn't work out so we sent him back" but in the future it will be straight-up "we used him, don't need him anymore, and so we sent him back AND got another player we liked better." NHL GM's will find a loophole and drive a mack truck through it until someone closes the loophole. Heck, the way this deal looks right now it's like the Flyers rented a DVD from BlockBuster, didn't like it and sent it back for another title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.