Talk about Capitals hockey & more! > Washington Capitals & Other Hockey Discussion
Salary Cap Loopholes
Mickstix:
Avalanche "said they tried to trade him".. NHL "said they investigated".. What exactly doesn't add up, iyo? Maybe the NHL was in on it, with the Caps and Avalanche, to skirt their own rules? :wackysmile:
Maacoshark:
--- Quote from: Mickstix on Sunday September 23, 2018, 10:25:50 AM Eastern ---Avalanche "said they tried to trade him".. NHL "said they investigated".. What exactly doesn't add up, iyo? Maybe the NHL was in on it, with the Caps and Avalanche, to skirt their own rules? :wackysmile:
--- End quote ---
The trade was made on June 22nd. He was placed on waivers June 23rd. When did they try to trade him? And GMBM said in an interview on June 24th that the Caps would look at bringing Orpik back which was before the Avalanche even bought him out. Those are all facts.
The league did investigate and found no wrong doing. Doesnt mean the Caps didnt find a loophole. What they did was within the rules. I didnt say they cheated. I said they found a loophole. There is a big difference.
You guys are reacting like Leaf fans.
PUCKNRUSH:
--- Quote from: Maacoshark on Sunday September 23, 2018, 01:02:16 PM Eastern --- The trade was made on June 22nd. He was placed on waivers June 23rd. When did they try to trade him? And GMBM said in an interview on June 24th that the Caps would look at bringing Orpik back which was before the Avalanche even bought him out. Those are all facts.
The league did investigate and found no wrong doing. Doesnt mean the Caps didnt find a loophole. What they did was within the rules. I didnt say they cheated. I said they found a loophole. There is a big difference.
You guys are reacting like Leaf fans.
--- End quote ---
Hey Maaco
I respect your opinions in your last few posts. Thanks.
You specifically used the words “dishonest”, and “loophole”, as an overall characterization of the entire transaction. Both are simply false!
I also don’t know the length of time that Colorado shopped Orpik, but you seem to infer that the process takes a few days or more. In this cyber laden age, I can make the case, easily, that ANY player trade can occur in a matter of minutes or hours. I refer you to the numerous, last minute, trade deadline deals, or holdout negotiations, that appear hopeless at 11:50pm, them MIRACULOUSLY happen at 11:59pm. Too innumerable to deny!
Additionally you mention NO FACTS, in my prior post. Well ok, if you call referencing quotes from a news article, NOT FACTS, then I can’t help you, there! Hell, Maaco, I even enumerated them for you!!
I’ll switch gears here, and look at where we agree. We both heap praise on GMBM, and are glad Orpik has returned, on the cheap, to help provide leadership to our many inexperienced defenseman.
Maybe we are in a semantics debate. Just for fun, I looked up the word “loophole”! Interestingly, here’s what I found:
It has history from the Latin “intra legum”, which referred to the arrow-slit used by archers, atop the walls of a castle. As far as WE are concerned here, it describes a FORGOTTEN part, in a law or set of rules, where an INTERPRETATION can be made, due to the fault of the Rulemakers omission, that allows one to skirt around the law.
This is NOT the case here, Maaco, as everything is WITHIN the written rules!
The dictionary DID offer another word, by contrast, to compare with. One that I’ve not used before, but after reading the definition, perhaps describes the situation a bit better.
That word is “lacunae”. Here is the distinction, directly from Wiki:
Loopholes are distinct from [/color]lacunae[/size][/color], although the two terms are often used interchangeably.[size=0.75em][/color][[/size]citation needed[/size][/size][size=0.75em]][/font][/size][/color] In a loophole, a law addressing a certain issue exists, but can be legally circumvented due to a technical defect in the law. A lacuna, on the other hand, is a situation whereby no law exists in the first place to address that particular issue.[/color][/color]Sounds more like the latter word applies better. There just isn’t any rule preventing this type of thing in the NHL. [size=0.75em]
Ok, now I’ve used all my anal-retentive points on this fine Sunday. I hope this helps.
I await your comments, but remember, Mickstix and I weren’t born yesterday, and I hardly even know the guy!
Pretty soon, let’s turn the page on this one! Thanks Maaco!
Rush
Mickstix:
I just want to know what "loophole" they used? Is there something they did, that the NHL will try to fix?? What they did, was use Grubi to get rid of Orpik.. What went down after that "worked out" for the Caps, but calling it a loophole just doesn't fit, imo..
Maacoshark:
--- Quote from: Mickstix on Sunday September 23, 2018, 07:09:27 PM Eastern ---I just want to know what "loophole" they used? Is there something they did, that the NHL will try to fix?? What they did, was use Grubi to get rid of Orpik.. What went down after that "worked out" for the Caps, but calling it a loophole just doesn't fit, imo..
--- End quote ---
What I am saying is that they found away to get rid of Orpiks big salary and get him back for alot less. I'm not saying they cheated. I'm saying they probably knew what the outcome was going to be a head of time. Why else would GMBM bring up the possibility if bring Orpik back even before Colorado had bought out his contract.
Tampa Bay and the Leafs tried to do something similar with Lecavlier but the league intervened. I'm not exactly sure what those circumstances were.
I really dont understand why you guys can't see how it looks suspicious.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version