Bazinga!

Posted by Chris in Hockey Hell from Ann Arbor, MI but LIVING in Columbia, TN on 01/13/13 at 11:47 AM ET

Do not pass go.  Do not collect $200 (which the owners would probably just take from you anyway).

And NO dessert tonight either!

Posted by 42jeff from Minot, North Dakota on 01/13/13 at 11:55 AM ET

Fat, slow and lazy is no way to play hockey.

Posted by timbits on 01/13/13 at 12:10 PM ET

Is there some sensible reasoning behind the idea that injured players cannot be bought out, or is it as stupid as it sounds to me?

Posted by Mr. Fnytelhatt on 01/13/13 at 12:37 PM ET

nice paycheck for sittin on the couch eh?

Posted by NIVO from underpants gnome village on 01/13/13 at 12:59 PM ET

Is there some sensible reasoning behind the idea that injured players cannot be bought out, or is it as stupid as it sounds to me?

I don’t think Gomez is hurt so much as he’s just not going to be in future plans and the Habs will basically have to drop their cap salary next season the rough amount of Gomez’s salary right now, so they might as well just use him as the buffer for that while keeping him away from the organization.

To answer your actual question, it’s basically because it looks really crappy to buy out an injured player and both the NHL and NHLPA kind of don’t want to deal with a liability questions that get brought up.

First off, buying him out means cutting him off from team medical care and many of the protections that having a contract provide an NHLPA member.
Then, cutting him loose while injured almost guarantees that you’re setting him free at a time when he has no signing value.

Sure, the guy has the (potentially) millions of dollars from the buyout, but he’s also one of what might be a big enough class of players who could consider filing suit against both the Club, the NHL, and the NHLPA for creating a system where he gets injured playing for them and then gets his career endangered as a result. It’s pretty much just easier for everybody involved if they do it like that.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/13/13 at 01:26 PM ET

Sure, the guy has the (potentially) millions of dollars from the buyout, but he’s also one of what might be a big enough class of players who could consider filing suit against both the Club, the NHL, and the NHLPA for creating a system where he gets injured playing for them and then gets his career endangered as a result.

So, what’s a team supposed to do to protect themselves from that kind of lawsuit?

Are you suggesting it makes sense for a player to get a guaranteed deal, become injured through the course of play, and then sue somebody because he got injured and so couldn’t get a subsequent contract at all, or at a similar value?

Let’s set aside for the moment that I would be stunned if there wasn’t language written into either the CBA, the SPC or most likely both to prevent that kind of frivolous lawsuit from being placed… on general principle that sort of suit is nuts, IMO.

The only real way I’d think something like that might get some traction is if one player sued another player and was able to demonstrate malice or forethought in an act that injured them.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/13/13 at 02:49 PM ET

So, what’s a team supposed to do to protect themselves from that kind of lawsuit?

Don’t cut or buy him out.

on general principle that sort of suit is nuts, IMO.

Then why can’t you buy out or lockout injured players?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/13/13 at 03:06 PM ET

Is the injury mental or physical?

Posted by timbits on 01/13/13 at 04:03 PM ET

To answer your actual question, it’s basically because it looks really crappy to buy out an injured player and both the NHL and NHLPA kind of don’t want to deal with a liability questions that get brought up.

That is quite sensible, in a way.

Posted by Mr. Fnytelhatt on 01/13/13 at 04:51 PM ET