Maybe miimize the LTIR to only $9-10M can be used??? This would be a step in the right direction.
- HenryHockey

Possibly limit, but also institute a recapture or penalty. If the team, in the first round of the playoffs, adds 20 million in player contracts, 50% of that should be used as a penalty and the team would have to immediately shed that number based on what their total cap number would have been on the last day of the trade deadline.

Or

No players can be added to the roster that were on IR heading into the post season until the second round. Still allow for a possible penalty.

If anyone is frustrated, they can file an anonymous complaint with the federal trade commission. Cite any league rules and/or laws that were violated, request a full audit/investigation. If an investigation is opened, players and staff members involved could be subject to a temporary suspension of their work VISA. Because of the NHLs sports betting partnerships, you could suggest that the team/players were involved in tampering as well. It would only have to happen once to get the NHL to make sure the loopholes got closed.

You can report fraud at https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/

If there’s no reason to investigate, it will be dropped. If there is, I’m sure we’d hear about it

I would say just enforce the cap during the playoffs, but that doesn’t really work either since the cap is calculated on a “per day” basis set to the end of the regular season. Remember that teams can also legally ice an “over the cap” team in the regular season / playoffs even without using LTIR, since players acquired via mid-season trade have their "full season" cap hits effectively pro-rated.

I don’t think “third-party verification” from a neutral physician is a good solution. If the club, player, and club physician all agree that a player is “injured,” getting a third party physician involved against the player’s will, while the player / team / original physician potentially continue to disagree with the third-party assessment, seems like it would create a lot more problems (and potential liabilities / ethical concerns) than it solves.

Perhaps have a set “maximum AAV in lineup” rule for the playoffs and set it at, say, 10% above the cap (just throwing out an arbitrary figure here)? Haven’t thought this one through yet but maybe something like this would be workable and prevent the most flagrant LTIR abuses without fundamentally breaking LTIR (or the trade deadline for that matter).

I would say just enforce the cap during the playoffs, but that doesn’t really work either since the cap is calculated on a “per day” basis set to the end of the regular season. Remember that teams can also legally ice an “over the cap” team in the regular season / playoffs even without using LTIR, since players acquired via mid-season trade have their "full season" cap hits effectively pro-rated.

I don’t think “third-party verification” from a neutral physician is a good solution. If the club, player, and club physician all agree that a player is “injured,” getting a third party physician involved against the player’s will, while the player / team / physician potentially continue to disagree with the third-party assessment, seems like it would create a lot more problems (and potential liabilities / ethical concerns) than it solves.

Perhaps have a set “maximum AAV in lineup” rule for the playoffs and set it at, say, 10% above the cap (just throwing out an arbitrary figure here)? Haven’t thought this one through yet but maybe something like this would be workable and prevent the most flagrant LTIR abuses without fundamentally breaking LTIR (or the trade deadline for that matter).
- Sven22

I think there’s some useable stuff there. My point with the third party is that they can request all communications leading up to the return of the player. Not as much as a physician, but as a way to make sure the process can be observed.

They have to change something at some point. I still wonder if forcing those players to sit the first round wouldn’t be a reasonable deterrent.

I would say just enforce the cap during the playoffs, but that doesn’t really work either since the cap is calculated on a “per day” basis set to the end of the regular season. Remember that teams can also legally ice an “over the cap” team in the regular season / playoffs even without using LTIR, since players acquired via mid-season trade have their "full season" cap hits effectively pro-rated.

I don’t think “third-party verification” from a neutral physician is a good solution. If the club, player, and club physician all agree that a player is “injured,” getting a third party physician involved against the player’s will, while the player / team / original physician potentially continue to disagree with the third-party assessment, seems like it would create a lot more problems (and potential liabilities / ethical concerns) than it solves.

Perhaps have a set “maximum AAV in lineup” rule for the playoffs and set it at, say, 10% above the cap (just throwing out an arbitrary figure here)? Haven’t thought this one through yet but maybe something like this would be workable and prevent the most flagrant LTIR abuses without fundamentally breaking LTIR (or the trade deadline for that matter).
- Sven22

We talked about things on the pens blog yesterday and the entire cap system should be overhauled to something more similar to the NBA cap system.

I think there’s some useable stuff there. My point with the third party is that they can request all communications leading up to the return of the player. Not as much as a physician, but as a way to make sure the process can be observed.

They have to change something at some point. I still wonder if forcing those players to sit the first round wouldn’t be a reasonable deterrent.
- Jeremy Laura

Correct me if I’m wrong but teams are already required to provide proof and updates for players on LTIR at the very least upon request.

Correct me if I’m wrong but teams are already required to provide proof and updates for players on LTIR at the very least upon request.
- Feds91Stammer

They have to provide updates, but they’re not investigated. Teams have obviously abused the system (and TB isn’t the first or the worst). Having someone who keeps all notes and communications could at least force teams to have a paper trail to be checked. Toronto got a team doctor to sign off on Lupul without speaking to him or seeing him. He was snowboarding in the mountains when they released the report that he wouldn’t be able to play at all. He called them out on Twitter. That Tweet was corrected and removed very quickly.

Lottery day blog is up. I want you all to give your reactions in the comments as soon as you can when the results are in so I posted it early.

https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=111810

I think there’s some useable stuff there. My point with the third party is that they can request all communications leading up to the return of the player. Not as much as a physician, but as a way to make sure the process can be observed.

They have to change something at some point. I still wonder if forcing those players to sit the first round wouldn’t be a reasonable deterrent.
- Jeremy Laura

To be honest, I think "missing a significant portion of a regular season despite being healthy" is already a pretty strong deterrent. I don't think there are many players (or teams) who would be okay with just not playing for weeks / months at a time in order to game the system. (Granted Tampa / Kucherov might be an exception to that rule, considering they're a contender even without him and he's got a long-term deal already in place)

The "fudging the 'clear to return' date" a couple of extra days or games to align with the start of the playoffs, assuming there has been a bonafide injury and the overall return timetable is not grossly out of line with what would be normally expected, doesn't bother me nearly as much as a team icing a $100 million playoff lineup.

So I would favor a solution more based on limiting how expensive your lineup can be, rather than a solution based on trying to determine whether a player is "really" injured (beyond what is already in place).

To be honest, I think "missing a significant portion of a regular season despite being healthy" is already a pretty strong deterrent. I don't think there are many players (or teams) who would be okay with just not playing for weeks / months at a time in order to game the system. (Granted Tampa / Kucherov might be an exception to that rule, considering they're a contender even without him and he's got a long-term deal already in place)

The "fudging the 'clear to return' date" a couple of extra days or games to align with the start of the playoffs, assuming there has been a bonafide injury and the overall return timetable is not grossly out of line with what would be normally expected, doesn't bother me nearly as much as a team icing a $100 million playoff lineup.

So I would favor a solution more based on limiting how expensive your lineup can be, rather than a solution based on trying to determine whether a player is "really" injured (beyond what is already in place).
- Sven22

Remember, the waiver rule for players coming over from Europe who sign was inspired by this type of issue for playoffs. There were players who didn’t want to play the first part of the season. They’d rather rest and be ready. With what we’ve seen pro athletes do to themselves to win, nothing shocks me any more. If there’s a loophole, it will get used.