Why can’t he?
- K-man25

Because the signing bonus is the start of the contractual year. He's under contract to play hockey for the year. There's language in any contract that includes a signing bonus that if you choose not to honour your contract without a valid reason, you have to give back the signing bonus.

Even if the team was cool with him taking the signing bonus and retiring, the league isn't going to be cool with it because of the same reason everyone wants it to happen. It circumvents the cap.

Because the signing bonus is the start of the contractual year. He's under contract to play hockey for the year. There's language in any contract that includes a signing bonus that if you choose not to honour your contract without a valid reason, you have to give back the signing bonus.

Even if the team was cool with him taking the signing bonus and retiring, the league isn't going to be cool with it because of the same reason everyone wants it to happen. It circumvents the cap.
- Squeaky

Do you have a link to something that confirms that ? I was under the impression that the salary comes off the cap for any player under 35. And the player forfeits all future salary and unpaid bonuses. I read on another site that lucic retiring after he gets his bonus would clear Calgary of his entire cap hit.

Not 100% on retirement rules, but I believe they take effect the date of filing paperwork, and why would Lucic retire if he could just sit and collect the remainder of his 1m while finding a way to be "injured"?

And if Lucic retires it would also free up space for edmonton too.

What I do know, Monahan is ineligible for buyout until he is healthy. He is reportedly 5 weeks ahead of the recovery program from when he had the procedure on his other hip last year. But still about 3-4 months away from being deemed in "game shape". So he is not a likely buyout option. 1st buyout period is 48 hours after the final until 2 weeks later, so he would need to be healthy within about 6 weeks.

2nd buyout is only if the team goes to arbitration with a player. then they get a 48 hour window to buyout 1 contract.

Johnny and Monahan are best buds, wives are too. Buying out Monahan causes some tension between team and star. Unless the team intends to allow Johnny to walk, and then buyout Monahan in an effort to obtain another big contract I dont see much happening besides possibly dealing Matt's rights.

Not 100% on retirement rules, but I believe they take effect the date of filing paperwork, and why would Lucic retire if he could just sit and collect the remainder of his 1m while finding a way to be "injured"?

And if Lucic retires it would also free up space for edmonton too.

What I do know, Monahan is ineligible for buyout until he is healthy. He is reportedly 5 weeks ahead of the recovery program from when he had the procedure on his other hip last year. But still about 3-4 months away from being deemed in "game shape". So he is not a likely buyout option. 1st buyout period is 48 hours after the final until 2 weeks later, so he would need to be healthy within about 6 weeks.

2nd buyout is only if the team goes to arbitration with a player. then they get a 48 hour window to buyout 1 contract.

Johnny and Monahan are best buds, wives are too. Buying out Monahan causes some tension between team and star. Unless the team intends to allow Johnny to walk, and then buyout Monahan in an effort to obtain another big contract I dont see much happening besides possibly dealing Matt's rights.
- wreckage

I could see Lucic get his 3 million signing bonus and walking away instead of playing for a million bucks.

I could see Lucic get his 3 million signing bonus and walking away instead of playing for a million bucks.



- Reveen

It's coming...

I could see Lucic get his 3 million signing bonus and walking away instead of playing for a million bucks.



- Reveen

Last night was like watching Star Wars as I felt the Karma flow through my body like the force.

Last night was like watching Star Wars as I felt the Karma flow through my body like the force.
- Kevin R

Yeah it’s a bit bigger of a deal now that the Oilers got screwed. Where were all those refs when Coleman’s goal got disallowed.
It’s going to be a good series.

Yeah it’s a bit bigger of a deal now that the Oilers got screwed. Where were all those refs when Coleman’s goal got disallowed.
It’s going to be a good series.
- K-man25

The call on the Coleman goal was correct. Last night was an intentional miss lol.

Brutal.

The call on the Coleman goal was correct. Last night was an intentional miss lol.

Brutal.
- LordHumungous

No kicking motion, you’re allowed to direct the puck in with your skate. Talk about brutal call. It’s funny with all your conspiracy theories, that you missed that one.

No kicking motion, you’re allowed to direct the puck in with your skate. Talk about brutal call. It’s funny with all your conspiracy theories, that you missed that one.
- K-man25

There may not have been a "kicking motion" but his skate did move forward in a more than previous motion. The Coleman goal is questionable due to that. The Makar goal is questionable due to grey area's in the rules. Did he control it over the line? I think we all know he had control, and controlled it. Just because it wasn't "on the controllers stick" as it crossed the line at super slow mode is the only controversy. Even the biggest anti-Oiler could admit that. The rules suggest it could be a legal goal. The meaning of the rule says it's not a legal goal. But because of the black and white of rules... It was a goal.

There may not have been a "kicking motion" but his skate did move forward in a more than previous motion. The Coleman goal is questionable due to that. The Makar goal is questionable due to grey area's in the rules. Did he control it over the line? I think we all know he had control, and controlled it. Just because it wasn't "on the controllers stick" as it crossed the line at super slow mode is the only controversy. Even the biggest anti-Oiler could admit that. The rules suggest it could be a legal goal. The meaning of the rule says it's not a legal goal. But because of the black and white of rules... It was a goal.
- wreckage

No different than the Coleman goal. If you look at the replay his right leg was elevated about 18 inches off the ice & caught up in Smith's goalie pad. He needed to plant his left leg/skate with Ceci pushing him from the left side. Slow motion, it looked like he deliberately directed it to the net, at high speed on one leg, how in the world could anyone kick on one leg other than maybe Mr everything McDavid? Yeah of course he was looking down in front of him, wtf was he going to do look behind & say hi to Smith? I think this is why the Karma feels so sweet on that because so many Oil fans keep spewing how it was a no brainer kicking motion.

Enjoy the conference finals. Heads up, even when Smith was playing great in that series we had against the Avs a few years ago, they still had his number.

No kicking motion, you’re allowed to direct the puck in with your skate. Talk about brutal call. It’s funny with all your conspiracy theories, that you missed that one.
- K-man25

lol wakey wakey champ all Coleman had to do was let the puck roll in on it's own. The fact he 'helped' it was all they needed. Got the call right. Either way the Flames weren't winning the series. Is what it is. But the League getting the wrong call vs EDM already sets the precedent for the series. As Canucks fans we've seen this movie before. 2011 SCF as the rules 'changed' as the series went on. But hey...just keep reading CBC and trust in MacLean lol

lol wakey wakey champ all Coleman had to do was let the puck roll in on it's own. The fact he 'helped' it was all they needed. Got the call right. Either way the Flames weren't winning the series. Is what it is. But the League getting the wrong call vs EDM already sets the precedent for the series. As Canucks fans we've seen this movie before. 2011 SCF as the rules 'changed' as the series went on. But hey...just keep reading CBC and trust in MacLean lol
- LordHumungous

Hmm. I get it. It’s only conspiracy when it affects the Oil or Canucks.
Multiple examples of the non offside call to back the call.
I agree though Flames probably weren’t winning the series but it would have been nice for the teams to settle that and not the refs. Rangers came back down 3-1 twice so it’s doable.