If a player under NHL contract choses to go to the KHL like Alexander Radulov then the sky is falling and its a horrible injustice.

If the NHL doesn’t want the player (as in Khabibulin) its a good move.

Does that strike anyone as hyprocrisy?

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/02/08 at 07:51 AM ET

Um no.  Not at all.  Not even a little bit.

I have two cupcakes, but I only want one of them.
If offer you the one I didn’t want.
Then someone steals the one that I was going to eat.
So…I can’t get mad at the person for stealing it?

You’ve got to be kidding me, right?

Posted by Garth on 10/02/08 at 08:23 AM ET

The cupcake analogy sounds very good, but it fails to address the situation.

There are many legal issues not involved in your cupcake analogy.  The Blackhawks likely get out of Khabibulin’s contract without a buyout and without paying it in the minors (the Russians pay it).  There would be an individual transfer agreement made on Khabibulin to get him to Russia (even if it is take over his contract and you can have him), but the NHL bars its teams from making individual transfer agreements for players that would be in the same situation coming to the NHL.  That is hypocrisy.

If you have 2 cupcakes and one is stolen.  Then you give away the other, while trying to get back the stolen one you are a hypocrite.  You changed the order of the Radulov departure in your cupcake story and Khaibulin’s possible departure and that significantly changes the scenario.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/02/08 at 09:20 AM ET

How can this not violate the CBA? I would expect the other teams to protest—except maybe the ones close to the cap with have some unwanted Russians on their roster.

I agree with PSH. This definitely fails the smell test.

Posted by shep from california on 10/02/08 at 10:15 AM ET

“If you have 2 cupcakes and one is stolen.  Then you give away the other, while trying to get back the stolen one you are a hypocrite.”

Fine, except that Dale Tallon didn’t have his cupcake stolen -David Poile did- so your hypocrisy point is moot.

So if I may extend the cupcake analogy even more, if your cupcake is stolen by Sergei and I later give or sell my cupcake to Ivan, how does that make me a hypocrit?

Your original statement assumes that Nashville and Chicago are the same entity and THAT significantly hampers your argument. 

Before the Radulov situation, other NHL teams had loaned players to European teams.  You’re pretending that there’s not a difference between having something stolen and giving something away.

Your original claim make many assumptions that simply aren’t true.  Radulov was under contract and Nashville saw him as a building block for their team while Khabibulin underacheived and basically had been replaced by Chicago signing a new goalie, and the Hawks have been trying to get rid of him ever since signing Huet.

Do you HONESTLY see those as similar situations?  In any way?

Posted by Garth on 10/02/08 at 10:16 AM ET

How isn’t this in violation of the CBA?  How doesn’t the Bulin wall’s contract count against the cap?  Seems like an awfully easy way out of a contract then.  Sign a guy for ridiculous money for long team, doesn’t work out?  It’s fine, send him to Russa and sign a new player. 

Biggest question though is how the hell Khabibulin is ranked an 88 in NHL 09???

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 10/02/08 at 10:38 AM ET

The NHL as a collective is trying to bring Radulov back.  At the same time they are turning a blind eye to teams giving away players to KHL teams to circumvent the salary cap.  Khabibulin is not the only example.  Vitaly Vishnevski has already left the New Jersey Devils to join the KHL so that the Devils could escape his contract.  That is hypocricy.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/02/08 at 11:28 AM ET

The NHL doesn’t want the KHL poaching talent that they’ve signed.  This is a different situation from a team agreeing with a player to allow him to play in Russia.

How in the world do you not see that these are completely different situations?

It’s not hypocrisy to have an agreement with three parties while three OTHER parties have a disagreement.

I’ll admit I’m wrong if you can provide a quote from Tallon saying that players under NHL contracts should, under NO conditions, be allowed to play in the KHL.  Did he speak out against the Vishnevski situation?  Because if THAT is the case then yes, he is a hypocrite.  If not, then you’ve still got no argument.

Posted by Garth on 10/02/08 at 11:37 AM ET

I am calling the NHL as a collective hypocrites - and not Dale Tallon specifically - so I don’t care if there is a quote from Tallon on Radulov, Visnovski or Jay Leno.  The NHL argues that Radulov has to come back because he is under contract with an NHL team, but its okay if these other players under contract with NHL teams go to the KHL to play.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/02/08 at 12:13 PM ET

The point is that the CBA was intended to make teams pay for financial mistakes, so if someone signed someone for “too much” they would have to suffer the consequences since a team with a lot of money couldn’t just pay for other players to cover their mistakes.  Salary stays on the books against the cap in some cases so teams can’t just bury mistakes in the minors and get new players.

Radulov had a valid contract with Nashville, and they were expecting him to come in and play a role for them this year and maybe for some time in the future.  Without him on the books they have more salary cap space, but cap space doesn’t score goals and doesn’t develop its talent for the future.

Khabibulin was signed by the Hawks to a contract that according to the rules of the CBA should count so much against the salary cap this year.  If they are able to weasel out from under it, they have gained back the cap space that the rules stated they should have to carry and have thus circumvented the CBA.

They knew the rules when they signed him.  The hypocrisy comes in not telling a team “you knew the deal, now you have to carry the cap hit or get rid of it like every other team does” - via trade, for example.  The hypocrisy comes out of letting a team off the hook when there was a big deal made about how the cap was so rigid and inflexible and there weren’t going to be any exceptions so the big market teams could run roughshod over all the poor little markets that can’t compete without help.  I think that is what bothers PuckStopsHere the most, judging by his comments.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 10/02/08 at 12:30 PM ET

But they’re NOT a single entity!

You can call them hypocrites all you want, but it’s different organizations doing different things.  You CAN’T apply it to everyone because they are different.

And you’re missing the point too, Baroque.  You’re comparing a cap issue with a contract issue.

How is the Khaby situation any different from sending him to the minors?  He has an NHL contract but if Chicago doesn’t want him to play they can send him down and get the cap relief, but they can’t allow him to play in another league?  They still have to pay whatever money the KHL team doesn’t cover, it just doesn’t count against the cap.  They’re just allowing him to play closer to home.  Again, where’s the hypocrisy?

Khabibulin and the Hawks and the unnamed KHL team have come to or may come to an agreement.  The Predators had no such agreement with Radulov and the KHL.  They’re COMPLETELY different situations.  Why is that hard to grasp?

Posted by Garth on 10/02/08 at 01:16 PM ET

They can’t get cap relief by sending him down Garth, if it is a one way contract.  That’s the point.  I agree with you that it isn’t hypocrisy though and that Radulov and Khaby are totally different situations.  There are two separate arguments going on here.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 10/02/08 at 02:47 PM ET

No, you’re incorrect.  Khabibulin signed his contract before he was 35, so he can be sent down and his salary won’t count against the cap.  They still have to pay his full salary, but in the AHL it wouldn’t count against the cap.

As it is now, they would loan him to a KHL team, they would pay whatever part of his salary was agreed to with the Hawks and the Hawks would have to pay the difference, but it doesn’t count against the cap.

Posted by Garth on 10/02/08 at 03:30 PM ET