General Leafs Talk v2.0

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I think it will be tough to move him without taking salary back, if he can be moved. The number of "good" UFA d-men still out there on the market makes it even tougher. Why engage in a long-term deal in Liles when you can sign an Ian White and fill a void?  If a team sees him as a long-term solution then yeah sure. 

one idea would be if the Leafs could take back some cheap-but-bad contracts... players under the $1 mil threshold who can be demoted and not count against the Leafs cap but still have to be paid.

Alternative would be to send a good prospect (or two?) along with him.  Leafs do have a bit of a glut of good defensive prospects... maybe let 1 go to make it happen.

I see Liles like I do a couple of the other journeymen out there, such as Wideman and Seidenberg, and in Wideman's case, he's still making pretty good cash. I suppose a team would have to like what Liles can bring and see it as a good risk to take, that he'll return to form.

I'd keep some cash for a player, but in Liles' case, maybe the 800k over 3 million, but probably not too much more than that.

 

[Corn Flake]

I think it will be tough to move him without taking salary back, if he can be moved. The number of "good" UFA d-men still out there on the market makes it even tougher. Why engage in a long-term deal in Liles when you can sign an Ian White and fill a void?  If a team sees him as a long-term solution then yeah sure. 

one idea would be if the Leafs could take back some cheap-but-bad contracts... players under the $1 mil threshold who can be demoted and not count against the Leafs cap but still have to be paid.

Alternative would be to send a good prospect (or two?) along with him.  Leafs do have a bit of a glut of good defensive prospects... maybe let 1 go to make it happen.

I see Liles like I do a couple of the other journeymen out there, such as Wideman and Seidenberg, and in Wideman's case, he's still making pretty good cash. I suppose a team would have to like what Liles can bring and see it as a good risk to take, that he'll return to form.

I'd keep some cash for a player, but in Liles' case, maybe the 800k over 3 million, but probably not too much more than that.

Taking $800k to get the deal done is ok now but if that means they pay that much for the remaining years then it gets a bit ugly.  With $2.5 mil cap hit on non-roster players already, I'd hate to carry even more over since we would finally be rid of all that after this season.

I'd rather do what CTB suggests.. throw in a Colborne to get it done. I think it turns the page on both players and would be as good for Joe as it would be for the Leafs to be out from under Liles' deal and get the cap space back.

This year is truly showing the challenges of cap reduction and more of an NBA type of environment where cap space becomes more valuable than players at times.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Would Colborne, Liles and retaining 1.5 million of Liles salary get a decent return from someone?

Thinking being that if Colborne doesn't make the team, he has to go through waivers and we'd almost certainly lose him.

From what I've seen I'm not certain Colborne makes it at the wing unless he shows something in the next few exhibition games and he's defintely not making it at center unless it's 4th line and they play McClement with Bolland on the third.

Personally I have liked Ashton's game more thus far.

 

[Jalili]

Would Colborne, Liles and retaining 1.5 million of Liles salary get a decent return from someone?

Thinking being that if Colborne doesn't make the team, he has to go through waivers and we'd almost certainly lose him.

From what I've seen I'm not certain Colborne makes it at the wing unless he shows something in the next few exhibition games and he's defintely not making it at center unless it's 4th line and they play McClement with Bolland on the third.

Personally I have liked Ashton's game more thus far.

I don't think the return would be decent, but Colborne + Liles + retaining some salary might be enough to get the job done.

 

[Deebo]

David Alter of the FAN says that he is hearing that Clarkson is disputing the 10 game suspension.

I'm not sure what his grounds would be, its a pretty clear rule.

Edit: It appears that the Tropp/Devane majors were handed out at the same time as the penalties from the ensuing brawl. Maybe, technically, the play hadn't restarted?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

David Alter of the FAN says that he is hearing that Clarkson is disputing the 10 game suspension.

I'm not sure what his grounds would be, its a pretty clear rule.

Edit: It appears that the Tropp/Devane majors were handed out at the same time as the penalties from the ensuing brawl. Maybe, technically, the play hadn't restarted?

Yeah, but the wording of the rule says:

The first player to leave the players? or penalty bench during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercation from either or both teams shall be suspended automatically without pay for the next ten (10) regular League and/or Play-off games of his team.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Yeah, it would be a hard sell for them to say it was a line change or something. Didn't the ref actually drop the puck for the face off?

 

[Scot4bz]

He left the bench while no line change was going on. I don't think anything else matters

 

[ZBBM]

If Clarkson is disputing it, he's dreaming.  Like Potvin quoted, he was the first player to come off the bench during the altercation: case closed.

I wonder what happens to the second and subsquent players? 

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Technically John Scott left the bench to attack Kessel, the play never resumed.

I imagine Clarkson will argue he tried to play peacemaker, which is a crock.

 

[bustaheims]

I imagine he knows appealing the suspension isn't going to get him anywhere, but, he has the option, so, why wouldn't he use it? If I was in his position, I know I would.

 

[Champ Kind]

Technically John Scott left the bench to attack Kessel, the play never resumed.

I imagine Clarkson will argue he tried to play peacemaker, which is a crock.

Scott was on the ice for the Tropp-Devane fight.  He was already on when the play resumed.

 

[Corn Flake]

Points he could argue (just throwing stuff out there):

1. Rule states (paraphrased) that if you come off the bench to START an altercation.  It was well underway when he got there. He also did not "start" anything, technically.

2. He never threw a punch. He went out there and at most, tied up Scott when he got back up after being tackled by the other Leafs players.  He could argue given that Scott was out of control and significantly larger and more dominating than any Leafs player out there. 

3. The puck had actually not dropped when Scott grabbed Kessel. May not directly support Clarkson but it does mean that Scott should be the one in trouble for starting a second altercation during a stoppage of play.  Perhaps there is an argument linking the two. 

I dunno, just some thoughts.

The one thing I do know that pisses me off the most here is point #3 should have Scott in a whack of trouble but it appears he will get off without any discipline despite starting all of this.

 

[Champ Kind]

Points he could argue (just throwing stuff out there):

1. Rule states (paraphrased) that if you come off the bench to START an altercation.  It was well underway when he got there. He also did not "start" anything, technically.

2. He never threw a punch. He went out there and at most, tied up Scott when he got back up after being tackled by the other Leafs players.  He could argue given that Scott was out of control and significantly larger and more dominating than any Leafs player out there. 

3. The puck had actually not dropped when Scott grabbed Kessel. May not directly support Clarkson but it does mean that Scott should be the one in trouble for starting a second altercation during a stoppage of play.  Perhaps there is an argument linking the two. 

I dunno, just some thoughts.

The one thing I do know that pisses me off the most here is point #3 should have Scott in a whack of trouble but it appears he will get off without any discipline despite starting all of this.

I agree with #1 & #2.  I think these might be used as mitigating factors.  While not escaping suspension, it might be dialed down a bit?  Really, the NHL has to be careful with precedents being set.

But, if you watch the sequence closely, Scott really doesn't end up doing anything.  He doesn't throw a punch, and really the attempt he makes to grab Kessel is half-hearted.  I think there's something to be said for the intimidation factor and the fact he dropped his gloves, but I think the events that unfolded were because of who John Scott is and not necessarily what he did on this play.

 

[ZBBM]

Points he could argue (just throwing stuff out there):

1. Rule states (paraphrased) that if you come off the bench to START an altercation.  It was well underway when he got there. He also did not "start" anything, technically.

2. He never threw a punch. He went out there and at most, tied up Scott when he got back up after being tackled by the other Leafs players.  He could argue given that Scott was out of control and significantly larger and more dominating than any Leafs player out there. 

3. The puck had actually not dropped when Scott grabbed Kessel. May not directly support Clarkson but it does mean that Scott should be the one in trouble for starting a second altercation during a stoppage of play.  Perhaps there is an argument linking the two. 

I dunno, just some thoughts.

The one thing I do know that pisses me off the most here is point #3 should have Scott in a whack of trouble but it appears he will get off without any discipline despite starting all of this.

Point 1 is irrelevant.  As I stated above, pulling from Potvin's quote of the rule, he came off the bench during the altercation.  The rule then reads "or" -- not "and" -- to start an altercation.  If you do one or the other, you're suspended.  He did the first.

 

[Corn Flake]

But, if you watch the sequence closely, Scott really doesn't end up doing anything.  He doesn't throw a punch, and really the attempt he makes to grab Kessel is half-hearted.  I think there's something to be said for the intimidation factor and the fact he dropped his gloves, but I think the events that unfolded were because of who John Scott is and not necessarily what he did on this play.

Maybe but if Kessel doesn't get the heck out of there as quickly as he did, what happens then?  That whole thing could have ended very very differently.  One punch connects and he could have knocked Kessel out, concussed him and put our franchise player out a month or more. 

After that, if Scott had gotten up from that pile on and had fists flying he could have done a lot of damage there too.  Clarkson tied him up when he got up and that was the end of it, but again.. if it was Ashton or Bozak standing there when he gets back up... who knows.

 

[sucka]

But, if you watch the sequence closely, Scott really doesn't end up doing anything.  He doesn't throw a punch, and really the attempt he makes to grab Kessel is half-hearted.  I think there's something to be said for the intimidation factor and the fact he dropped his gloves, but I think the events that unfolded were because of who John Scott is and not necessarily what he did on this play.

Maybe but if Kessel doesn't get the heck out of there as quickly as he did, what happens then?  That whole thing could have ended very very differently.  One punch connects and he could have knocked Kessel out, concussed him and put our franchise player out a month or more. 

After that, if Scott had gotten up from that pile on and had fists flying he could have done a lot of damage there too.  Clarkson tied him up when he got up and that was the end of it, but again.. if it was Ashton or Bozak standing there when he gets back up... who knows.

What's the window for Clarkson to appeal?  Can it be done after the Kessel hearing?  The advantage of that is, if he stays silent, Kessel may be able to get off very lightly.  I can see him getting a regular season suspension, but a small one for optics, as long as Clarkson doesn't motion to appeal.  Once Kessel is sorted out, Clarkson should appeal on the basis that the spirit of the rule wasn't fully contravened in that he didn't leave to fight and there was a real intention and possibility that an NHL star player could have been seriously hurt and on that basis, perhaps the suspension can be lessened to whatever number of days.  His rationale could be that the repercussions of the 'what if' could have been much more serious and damaging to the reputation of the league had he not jumped in. 

 

[Kin]

Point 1 is irrelevant.  As I stated above, pulling from Potvin's quote of the rule, he came off the bench during the altercation.  The rule then reads "or" -- not "and" -- to start an altercation.  If you do one or the other, you're suspended.  He did the first.

But, and I realize you're not defending the rule exactly, doesn't this rule essentially make it so the best thing for Carlyle to do in this situation be responding to Rolston by engaging Scott with whoever he has can fight? Doesn't that just escalate things? If the league looks at what Clarkson did as being worse than what Scott did then aren't they essentially saying that if one team sends out a goon they other team is obligated to either A) send out a matching goon or B) stand by and watch as a goon picks a fight or throws a punch at whoever he can find?

I'm fine with the idea that coming off the bench to fight should be strongly discouraged but someone coming off the bench to get an idiot like Scott in a headlock does not seem to be worth of a month of their season and, if anything, escalates the problem going forward.

 

[Frank E]

Point 1 is irrelevant.  As I stated above, pulling from Potvin's quote of the rule, he came off the bench during the altercation.  The rule then reads "or" -- not "and" -- to start an altercation.  If you do one or the other, you're suspended.  He did the first.

But, and I realize you're not defending the rule exactly, doesn't this rule essentially make it so the best thing for Carlyle to do in this situation be responding to Rolston by engaging Scott with whoever he has can fight? Doesn't that just escalate things? If the league looks at what Clarkson did as being worse than what Scott did then aren't they essentially saying that if one team sends out a goon they other team is obligated to either A) send out a matching goon or B) stand by and watch as a goon picks a fight or throws a punch at whoever he can find?

I'm fine with the idea that coming off the bench to fight should be strongly discouraged but someone coming off the bench to get an idiot like Scott in a headlock does not seem to be worth of a month of their season and, if anything, escalates the problem going forward.

The fact that Clarkson didn't fight anyone isn't really relevant to the rule though, right?

The league doesn't want anyone coming off the bench, as that can often lead to escalating things as other players from the other bench would then be enticed to do so...then you've got bench clearing going on.

 

[Kin]

The fact that Clarkson didn't fight anyone isn't really relevant to the rule though, right?

The league doesn't want anyone coming off the bench, as that can often lead to escalating things as other players from the other bench would then be enticed to do so...then you've got bench clearing going on.

But what escalates things more, lining Orr up against Scott or having Orr on the bench to come off it in the event that Scott begins swinging at people? I'm not questioning the extent to which the rule applies to Clarkson, I'm questioning the wisdom of the rule.