Torres at it again

HawkWriter · Oct 5, 2015

Grimson said:
Didn't he already try to appeal last season? Thought it was denied?

I could be wrong.

I know he won an appeal against the suspension where he took out Hossa. Believe it was knocked down 4 games or so. When the NHL takes a hard, hard stance like they did in this case (in my opinion) I would like to see them not back off of it. I think a suspension of half a season, for a pre-season hit, definitely sends a message to those that like to toe the line, even if they don't have the history that Torres does.

Chief Walking Stick · Oct 5, 2015

HawkWriter said:
I know he won an appeal against the suspension where he took out Hossa. Believe it was knocked down 4 games or so. When the NHL takes a hard, hard stance like they did in this case (in my opinion) I would like to see them not back off of it. I think a suspension of half a season, for a pre-season hit, definitely sends a message to those that like to toe the line, even if they don't have the history that Torres does.

I may be thinking Cooke for his stomp on Karlsson a couple years ago.

Spunky Porkstacker · Oct 5, 2015

Grimson said:
I may be thinking Cooke for his stomp on Karlsson a couple years ago.

Wouldn't doubt it Bozo.

Samurai · Oct 5, 2015

ClydeLee said:
The Sharks will just sign Matt Cooke to fill the hole

Hopefully it's Torres bunghole. :hawked:

ClydeLee · Oct 6, 2015

HawkWriter said:
The Blackhawks put an A on Kopecky for the pre-season...just the route a team goes when they have a bunch of young guys playing in one game. I wouldn't read much into it at all.

On another note - happy to see the NHL hand out 41 games. What is unfortunate, is that when Torres isn't a complete idiot out there, he is a guy that can contribute and play a role on a team. All that means nothing though when he continues to take head shots. 41 games is a big message, almost half a million for a guy, and pretty much pushing him out of the league. Good for the NHL on this one...just have to hope that a repeal doesn't get it knocked down any.

Kopecky isn't a POS, they also gave Palle an A at one point. They're all experienced guys in the league but not Torres types

Shantz My Pants · Oct 6, 2015

ClydeLee said:
Kopecky isn't a POS, they also gave Palle an A at one point. They're all experienced guys in the league but not Torres types

You're reading waaaay to much into this. San Jose gave him the A for the preseason game because you have to dress so many vets in preseason games. Since he's a vet playing with a bunch of rookies or minor leaguers it makes sense he was given an A for the game.

Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

Shantz My Pants · Oct 6, 2015

Grimson said:
I may be thinking Cooke for his stomp on Karlsson a couple years ago.

Cooke didn't get anything for Karlsson, it was a clean hit that unfortunately went wrong.

Torres appealed his hit on Hossa and won.

Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

ClydeLee · Oct 6, 2015

Trev said:
Cooke didn't get anything for Karlsson, it was a clean hit that unfortunately went wrong.

Torres appealed his hit on Hossa and won.

Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

There wasn't a problem to me with the Hossa appeal, because they made the ruling a strangely specific case for Torres, it was basically every possible playoff game Arizona could of played after that point if every game went 7 all the way to the Cup. Plus those were playoff games so after all the offseason, adjusting it for the regular season wasn't an issue.

LordKOTL · Oct 6, 2015

I think the league was hedging their bets on this ruling. While not a "repeat offender" (something tells me that they will change the "repeat offender" from an absolute time in months to an amount of games between incidents) and even though the DoPS can use past rulings in current discipline and can base current suspensions longer than other ones, it wouldn't serve a "ban for life" or "year ban". The league has good ground to stand on this seeing as how a 20-gamer didn't work for him in the past. I don't think the suspension will be appealed much--he'll still miss the bulk of 1/2 of the season.

And the salient point to that is that the Sharks are essentially on the hook for about 2M in cap for half the season. If i remember the CBA right, He still takes up a roster slot and they won't have cap amnesty.

After his deal is up, would any team take him on knowing that when he fucks up next, there's a good chance his cap hit will be on the books for an entire year and it's completely dead cap? I can't see it outside of a leage minimum contract, and even that, any team hoping to contend is not going to take on potential dead cap space with the aded knock of losing a roster slot.

Honestly, I think this was his death-knell in the NHL If he's re-signed and makes one more bad play, regardless of the league's reaction (I don't see them doing a lifetime ban), someone is going to Bertuzzi his ass, and the league en masse would lose bigtime in that case.

BlackHawkPaul · Oct 6, 2015

LordKOTL said:
I think the league was hedging their bets on this ruling. While not a "repeat offender" (something tells me that they will change the "repeat offender" from an absolute time in months to an amount of games between incidents) and even though the DoPS can use past rulings in current discipline and can base current suspensions longer than other ones, it wouldn't serve a "ban for life" or "year ban". The league has good ground to stand on this seeing as how a 20-gamer didn't work for him in the past. I don't think the suspension will be appealed much--he'll still miss the bulk of 1/2 of the season.

And the salient point to that is that the Sharks are essentially on the hook for about 2M in cap for half the season. If i remember the CBA right, He still takes up a roster slot and they won't have cap amnesty.

After his deal is up, would any team take him on knowing that when he fucks up next, there's a good chance his cap hit will be on the books for an entire year and it's completely dead cap? I can't see it outside of a leage minimum contract, and even that, any team hoping to contend is not going to take on potential dead cap space with the aded knock of losing a roster slot.

Honestly, I think this was his death-knell in the NHL If he's re-signed and makes one more bad play, regardless of the league's reaction (I don't see them doing a lifetime ban), someone is going to Bertuzzi his ass, and the league en masse would lose bigtime in that case.

Doubt that will ever happen. The 41 games is a wakeup call (it should be a full season--but 41 games puts the onus also on the Sharks for signing him--tying up that little cap space), but retaliations will probably start going away if it means players are going to sit out full campaigns due to their actions. IF Torres laces them up again, someone will probably drop the gloves with him to basically prove a point, rather than a Bertuzzi-Moore incident.

LordKOTL · Oct 7, 2015

BlackHawkPaul said:
Doubt that will ever happen. The 41 games is a wakeup call (it should be a full season--but 41 games puts the onus also on the Sharks for signing him--tying up that little cap space), but retaliations will probably start going away if it means players are going to sit out full campaigns due to their actions. IF Torres laces them up again, someone will probably drop the gloves with him to basically prove a point, rather than a Bertuzzi-Moore incident.

If the next game Anahiem sees Torres he shirks Brian McGrattan and instead tries to go with Cogliano, nothing is proven. Torres already proved himself mewling pantywaist pussy (and I apologize to any mewling pantywaist pussies that are offended by me equating them to Raffi Torres) when he shirked Bollig and instead went with Mayers--and that's not a knock on Mayers at all, but we're talking fighter class here. If this was the 80's where the Proberts and Grimsons and Hextalls (oh, my!) patrolled the ice that would not be an issue because Torres would have been beaten and ragdolled whether he tried to turtle or not, but in the game nowadays as he tries to play it--running a guy and not answering the bell unless the guy is in his class or lower, it's not going to do anything at all.

I seriously think that *when* Torres runs a guy again, if he's not out for a year or more, someone will try to McSorely his ass or something similar because he simply won't answer the bell. Probably a guy like Maschinter or the like--someone who has little chance of ever playing in the NHL (again) and will get his 15 minutes for the guy who took out Torres.

BlackHawkPaul · Oct 7, 2015

LordKOTL said:
If the next game Anahiem sees Torres he shirks Brian McGrattan and instead tries to go with Cogliano, nothing is proven. Torres already proved himself mewling pantywaist pussy (and I apologize to any mewling pantywaist pussies that are offended by me equating them to Raffi Torres) when he shirked Bollig and instead went with Mayers--and that's not a knock on Mayers at all, but we're talking fighter class here. If this was the 80's where the Proberts and Grimsons and Hextalls (oh, my!) patrolled the ice that would not be an issue because Torres would have been beaten and ragdolled whether he tried to turtle or not, but in the game nowadays as he tries to play it--running a guy and not answering the bell unless the guy is in his class or lower, it's not going to do anything at all.

I seriously think that *when* Torres runs a guy again, if he's not out for a year or more, someone will try to McSorely his ass or something similar because he simply won't answer the bell. Probably a guy like Maschinter or the like--someone who has little chance of ever playing in the NHL (again) and will get his 15 minutes for the guy who took out Torres.

True, but with the "new" and uncertain NHL, why throw away a season or career on headhunting that fuck stick?
It should also be the onus on who decides that Torres was worth signing 1 game, let alone over 700. That's not a cup of coffee, the dude has a long (and cloudy) NHL career, so maybe the thinking needs to be altered beyond Torres.
Just my 2 cents.

LordKOTL · Oct 7, 2015

BlackHawkPaul said:
True, but with the "new" and uncertain NHL, why throw away a season or career on headhunting that fuck stick?
It should also be the onus on who decides that Torres was worth signing 1 game, let alone over 700. That's not a cup of coffee, the dude has a long (and cloudy) NHL career, so maybe the thinking needs to be altered beyond Torres.
Just my 2 cents.

I don't necessarily disagree. Rethinking how the DoPS and making everyone accountable clean up a lot of dirty play; unfortunately the NHL and the NHLPA don't see it like that.

I can also see a player like a Kyle Beach, who has no real shot at an NHL career (or more of an NHL career), will likley not be resigned after the current year and will only see ice in the preseason decide to make their last hurrah heathunting some eunuch like Torres that simply won't answer the bell.

After all, Evander Kane knocking Matte Cooke the fuck out put his name on the map more than any of his play ever did (not that he's that bad of a player, but still). I don't think any hockey fan here could deny that if some player did some highly illegal move that effectively ended Torres' career it would be such a media circus that it would overshadow Kane's alleged misconduct, Crawford's f-bomb, and Torts carging the opposing locker room combined. Hell, just the flame wars of "Torres deserved it" vs "Torres is a Victim!" would probably kill the internet for awhile.

MassHavoc · Oct 7, 2015

BlackHawkPaul said:
True, but with the "new" and uncertain NHL, why throw away a season or career on headhunting that fuck stick?
It should also be the onus on who decides that Torres was worth signing 1 game, let alone over 700. That's not a cup of coffee, the dude has a long (and cloudy) NHL career, so maybe the thinking needs to be altered beyond Torres.
Just my 2 cents.

You know, I never really thought of it but I assume that the cap hit is still there for a guy who is suspended? Looks like he's got a 2 mil cap hit which means they're out 1 mil for half the year and whatever it cost to replace him. So that's a pretty stiff penalty to the payroll too if they don't get to recoup that? If they do, then I think they should somehow figure out a way to force the fines or suspensions to have an added affect on the payroll to make GMs and coaches wake up to these types of stupid plays.

LordKOTL · Oct 8, 2015

MassHavoc said:
You know, I never really thought of it but I assume that the cap hit is still there for a guy who is suspended? Looks like he's got a 2 mil cap hit which means they're out 1 mil for half the year and whatever it cost to replace him. So that's a pretty stiff penalty to the payroll too if they don't get to recoup that? If they do, then I think they should somehow figure out a way to force the fines or suspensions to have an added affect on the payroll to make GMs and coaches wake up to these types of stupid plays.

I believe the cap hit is still there for the duration of the suspension, as well as the loss of a roster player.

Still, for penalizing the club my opinion is that the team, in some way, shape, or form, has to also take on the cap hit of the victim.

Thus, for 41 games the Sharks would be docked 3.75M in cap space as well as Torres' 2M. IMHO the punitive way to distribute this is that it's in effect for the duration of the suspension--not spread out over the year. Thus, Torres should be 100% locked into the roster as completely unmovable until his suspension is up. Until his suspension is up their are dinged Silferberg's 3.75M less any cap space overhead (1.290M), which bring it to a total of 23 roster players allowed (since Torres is locked) and 68.94M in cap space until Torres is unsuspended.

Given their roster now, that means they have to clear 1.169M in cap space for the duration of the suspension which doesn't sound like a lot, but it's at least 2 of their roster slots--likley both of their "spares".

The thing that makes the numbers less for the Sharks is their 1.29M in cap space. Had it have been Shaw running Silfverberg (same player cap), the cap to shed would have been 3.75M. That's every. single. waiver-ineligible player we have on our roster now, with room to recall a single 665K player. We'd lose Baun, Panarin, T², TVR, and Pokka and could bring up only a single player no more expensive than Brisebois. Assuming that player is Svedberg, we'd be running 6D, 9F (10 less Shaw who would be locked), and 2G for half a season all because a player ran another mid-level player. Today's study question: Would that tank a team's shot at the playoffs/another cup? Even if it was a small 5-gamer that would seriously affect a team, much less half a season.

The only fly in the ointment is that it would mean that cheapshots would move towards lower-cap players, but at least it would punish the club as well.

MassHavoc · Oct 8, 2015

LordKOTL said:
I believe the cap hit is still there for the duration of the suspension, as well as the loss of a roster player.

Still, for penalizing the club my opinion is that the team, in some way, shape, or form, has to also take on the cap hit of the victim.

Thus, for 41 games the Sharks would be docked 3.75M in cap space as well as Torres' 2M. IMHO the punitive way to distribute this is that it's in effect for the duration of the suspension--not spread out over the year. Thus, Torres should be 100% locked into the roster as completely unmovable until his suspension is up. Until his suspension is up their are dinged Silferberg's 3.75M less any cap space overhead (1.290M), which bring it to a total of 23 roster players allowed (since Torres is locked) and 68.94M in cap space until Torres is unsuspended.

Given their roster now, that means they have to clear 1.169M in cap space for the duration of the suspension which doesn't sound like a lot, but it's at least 2 of their roster slots--likley both of their "spares".

The thing that makes the numbers less for the Sharks is their 1.29M in cap space. Had it have been Shaw running Silfverberg (same player cap), the cap to shed would have been 3.75M. That's every. single. waiver-ineligible player we have on our roster now, with room to recall a single 665K player. We'd lose Baun, Panarin, T², TVR, and Pokka and could bring up only a single player no more expensive than Brisebois. Assuming that player is Svedberg, we'd be running 6D, 9F (10 less Shaw who would be locked), and 2G for half a season all because a player ran another mid-level player. Today's study question: Would that tank a team's shot at the playoffs/another cup? Even if it was a small 5-gamer that would seriously affect a team, much less half a season.

The only fly in the ointment is that it would mean that cheapshots would move towards lower-cap players, but at least it would punish the club as well.

That's an interesting idea, I don't know how they do anything additional in actual execution is my hesitation. I was thinking any fines would have to be dead cap weight, but then you get into the question of when does it take effect? What if they are like the hawks and under the cap 400k and a guy goes out where the penalty is more than that, how do you enforce it? make them do roster changes to get back down under the cap? I am not arguing with you, literally just throwing it up for discussion. I don't know what the answer is, future penalty for the next year? That could also be dicey. I really like the idea of repeat offenders like this having some sort of lasting effect on the team so that GMs have to make tougher decisions on whether to continue to employ these people but the players association would probably have a fit and when would they pay for it. Which is basically what you are saying above I believe.

LordKOTL · Oct 8, 2015

MassHavoc said:
That's an interesting idea, I don't know how they do anything additional in actual execution is my hesitation. I was thinking any fines would have to be dead cap weight, but then you get into the question of when does it take effect? What if they are like the hawks and under the cap 400k and a guy goes out where the penalty is more than that, how do you enforce it? make them do roster changes to get back down under the cap? I am not arguing with you, literally just throwing it up for discussion. I don't know what the answer is, future penalty for the next year? That could also be dicey. I really like the idea of repeat offenders like this having some sort of lasting effect on the team so that GMs have to make tougher decisions on whether to continue to employ these people but the players association would probably have a fit and when would they pay for it. Which is basically what you are saying above I believe.

IMHO the real problem is teams that hire these eunuchs and in general they're only answerable to the bottom line--and the bottom line is winning.

Let's assume the rule is this: If a player is suspended, the team is *locked* with the offending player on their roster and they are down that player and the cap hit in terms of cap and roster slots. They also take on the cap of the player that was the victim and no cap-levelling is allowed. The offending team has a cap penalty of the other player for the duration of the suspension. Further, if they don't have the cap they have to being by reassigning all waiver-ineligible players to the A, and only afterwards can they pull players off of the active roster (without a waiver threat as cap relief). Lastly any LTIR player is ineligible to be sent down--they remain as LTIR capspace. No cap can be banked.

In the case I outlayed with the 'hawks, it would essentially mean that *all* of the wiaver-eligible rookies have to go to Rockford (Panarin, TVR, T², etc.), and they could bring up only one who's hit is 655k or less (assuming Svedberg) for that duration, so as I said, they're icing less than 20 guys: 9 FWDS, 6D, and 2G. No room for injury for the suspension duration.

So, asking this: Even if Shaw did the same as Torres on Silfverberg, but let's say because Sha's nowhere near the douchenozzle Torres is and only got 5 games, how would that affect the 'hawks chance of winning in that period? How would the youth's grows be stunted? How tired would the FWDS be? All because Shaw played reckless. If that scenrio happened in a playoff push the 'hawks could find themselves on the outside looking in, and *that* would get Bowman, McDonut, and Rocky's attention since the fans would be in a complete uproar: Shaw, in that example, would have basically ruined the season.

I doubt the NHLPA or even the league proper would go for it, but if they did players that play recklessly would soon find themselves working as the head janitor at the local white castle.

MassHavoc · Oct 8, 2015

LordKOTL said:
IMHO the real problem is teams that hire these eunuchs and in general they're only answerable to the bottom line--and the bottom line is winning.

Let's assume the rule is this: If a player is suspended, the team is *locked* with the offending player on their roster and they are down that player and the cap hit in terms of cap and roster slots. They also take on the cap of the player that was the victim and no cap-levelling is allowed. The offending team has a cap penalty of the other player for the duration of the suspension. Further, if they don't have the cap they have to being by reassigning all waiver-ineligible players to the A, and only afterwards can they pull players off of the active roster (without a waiver threat as cap relief). Lastly any LTIR player is ineligible to be sent down--they remain as LTIR capspace. No cap can be banked.

In the case I outlayed with the 'hawks, it would essentially mean that *all* of the wiaver-eligible rookies have to go to Rockford (Panarin, TVR, T², etc.), and they could bring up only one who's hit is 655k or less (assuming Svedberg) for that duration, so as I said, they're icing less than 20 guys: 9 FWDS, 6D, and 2G. No room for injury for the suspension duration.

So, asking this: Even if Shaw did the same as Torres on Silfverberg, but let's say because Sha's nowhere near the douchenozzle Torres is and only got 5 games, how would that affect the 'hawks chance of winning in that period? How would the youth's grows be stunted? How tired would the FWDS be? All because Shaw played reckless. If that scenrio happened in a playoff push the 'hawks could find themselves on the outside looking in, and *that* would get Bowman, McDonut, and Rocky's attention since the fans would be in a complete uproar: Shaw, in that example, would have basically ruined the season.

I doubt the NHLPA or even the league proper would go for it, but if they did players that play recklessly would soon find themselves working as the head janitor at the local white castle.

I like it, I think it might just be a little much. There comes a point I think where you are starting to physically penalize the other players as much as the guy that did the bad hit and I just don't think it's fair to physically mess with other guys careers especially rookies who probably have nothing to do with the guy being a douchebag. I mean things could happen where guys never make it back up. It's hard enough to get to the NHL I don't think you should force players down just because of Torres being an asshat.

LordKOTL · Oct 9, 2015

MassHavoc said:
I like it, I think it might just be a little much. There comes a point I think where you are starting to physically penalize the other players as much as the guy that did the bad hit and I just don't think it's fair to physically mess with other guys careers especially rookies who probably have nothing to do with the guy being a douchebag. I mean things could happen where guys never make it back up. It's hard enough to get to the NHL I don't think you should force players down just because of Torres being an asshat.

Perhaps not, but on the flipside the only way you're going to affect the brass is if you attack something they care about: and that's usually their job and/or money.

IMHO there just has to be some solution where there's a stong incentive for the GM/coach to *not* play someone who's a dickbag. Right now the way the system is, there isn't. If you can make the GM and coach really think hard about "If I lose control over this guy, will it completely wreck the system and possibly lead to me getting fired?" then it will do the job.

MassHavoc · Oct 9, 2015

LordKOTL said:
Perhaps not, but on the flipside the only way you're going to affect the brass is if you attack something they care about: and that's usually their job and/or money.

IMHO there just has to be some solution where there's a stong incentive for the GM/coach to *not* play someone who's a dickbag. Right now the way the system is, there isn't. If you can make the GM and coach really think hard about "If I lose control over this guy, will it completely wreck the system and possibly lead to me getting fired?" then it will do the job.

How about fining the coach, and double the GM. I just don't like an idiot with a bad hit having the effect of being able to ruin another players career from fallout damage.

Torres at it again

New member

Heeeh heeeeh he said POLES

CCS Donator

Ridiculum Anserini

New member

New member

New member

New member

Scratched for Vorobiev

My favorite teams

Fartbarf

Scratched for Vorobiev

My favorite teams

Fartbarf

Scratched for Vorobiev

My favorite teams

Moderator

Scratched for Vorobiev

My favorite teams

Moderator

Scratched for Vorobiev

My favorite teams

Moderator

Scratched for Vorobiev

My favorite teams

Moderator