I agree, it was just odd that he would actually say that publicly because he never gives anything up like that.
- GSDIV

It'll certainly be interesting to see what happens. Rask has been solid, hes young. As long as he stays healthy he should have a lot of good years ahead of him in Boston. Subban has a lot of potential. I didnt think he played that great in the Juniors but hes obviously young and has a lot of learning to do. Boston has a good situation in goal, Khubodin has been good as well!

THE NHLPA should require Kipper to report. He did nto negotiate any non-movement clauses. He should be required by the PA to do so.

THE NHLPA should require Kipper to report. He did nto negotiate any non-movement clauses. He should be required by the PA to do so.
- bixll

I agree! Contracts should be honoured by both parties 100% no matter what team you belong too, or how good/bad your player has been!

After so many differing opinions, Ive added a poll to the blog to see what percentage of you agree or disagree with Kipper.

THE NHLPA should require Kipper to report. He did nto negotiate any non-movement clauses. He should be required by the PA to do so.
- bixll

If a guy is bought out...He still gets paid. If a guy retires before his contract expires, does he have to pay the team something back? If not, he should be.

After so many differing opinions, Ive added a poll to the blog to see what percentage of you agree or disagree with Kipper.
- Colin Dambrauskas

Its a contract, not a letter from his Mother... It is Legal binding as well. He has to report, does he not?

If a guy is bought out...He still gets paid. If a guy retires before his contract expires, does he have to pay the team something back? If not, he should be.
- LeafsFan1205

He won't have to pay them back, you don't get your salary up front.....

He won't have to pay them back, you don't get your salary up front.....
- bixll

Ya I know you dont get anything up front. But the point is, a contract is signed for how ever many number of years and expected to be honoured. A team has the option to buy out a guy, which they still need to pay that player. So why shouldn't a player have to give something back to the team if he decides to retire say a year or 2 before his contract is up?

MONSTER!!! HE'S GOT A CONTRACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- muffin_man

consensus in the contract was signed to play in calgary

Ya I know you dont get anything up front. But the point is, a contract is signed for how ever many number of years and expected to be honoured. A team has the option to buy out a guy, which they still need to pay that player. So why shouldn't a player have to give something back to the team if he decides to retire say a year or 2 before his contract is up?
- LeafsFan1205

I'm not saying if you get paid 5 mil a year, you pay back 5 mil. But something at least should be given back.

If a guy is bought out...He still gets paid. If a guy retires before his contract expires, does he have to pay the team something back? If not, he should be.
- LeafsFan1205

if a guy is bought out, he doesn't get all the money he was owed...i'm pretty sure, and he's not guaranteed to find a job afterwards.

teams screw players over ALL THE TIME.....i dont' see how this is any worse then someone getting bought out, or burried in teh minors, or what the habs did the laracque last year.....

if iginla refused to waive his NTC, would he be getting villified like this?

if a guy is bought out, he doesn't get all the money he was owed...i'm pretty sure, and he's not guaranteed to find a job afterwards.

teams screw players over ALL THE TIME.....i dont' see how this is any worse then someone getting bought out, or burried in teh minors, or what the habs did the laracque last year.....
- sensarmy_11

But on the flip side, theres been players that have screwed over teams before too because they refuse to go somewhere else. They're obviously not getting all of their money when they are bought..and as i mentioned...pay something back, not all of it...

if iginla refused to waive his NTC, would he be getting villified like this?
- sensarmy_11

Probably

Ya I know you dont get anything up front. But the point is, a contract is signed for how ever many number of years and expected to be honoured. A team has the option to buy out a guy, which they still need to pay that player. So why shouldn't a player have to give something back to the team if he decides to retire say a year or 2 before his contract is up?
- LeafsFan1205

Preacher / Choir..

I hear ya. I think guys that sign the big deals, and then do not play to that level should pay money back. Not mentioning any names, ( OV ) but they really should play to the level they are paid to play at. Getting rich and fat is not an excuss to cruise.

if a guy is bought out, he doesn't get all the money he was owed...i'm pretty sure, and he's not guaranteed to find a job afterwards.

teams screw players over ALL THE TIME.....i dont' see how this is any worse then someone getting bought out, or burried in teh minors, or what the habs did the laracque last year.....
- sensarmy_11

You must honour the contract you sign? Yes or No, it is very simple.

The guys that get bought out, have their contracts honoured. goes both ways.

Preacher / Choir..

I hear ya. I think guys that sign the big deals, and then do not play to that level should pay money back. Not mentioning any names, ( OV ) but they really should play to the level they are paid to play at. Getting rich and fat is not an excuss to cruise.
- bixll

Here's a quick fix, contracts no more then 5 years a time!!! This 8-10 year deals are just ridiculous! Yeah a player wants the money, yeah a team wants to keep their player. But whats stopping them from re-signing that player on his last year to an extension?

Here's a quick fix, contracts no more then 5 years a time!!! This 8-10 year deals are just ridiculous! Yeah a player wants the money, yeah a team wants to keep their player. But whats stopping them from re-signing that player on his last year to an extension?
- LeafsFan1205

Again,

Preacher / Choir.. Totally agree.

Again,

Preacher / Choir.. Totally agree.
- bixll

Was really hoping the new CBA would have addressed that. Teams are just going to keep shooting themselves in the foot with these long term deals..

But on the flip side, theres been players that have screwed over teams before too because they refuse to go somewhere else. They're obviously not getting all of their money when they are bought..and as i mentioned...pay something back, not all of it...
- LeafsFan1205

i agree, lots of players screw teams over too.

if he didn't have a valid reason for not wanting to leave, then fine, i understand the anger, but he has a pretty legit reason.

and like i've said on SEVERAL posts now, the return for him (if anyone even took him) would not have been very small. there are WAAAYYYY better options out there for teams looking for goalie help.

i've asked like 3 times now, and nobody has been able to point out a team to me who would need/want kipper and his 6 million dollar cap hit.....let alone a team willing to give up good assets to get him.

off the top of my head, teams that currently need a goalie are:

calgary - hey, there's a good spot for kipper.
edmonton - they aren't gonna give up anything of significance to a division rival, and they'll likely want a younger guy to fit with their roster.
florida - they have markstrom who's pretty much ready to go, and theodore will be back next year....no need for kipper.
minnessota - backstrom is a UFA this year, but better to extend him then trade for kipper.
islanders - they have like 37 goalies under contract, and we all know that wang doesn't like to spend money. a 6 million dollar goalie that he actually has to pay is probably not something he'll like or want.
philly - no chance, half their cap is already taken up by an overpaid goalie, no reason to add another one
phx - see what i wrote for teh wild....better to extend smith then trade for kipper.
tampa - they just signed lindback, and have a couple of real decent prospects in the system.
toronto - i'm not convinced that kipper is a better option then what they have right now, and they've already shown they aren't willing to offer up significant assets for expensive and old goalies (luongo)

i can't see where he would go, and IF anyone took him, they'd offer peanuts in exchange.

You must honour the contract you sign? Yes or No, it is very simple.

The guys that get bought out, have their contracts honoured. goes both ways.
- bixll

how do they have their contracts honoured. they don't get all the money they would have gotten if they played out the full contract, and they aren't employed for the full lenght of the contract.

how exactly is that "honouring a contract"......that's the COMPLETE opposite of honouring a contract.

Probably
- LeafsFan1205

no chance they'd turn on him. it would be all kinds of "he's earned it"..."look what he's done for this franchise"...."his leadership and veteran presence is mroe valuable then what calgary would get in return anyways"....blah, blah, blah.

THE NHLPA should require Kipper to report. He did nto negotiate any non-movement clauses. He should be required by the PA to do so.
- bixll

If the PA force him to report. Kipper will just retire before the season is over. "IF" the reports are true

Kipper arrived in Calgary as an unknown commodity and played his ass off.

If your goalie coach is worth a poop, he can prepare a goalie who has the skills and talent to play in the NHL to play in the NHL. If not, time to find a new goalie coach.

The Flames problem has been playing Kipper 70 games a season and not properly developing a goalie to play at the NHL level and this season we're seeing what an injury and a sub-par Kipper can do to a team.

He simply has not stolen any victories for the Flames that we are used to him stealing.

Even though he won't report, the Islanders are probably still interested. Tim Thomas' contract expires at the end of this year so they'll have a spot for a goalie that won't play.

how do they have their contracts honoured. they don't get all the money they would have gotten if they played out the full contract, and they aren't employed for the full lenght of the contract.

how exactly is that "honouring a contract"......that's the COMPLETE opposite of honouring a contract.
- sensarmy_11

The buyout is the owners way of honouring the deal in place. They buy him out, it is a complete contract. The buyout monies is included in the wording of the deal in the first place, so yes, they are honouring the contract in Full.