Tim T to sit the season?

Tim T to sit the season?

Pelle31
Pelle31

June 2nd, 2012, 2:41 am #1

this is just weird....he might as well retire if he sits a year


http://espn.go.com/boston/nhl/story/_/i ... -13-season
Quote
Share

Loki
Loki

June 2nd, 2012, 3:21 pm #2

5 million cap hit for a guy that wants to take a year off? I could sort of understand if one of his kids was dealing with some sort of long term illness or something, but nothing like that was indicated. I guess we sort of knew it was about him versus the team after his petty political statement after the Brunes won the Cup and this cements it further.

BTW, who's the guy dressed up like a woman in that vid talking to Wilbon?
Quote
Share

Brett
Brett

June 2nd, 2012, 6:21 pm #3

If a player takes a year off, I have no idea how that would pertain to his cap number. It doesn't make any sense for it to count, because Boston isn't getting anything out of him. Hard to say.

I did read that he was taking the year off for family reasons, so it really is guess work as to what the situation is (children, ill relation, who knows.)

But I do agree with what was said about him taking the year off, he's up there in age and a year away from the game at 40 years old....I don't see him coming back effectively.
Quote
Share

Freak
Freak

June 2nd, 2012, 6:47 pm #4

My opinion is that Thomas is a dickhead. His lack of respect with the Whitehouse visit, and his comments after about Obama...He thinks of himself only, and his mug attitude that he can take off a year at his age, without any care to the teams cap situation shows his true colors. He moved his family mid season to Colorado, to get them into a less political state. Probably due to the backlash over his ignorance with the White House.

Some here, like Outland, had no issue with him doing that. I saw it as a slap in the face to his teammates.

CSNNE.COM: Joe Haggerty reported on how Bruins management would proceed if goalie Tim Thomas decides to sit out next season. GM Peter Chiarelli said the first thing he would due is suspend Thomas, which would remove him from the roster, though his salary would still count against their cap for next season as his contract falls into the over-35 category.

Chiarelli could trade Thomas on July 1, when his movement clause expires and which Haggerty claims he was seriously considering prior to meeting with the goalies agent, but they wouldnt get much of a return for a goalie who might not play part or all of next season. While Chiarelli doesnt believe theres anything fishy about Thomas potential decision, Haggerty speculates it could be a way to garner some leverage once his no-movement clause expires on July 1st. They could put him on waivers and demote him, but his salary would still count against their cap, and since his contract falls into the over-35 category, they cannot buy him out. They could, however, toll his contract forward to 2013-14, which would prevent him playing anywhere but Boston. Haggerty believes, barring a change of mind on Thomas part, he wont return to the Bruins.

SPECTORS NOTE: I think Garriochs suggestion of allowing other clubs permission to speak with Thomas and then trying to work out a trade if hes willing to play for any of them next season is the best way to go. I believe Haggertys point about Thomas garnering some leverage once his NMC expires is spot on. He may say its for family reasons, but if, as Haggerty claims, Chiarelli was thinking about trading him after July 1st, this is a good way to ensure a trade to a destination of Thomas choosing. If Thomas is successful, you can bet this will be something addressed in the upcoming CBA talks to ensure other players dont employ a similar tactic.

Thomas definitely has a mind of his own and it sometimes works in mysterious ways, as his snubbing the White House last February made clear, and which he was wrong to do, regardless of his political beliefs. He obviously doesnt seem worried about the damage to his legacy with the Bruins. Now, if hes sincere about wanting to take a year off to deal with family matters, thats a different story and I would certainly sympathize with that. Otherwise, this seems like a power-play on his part to control his future.
Quote
Share

Pelle31
Pelle31

June 3rd, 2012, 8:00 pm #5

If a player takes a year off, I have no idea how that would pertain to his cap number. It doesn't make any sense for it to count, because Boston isn't getting anything out of him. Hard to say.

I did read that he was taking the year off for family reasons, so it really is guess work as to what the situation is (children, ill relation, who knows.)

But I do agree with what was said about him taking the year off, he's up there in age and a year away from the game at 40 years old....I don't see him coming back effectively.
wow..plus whatever they have to pay the backup goalie....


http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Ty-Ander ... /141/44754


Quote
Share

Icer
Icer

June 4th, 2012, 4:47 pm #6

5 million cap hit for a guy that wants to take a year off? I could sort of understand if one of his kids was dealing with some sort of long term illness or something, but nothing like that was indicated. I guess we sort of knew it was about him versus the team after his petty political statement after the Brunes won the Cup and this cements it further.

BTW, who's the guy dressed up like a woman in that vid talking to Wilbon?
I actually applaud the guy for putting his Family, Friends, and Faith above hockey (his words). Because really, that IS what's important. Hockey comes well behind those.

But, this wait and see approch isn't fair to the team. At 39, after a year off, he's not coming back. He should just retire, I believe that would take his contract off the cap since it's not injury related. And Boston might even still retain his rights.
Quote
Share

Loki
Loki

June 4th, 2012, 6:02 pm #7

If one of his kids is suffering some sort of medical issue, I can see that and agree with you. Other than that type of scenario, then, yes, it's selfish. He's already shown that "me above the team" side before.
Quote
Share

Pelle31
Pelle31

June 4th, 2012, 6:56 pm #8

I actually applaud the guy for putting his Family, Friends, and Faith above hockey (his words). Because really, that IS what's important. Hockey comes well behind those.

But, this wait and see approch isn't fair to the team. At 39, after a year off, he's not coming back. He should just retire, I believe that would take his contract off the cap since it's not injury related. And Boston might even still retain his rights.
if he retires they carry the cap number.....he has to be injured....just like Pronger can't retire or we eat his cap number
Quote
Share

Icer
Icer

June 4th, 2012, 9:12 pm #9

If one of his kids is suffering some sort of medical issue, I can see that and agree with you. Other than that type of scenario, then, yes, it's selfish. He's already shown that "me above the team" side before.
(OK, now I've got an Olivia Newton John earworm....)

And this is more general for athletes, Thomas is a bit wacky aside from this latest.

What's an excuse for an athlete to take a "family leave", possibly permanently?

why medical?

What else would be excusable?

marriage on the rocks?
kid being incorrigble because dad's not around?
misses seeing his kids grow up?
prefers PTA meetings over practice at this point in his life?

It is his lkife, he gets to decide what's important.

Flip side:
is it selfish for fans to want him to keep playing so they can be entertained and he can be miserable?

I know froim my eprsepctive, I've turned down very good offers beacuse they would detract from my family life. Is it different from athletes?

Food for thought.......
Quote
Share

Greg
Greg

June 4th, 2012, 10:52 pm #10

If you get paid millions shouldn't you honor your contract? (nm)
Quote
Share


Confirmation of reply: