With So Much Money on the Line, What's With the Crappy Helmets?
by SkinnyFish on Oct 13, 2010 7:01 AM EDT
in From The Branches
Email
Print
Last week in my squirt team's very first game of the season, two of my kids got concussions. One due to getting trip while skating full speed towards the side boards, and one from running straight into another kid and banging helmets. These were the second and third concussions players of mine have received in two years and Chemmy and I made quick work to ensure that a fourth hopefully wouldn't occur.
We sent off an email to all the parents informing them about concussions in the game of hockey; inspected every kids helmet to make sure it was still HECC certified; and made recommendations to those parents whose kids had crappy, unprotective helmets. In the end, nearly every kid on our team is now sporting either a Cascade M11, Bauer 9900, or a similar helmet. We're still working on the parents of the two kids still sporting helmets with just the beige foam padding in them. Why? Because they don't provide nearly the level of protection that the newer helmets due and when it comes to preventing concussions in children you gotta take every available precaution.
Now I have nothing riding on the protection of the kids on my team except for the fact that I don't want to see them get hurt, hence recommending new helmets. So then why are NHL teams still allowing their multi-million dollar superstars to wear outmoded protective equipment? With so much riding on their health; ticket sales, playoff births, merchandise sales, trade options; wouldn't protecting their investments as best they could be job number one for NHL teams? I remember when the M11 first debuted and players said they wouldn't wear it because it looks dorky. Players that I know wear one? Garnet Exelby, Brent Burns, and Chris Phillips. That's it. And Burns started wearing it after receiving a concussion himself! Sorry buddy, but you're closing the barn door after the horses have already escaped.
There was talk last year that Brian Burke had ordered trial helmets for the Marlies, but as far as I can tell no current Marlies wear them. Now there are a lot of NHLers that are wearing newer helmets, a large portion of those being Reebok's 8K helmet due to their deal with the league. When you're watching the game(s) tonight, take a close look at the players and find those still wearing the old crappy beige foam helmets. You'll be surprised at just how many there are with so much on the line.
Take the poll and let me know what you think about all this in the comments. Your links after the jump.
There's a new Leaf$ blog in town
And some of its writers might be familiar to you.
You got rid of Jim Dorey and our chance at a cup!
Lebda comes back and Finger hits the wire
Kinda wish it would've happened on its own accord.
Kris Versteeg: A modern day Ron Ellis?
I sure hope not. Ellis only won one cup!
The Euro adventures of the NHL
Sleza with a European's take on the NHL playing games over there.
Leafs looking to successfully take the show on the road
I got my hand back and it's only missing one Finger.
Finger's contract never made sense in the first place
Amen to that brother.
OUR PROVINCE!
206 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
yes, Penguins probably will need a few more losses before they really wake up, and will underestimate the Leaf Juggernaut!
Price includes freight, air conditioning tax and dealer fees. A dealer may agree to pool inventory with other dealers. Colton Orr reserves the right to pound you into a million stuff.
Certified Grabbo Lover.
by Future_considerations on Oct 13, 2010 8:36 AM EDT up reply actions
They haven’t looked that great, especially Fleury in net
by PLAYOFFS!!!1 on Oct 13, 2010 8:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Good post
How does the situation compare to the NFL? Can football players wear whatever helmets they want? I imagine not, that there’s a league-wide standard for all players, but I’m just guessing. Seems ridiculous that they’d be allowed to wear whatever manufacturers helmet they wanted. Why should hockey be different? On the other hand…
I’ve always been of the opinion that NHL players should decide what they wear on their heads and how they protect themselves. I admired Craig MacTavish and Brad Marsh for playing so long without helmets at all and I always liked Butch Goring’s helmet, Petr Klima’s, and of course Mike Foligno’s. Gretzky wore the flimsiest of helmets throughout his career.
So I don’t know. As a parent, I would give my kid the best protection I could afford. That seems like an easy choice.
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 8:17 AM EDT reply actions
Globe had an article this morning. NFL does not require players to use the most advanced helmets.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 13, 2010 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Interesting
Certified for play in 2007, about 40,000 Xenith helmets have been sold but only a handful of players in the CFL and NFL wear them, as both leagues have deals with Riddell, a traditional helmet manufacturer.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/building-a-better-helmet/article1754363/
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Good post.
I’m not a parent, but if I was I think I’d have to make sure my kid was using certified protective equipment. Concussions at that young? Scary stuff.
Blue on both sides: Maple Stir-up
And I'm on Tweetbook
I think people think you only need to worry about concussions from checking but the reality is little kids are awkward. They fall down and hit their heads hard.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I see it in skating lessons. A kid going over backwards is a disaster waiting to happen.
Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.
Yeah, I did some (very lame) “power skating” classes as a late 20’s guy, and all this backward crossover rapid-reversing stuff always made me nervous because of how easy it was to feel yourself starting to launch over backwards, skull first.
I still figured out how to do them, though… and promptly moved to a town in the midwest that’s dozens of miles from the nearest ice surface :(
I’m doing figure skating classes as a “middle ager” — once I got to jumps and spins, I got a Cascade M11, along with elbow and knee pads, and Thudd shorts from McDavid. They’ve helped when I over balanced a backwards outside three turn. I could feel my head and tailbone hit, but wasn’t sore the next day.
Wow, you have some bad mojo going there
I’ve had one kid get a concussion in 11 years – he had a new but lower cost helmet. Now unfortunately, he’s quite susceptible to them. We waited until a doctor gave the OK but he had early the next year – even with a new and much better helmet. He’s done hockey and had to give up soccer after going down with a ball to the head.
I really like that kid too, nice kid, polite, smart.
Now my rule is that I check everyone’s equipment and replace it myself if the parents won’t or can’t afford to. Top and bottom is where you spend the money, good skates and a good helmet.
Good post.
And a cup. A good cup is worth its weight in gold.
Professional cusser causer.
by T is for Truculence on Oct 13, 2010 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Good on you for buying the kids equipment.
That’s a really nice thing for you to do. My hockey career was under constant threat of ending due to how much it cost.
Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?
Well, thank you but I actually recycle more than I buy. I wish I could outfit all the kids myself but I rely heavily on the well-heeled around here who hand me down their stuff. I clean, repair if needed and then redistribute. There’s another guy in town who started doing it first and I jumped in as well – more so now that I’ve moved to a new centre. The only things that I actually lay out money for are things like mouth guards, skate blades, helmet fasteners, straps etc. It’s a lot cheaper than you’d think – and I get to weed out the old and unsafe stuff.
by buddha hat on Oct 13, 2010 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Wow
You are a very good person.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Seconded.
Professional cusser causer.
by T is for Truculence on Oct 13, 2010 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions
The NHLPA would need to sign off on any changes requiring helmets (which now have an expiry date for any parents out there), just as they do with visors (which, as I heard Bob McKenzie point out, is silly, since the NHL is the only place they can get away with not wearing them- even the Olympics required them except for guys born prior to 1973).
I know the NHLPA views this as a “personal choice” issue but you’d think they would want their rank and file to be protected so that they don’t die prematurely once they retire or suffer with post-concussion problems after retirement.
For the kids and parents, this should be required reading. It pains me to see parents willingly drop $200 on a one-piece stick and then scrimp on a helmet. I’m not a parent but if I were you can bet I’d make sure they had a properly fitted helmet with all the modern protection available.
The Maple Leafs- making me certifiably insane since 1985.
Improved safety is not as immediately apparant (if at all sometimes) then improved performance…
by PLAYOFFS!!!1 on Oct 13, 2010 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions
There’s very few kids who can make use of the improved performance in a $200 stick vs. a $50 stick – but every kid needs a base level or performance in his head.
I’m just saying I’ve been coaching kids for a few years and I have yet to see the kid who needed the top of the line stuff – and I’ve had a few good ones.
8 year-olds using 200$ sticks when they can’t skate well enough to shoot annoys me more than anything.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Everything wrong with the Sabres is Drew Stafford's fault.
I don’t even think I’m good enough for a $200 stick. Anything over $40 grinds my gears.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
I go for the 2/$50 stuff.
Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984
I bought a stick for 79.99 that was regular $129. I started using composites when I used to play rep and haven’t been able to go back, even though I just play intramurals and mens league.
I watch the big hockey websites like a hawk and pick up high end composites for $99 when they switch to new models. I’ve been shooting Vapor XXX Lites and now Vapor XXXXs for probably three years. Haven’t paid more than $100 for a stick.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Pretty much. I’ll probably end up buying a full price composite next spring but our coaching positions are paid so whatever.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I picked up a Patrick Kane composite on sale. I really like the stick but I’m convinced I’m going to wake up one night shirtless in the back of a taxi in a huge fight with the cabbie.
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
It’s a Bauer Vapor something or other but I don’t know the make/model off hand.
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
I just go to ProHockey Life and get whatever is on sale, and in high school I used to work at Canadian Tire so I’d buy composites there when there was a good sale.
That being said, I’ve only had to buy 2 sticks since I stopped playing “real” hockey. I like getting Sher-woods because I love that Coffey curve.
I’d rather use a wooden stick than a mid-level composite. The mid-level sticks are really blade heavy and hard to shoot with.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Our kids can’t lift the puck or shoot on net reliably from the hash marks. I’d say half of them have the latest sticks (X60, S19, etc.)
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I was surprised at how difficult it was to find a stick with a straight blade for my kids. Both my kids shoot left, but when they were starting out they’d routinely switch the way they shot mid-game.
Now that they’re a little older, it’s getting harder to find wooden sticks for them. No way are they getting composites when they can barely skate or stickhandle.
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
Growing up, the Sherwood PMP 5030 was the stick I always used.
I’d have one with a slight toe curve and a second with the massive Paul Coffey curve.
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
Bauer Supreme 3030 is the greatest stick in history and they stopped making it :(
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Question.
Is it possible that these kids are wearing shitty equipment because it’s a money problem?
My family was never poor, but hockey is an expensive game, and it meant that I could never play goal, join the AAA teams that kept inviting me out, and yes, I often used sub-standard gear. At one point, I can remember wearing two right-leg shin pads. I had to turn slightly to the side blocking shots.
Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?
I’m sure Skinny will correct me me if I’m wrong, but those kids play out of one of the most expensive neighbourhoods in Connecticut. I wouldn’t be suprised if it was more ignorance than money that was the problem.
...sometimes I wake up cradling a gourd.
Yeah, and maybe it’s as simple as that, but I was somewhat surprised that he didn’t mention the money issue.
Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?
Is it possible that these kids are wearing shitty equipment because it’s a money problem?
Certified Grabbo Lover
Not quite that nice, but most of the time the parents are kind enough to buy me coffee in the mornings.
Certified Grabbo Lover
A parent, upon hearing Skinny and I planning to go to the grocery store, asked us what we needed.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
If you really want to get into the concussion argument, I’ll make it simple. If the NHL wants to drastically reduce the # of head injuries to players, they should mandate full face masks across the board. Studies have shown that a full mask with chin cup and a mouthguard cut down concussions in large numbers. It’s one of the reasons why both the NCAA and ACHA require all players to wear them. Mandating that all players wear better helmets isn’t enough, and personally, I think it’s mostly going to produce fringe benefits.
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
I think you’re kinda missing the point.
What Skinnypants is pointing out, is that there are newer helmet designs on the market now, that offer dramatically improved protection against concussions then older (more commonly-used) helmets.
The point is not to baby the players and forcing them to wear a ridiculous amount of protection to prevent or minimize injury, the point is there are updated versions of the same equipment that do a better job of protecting the players, they don’t have to wear extra equipment, but merely better quality equipment that offers a higher level of protection for the same amount of stuff you have to wear anyway.
by PLAYOFFS!!!1 on Oct 13, 2010 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think birky missed the point at all. He’s saying marginal improvements are nice but if you really want to cut down concussions you need full cages/shields. You may call that “a ridiculous amount of protection”, I call it “what every NHL player has worn until at least age 18”.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 13, 2010 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions
This is the argument:
So then why are NHL teams still allowing their multi-million dollar superstars to wear outmoded protective equipment? With so much riding on their health; ticket sales, playoff births, merchandise sales, trade options; wouldn’t protecting their investments as best they could be job number one for NHL teams?
Outmoded equipment doesn’t just mean old helmets. When my dad was growing up, they didn’t even wear helmets. Helmet+Facemask combos came in later. Wearing just a helmet is an outdated practice. There is better technology available to players. If the NHL was seriously concerned about concussions, wearing facemasks is the next logical step. Go look at the blindside hit video. Where did those players get hit? Rarely on the top or back of the head. Most were blows to the side or face of the players.
I’m no doctor, but from what I’ve seen and read, most concussions in hockey come from the back of the head hitting the ice or the blows to the face. Wearing a full mask and mouthguard keeps the head secure inside the helmet and reduces vibration.
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
Ah okay. That’s true, but those changes will be much harder to push through then just updating helmet specifications.
by PLAYOFFS!!!1 on Oct 13, 2010 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions
sorry
updating minimum helmet specification requirements
by PLAYOFFS!!!1 on Oct 13, 2010 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions
This is true. There was an article awhile back that dealt with the issue of concussions in hockey (I believe it was last year, a quick search didn’t turn it up, my apologies). What it said was that more or less, the style of helmet (ie. “new” Cascade helmets vs. “old” Bauer/CCM foam styles) has very little impact on whether the player gets a concussion or not. Even the “old” helmet styles provide a basic level of protection against concussions, and there’s not much you can do above and beyond that. The claims made by makers of helmets like the Cascade helmet are generally overblown. Adding extra padding does very little to prevent concussions. What you said about getting hit in the face or on the back of the head is accurate. What causes concussions is not the actual hit to the head, but rather the rapid deceleration of the brain when it impacts the inside of the skull. It doesn’t matter if you’re wearing an “old” style helmet or a brand spanking new Cascade helmet, your brain is still going to crunch into your skull and extra padding does very little to mitigate that. You can get a concussion even without any impact at all to your head- if you can get your head to decelerate quickly enough- although I imagine it would be hard to do that without breaking your neck. It seems logical that more padding means better protection but the reality is that past a certain point, there’s really not much more benefit to extra padding. Even the “old” style helmets meet that threshhold of protection.
I wear a Bauer NBH4500 helmet with a half visor, both of which I bought last year. It’s a similar (although cheaper) version of what many NHL’ers wear. It’s light, it’s comfortable, and I’ve been playing with similar Bauer helmets since I started playing inline hockey at age 7 and ice hockey at age 10 and never had a concussion. I saw the price of some of the new line of Reebok and Cascade helmets- yikes! I’ll be sticking with my trusty “old crappy beige foam” helmet for the forseeable future.
The artist commonly referred to as "Maple".
My Art Portfolio
by CanadianMaple09 on Oct 13, 2010 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
agree 100%
I read some stuff probably a year back about concussions and was shocked that the helmet isn’t the only important piece of equipment for preventing them. And then when I saw that mouth guards aren’t mandatory in the NHL I kinda got mad at the whole “no head shots” thing when they don’t even mandate the proper equipment to prevent a devestating injury. This stuff isn’t gonna stop a Matt Cooke blindside but if you’re making $500,000 and not wearing a mouth guard you’re an idiot.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Oct 13, 2010 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Great post on concussions, Skinny.
I’d like to switch gears and go back to the cap management issue for a second. The cap gets calculated on a daily basis, so even though a team’s cap may be right up against the limit right now, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be true in the future.
Yet every year when we get to the trade deadline, teams that have accumulated cap savings can acquire expensive cap hits but still fit their daily cap hit under their number, even though the total annual cap hit of their roster exceeds the salary cap. Although I’ve never seen it explicitly stated that as of a certain date it’s okay to start using cap space in this fashion.
This got me thinking about the Devils and their 15 skaters; we’ve covered the two main issues the Devils have right now; they aren’t carrying a full roster, which is supposed to be prohibited under the CBA, but they can’t fix that because they don’t have the cap space. But that’s a red herring because they still have about 180 days to make sure they finish under the cap. Approx. 59M at 7/187 days = about 2M. That’s what they’ve used in cap space.
I’m trying to figure out why the Devils couldn’t just fill out their roster with three warm bodies making league min., and try and fix their cap problems later. Because if the NHL calculates the cap on a daily basis, there can’t be a penalty for going over the cap until the season ends and they add up all the salary that got allocated to them. Or am I totally out in left field here?
Resident Capologist
Follow me on Twitter @clrkaitken. Or don't. Whatever.
My understanding is you can’t be over the cap on any given day. But if you are under the cap any given day, you can “bank” that excess and use it later.
To give a concrete example, Brad Richards’ salary is $7.8MM. But his daily cap hit is $41,935.48. That’s what matters for a team acquiring him at the deadline. If they’ve banked enough cap space that they’ll be under for the rest of the season (Richards would be roughly $1.7MM total from deadline to season’s end), they can acquire him even though if you prorated his salary over a full year they’d be over.
capgeek’s all over this.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 13, 2010 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess the question is why the NHL is turning a blind eye to the fact that the Devils iced 85% of a full line-up without any repercussions. After everything that’s happened this summer with Kolvachuk fiasco if anyone keps trying to make the argument the league is “out to get the Devils”, I’m going on a killing spree.
Resident Capologist
Follow me on Twitter @clrkaitken. Or don't. Whatever.
I honestly don’t get why they don’t just suck it up and demote/salary dump one of their expensive players (Zubrus)
Every other team had to make sacrifices for the salary cap, why shouldn’t they? (Recent example: Philly unloading Gagne for essentially nothing)
20 miles to Legoland!
by nhlcheapshot on Oct 13, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Because Bettman isn’t making them, and playing with three really good lines is better than losing a serviceable player I guess.
Their record, however, confirms that karma’s a bitch.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 13, 2010 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed with clraitken that this “league is out to get the Devils” thing is out to fucking lunch. And like cheapshot said, why shouldn’t they have to follow cap rules when everyone else is expected to? It’s like the Devils run the league and just do whatever the hell they want.
Good call on the karma. I’d love to see NJ miss the playoffs after all this shit.
Blue on both sides: Maple Stir-up
And I'm on Tweetbook
I think it’s a blatant CBA violation. I can’t believe the NHLPA isn’t on this—union jobs/NHL service time are being sacrificed.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 13, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
At least there’s precedent for this: Calgary did the same thing last year. The difference is that the Flames are terrible at hockey.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Yeah, it was BS then and it’s BS now. I think it’s getting more attention now because it’s the beginning of the year; with the Flames it felt more like an emergency since the season was almost done.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 13, 2010 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
PHL was in a similar pickle
Philly signed a player to an amateur contract because they were out of cap dollars at the end of the season (he played two games for the Flyers). He didn’t play much but either way, it was better than icing 3/4 of a roster.
As to NJD, it was their decision to sign Kovalchuk to that contract so this is a case of them screwing themselves.
The Maple Leafs- making me certifiably insane since 1985.
by torleafsfan29 on Oct 13, 2010 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree. They are disobeying the CBA in order to avoid disobeying the CBA. They are in a no-win situation here, but it’s their own fault, and – just like Calgary should have – they should be penalized.
The experiment failed: Get rid of the trapezoid.
by Bower Power on Oct 13, 2010 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t really care if they get penalized as long as they keep losing games haha, that’s punishment enough.
20 miles to Legoland!
by nhlcheapshot on Oct 13, 2010 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I think there is more of a case that Calgary’s violation was an “Emergency”
It was after the deadline so their ability to fix their cap situation was significantly restricted. If they had have called guys up they would have burned recalls for the playoffs.
They had already clinched a playoff spot, but had guys banged up who needed to rest. Only there wasn’t enough time to put them on IR and reactivate them before the playoffs.
They still should have just dressed one of their hurt guys and parked him on the bench, and had him serve any too many men or bench minor type penalties.
Resident Capologist
Follow me on Twitter @clrkaitken. Or don't. Whatever.
Yeah, I don’t think the Calgary and NJD situations line up perfectly, but emergency callups exist for a reason. I’m not sure if that would’ve burned playoff recalls, but they should’ve been forced to use ’em or penalized for not using them.
Then again, just leaving Sutter as their GM is basically the same as giving them a cap penalty.
The experiment failed: Get rid of the trapezoid.
by Bower Power on Oct 13, 2010 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
The reason Calgary didn’t call up anyone is that they would have gone over the cap doing so, same as Jersey.
But because Calgary only had like a week left in the season, they had a lot less ways to fix their cap problem than Jersey does in the first week of the season.
Resident Capologist
Follow me on Twitter @clrkaitken. Or don't. Whatever.
That’s my point, though: If you’re playing below the minimum roster as it’s allowed by the CBA – especially if it’s just to avoid going over the maximum cap allowed by the CBA – there should be a penalty. You’re breaking the CBA reqs to avoid breaking the CBA reqs.
The experiment failed: Get rid of the trapezoid.
by Bower Power on Oct 13, 2010 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Just to make sure I understand
Normally when you have an injury, you put a player on LTIR and then you can do call ups to replace them (because you have cap room).
But in this situation they don’t want to put Rolston/Volchenkov on LTIR because they then HAVE to miss a certain number of games?
If you put someone on LTIR they’re inelgible to play for a certain period of time. (At least a few weeks).
Resident Capologist
Follow me on Twitter @clrkaitken. Or don't. Whatever.
So thats it right?
They don’t want to put players on LTIR (because they don’t want to lose them for longer than they have to), so they are still stuck with their cap.
A player put on LTIR cannot play for the next 10 games or 24 calendar games; which ever comes first.
When they go on there, you don’t get their salary cap back, you get an allowance to put a player in their place up to their cap amount. Either way, their salary doesn’t come off the books so you can’t bank the money for future use.
Certified Grabbo Lover
I didn’t mean to imply you get there salary back, but it would allow them to have recalls.
It seems to me that they should just put Rolston on the IR. At least htey could then replace him.
But really they need to make some trades.
Remember that you are allowed to retroactively put people on IR (by about a week seems to be the accepted standard), which lowers the uncertainity but doesn’t help you in the near-term.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Everything wrong with the Sabres is Drew Stafford's fault.
You can put them on LTIR retroactively to the day after they last played.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
But until they do that, they can’t do call ups.
My only confusion at first was “why don’t they just stick the injured players on IR” then they can fill their roster. The answer is “because then they are stuck on LTIR for 24 days/10 games”.
The way I see it is that they should be forced to do that. They are breaking the CBA
Correct. Think of it this way.
Over the course of the season, you are only allowed to pay out $59.4M in player salary. Every day, you are only allowed to pay out $319,354 ($59.4M divided by a 186 day regular season). Every day you don’t spend to the cap, you get to bank that money for later use. Say to potentially trade for a big money player at the deadline. If they have enough money in the bank, they can cover him even though the yearly calculation of their cap may look like they’d be over.
Capgeek keeps track of this banked money for each team. Right now the Leafs have $48k banked; more to come with Finger gone to the tune of $18,817 a day.
Certified Grabbo Lover
Does not compute to me.
Every day, you are only allowed to pay out $319,354 ($59.4M divided by a 186 day regular season).
If this is the case, then what difference does it make how much you have banked? If you spend, say, 100K a day for the first 150 days of the season you might have insane amounts of money that you would still be able to spend in the last 36 days without going over the yearly limit, but if you still aren’t allowed to spend over $319k a day, then you can’t have any more salary currently on your books than another team that was hard up against the cap the entire time.
Ooooh. looked at Skinny’s link, and I think i get it now. The daily limit on your spending doesn’t stay at $319 K, right? It’s just whatever cap space you have left for the year divided by the number of days that you have left.
So in theory you can’t spend more than $319K a day at the BEGINNING of the season, but if you only use up 30 million of your cap when there are only 10 days left, then you are left with a daily cap of (29.4M / 10 days =) 2.94 M per day… So at the end of the season your daily limit is potentially much higher than it was at the beginning.
So if you think you have a hot enough goalie to make the playoffs, your best strategy is to put a cheap team in front of him, then pick up an absurd number of superstars right at the trade deadline (assuming the other GM’s would ever let you)… and you can spend with impunity at that point.
You are allowed to spend over $319K/day if you have banked cap space.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 13, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
exactly. 319K is the average amount under a 59.4 million ceiling over 186 days. If you only spend 300K on day one, you now have an extra $107 per day for the next 185 days.
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
Right, so your spending is only ever capped at 319K on the first day of the season… After that it goes up day by day unless you have been spending every penny you’ve been allowed to spend…. It makes a lot more sense when put like that.
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think it works like that. If there are 186 days in the NHL season, take the salary cap ceiling and divide by the total number of days, and that should give the daily cap ceiling for every team ($319,354). If the Devils are only under the salary cap by 85K for the season, then they can’t add a player to the roster who makes 500K, even for a day. 85K in cap space only means an unused $456 per day. A player making 500K is going to have a daily cap hit of almost $2700.
I think.
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
Nice write up. Concussions suck. Good to see people care about the kids. I’ve seen young hockey players full out cry their eyes out from the effects of concussions – in particular in the moments right after the hit (and later in the long term). At a young age, its a very confusing and scary experience.
BS
New topic to me
What is inside these helmets instead of foam? I am very interested in traumatic injuries/medicine
Multiple types of foam, gel pads, air pockets.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
The way I explained it to parents was to think about car commercials. Newer cars advertise crumple zones which absorb impact energy and dissipate it before the crash reaches the passenger compartment. Old helmets lack built in crumple zones, whereas the new helmets are built like spherical shock absorbers that drastically lessen blows to the head.
Certified Grabbo Lover
And how much is a traditional
ps personally I never cheap out on things that protect my head or my manly parts!
Spend the damn money
The two things that never really heal are the back and the brain! Thanks for all the info chemmy :)
At the end of the day you hate to think people will stop playing ice hockey because of the cost but if you can’t afford to be properly protected you shouldn’t be playing.
If we had a kid on the team with serious hand me down gear and a money problem I’d buy them an M11 out of my coaching salary.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
It’s not much. Just enough to cover gas to and from ice times, skate sharpenings, food on the road, and random equipment here and there.
Certified Grabbo Lover
you rotten ^$&*&&(!!!
man, I knew the US had something over us Canadians, I just didn’t think it was hockey related!!
sweet gig.
$70 is just over three months of having one less mochachino per week. Give me a break.
The Maple Leafs- making me certifiably insane since 1985.
by torleafsfan29 on Oct 13, 2010 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Cascade M11 helmet: http://www.hockeygiant.com/cascm11hlmt.html $119
Bauer TotalONE Skates: http://www.hockeygiant.com/bau10ttlsktsr.html $799
Bauer Vapor X:60 stick: http://www.hockeygiant.com/bau10x60stksr.html $249
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Doctor visit – $500
CT Scan – $1500
Missed school and impacted learning – You can’t put a price on that.
Certified Grabbo Lover
Your not even looking at long term problems
Concussions can have life long problems. Memory problems, sensitized sense (light, sound), even in some cases mood problems, increase in temper.
I got a pretty serious concussion in college (I was unconscious for about ten minutes) and for months afterwards I would occasionally see flashes of light. Fun times.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Thats horrible
See. MONTHS. And in some cases (fortunately not for Chemmy) those symptoms NEVER go away. Always protect the head!
alternate point of view
It’s always dangerous out there. Wearing a helmet doesn’t make you invincible. I don’t wear a helmet as a visible reminder to myself and to drivers that I’m vulnerable and to be careful.
Cars are more considerate and careful around you when you’re not wearing a helmet. It encourages them to be mindful. Wearing a helmet gives the false impression of protection and safety.
People used to make the same arguments about visors and careless high-sticking.
I think if they took all the seatbelts out of cars people would slow down and there’d be far fewer accidents.
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
You can be careful wearing a helmet.
I didn’t wear a helmet while bike riding but that’s because I didn’t want to. It’s not safer. Also my bike had no brakes.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
You can be careful wearing a helmet.
True, but I’m also trying to influence driver behaviour as well. I’d rather their first impression was “vulnerable” and not “protected”.
I’ve also seen way too many cyclists wearing helmets showing contempt for the law and for safety and I’m convinced it’s because once that helmet goes on they think suddenly now nobody can get hurt. How else to explain cyclists wearing helmets burning redlights, not even slowing for a stop sign, or riding on a sidewalk? I don’t wear a helmet but I don’t do any of those things either, and I see riders with helmets doing it all the time.
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think car drivers notice cyclists at all, let alone debate whether or not they’re wearing helmets.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
wrong
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-helmets-attract-cars-to-cyclists
http://www.gizmag.com/go/7255/
A British scientist has proved that wearing a bicycle helmet actually exposes cyclists to further risk. Overtaking traffic passed helmeted cyclists with significantly less room than unhelmeted cyclists.
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
it’s common knowledge that cyclists with helmets are worth more points than those without helmets.
This is my BOZAK!!!1
by blurr1974 on Oct 13, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
You’re right. It’s a subconcious reaction. Cyclists are mostly invisible.
I also don’t have a light and when I ride at night I’m under no false assumptions that people can see me. I know they can’t and I ride accoprdingly.
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions
i’ve never paid attention to whether or not a cyclist is wearing the correct safety gear. In the US, there are some cities that mandate that cyclists wear a helmet.
This is my BOZAK!!!1
by blurr1974 on Oct 13, 2010 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
From my understanding
The rules in Canada are similar to the rules of ‘when you can ride on the sidewalk’. The sidewalk rule is based on the size of the bicycle by measuring the wheel (the idea is to allow children on the sidewalk. (Oddly enough it would allow an adult on a small bike ot ride on the sidewalk). I BELIEVE but do not KNOW that the laws for HAVING to wear a helmet is the same.
Correction
I was mistaken. Its anyone under 18:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/faq/safety-test.shtml#helmets
I see riders without helmets
Doing all of that too. I don’t think there is any proportionality. As well there could easily be a 3rd factor. ie bicycle delivery ppl all wear helmets because they ride so much and know the risks. But they are assholes and the bane of everyone and do that shit.
ouch
ie bicycle delivery ppl all wear helmets because they ride so much and know the risks. But they are assholes and the bane of everyone and do that shit.
Vehemently disagree. Very few of my employees wear helmets but none of them are assholes. Brutal stereotype.
http://www.turnaroundcouriers.com/about/the-team/
I understand the negative public perception but it’s mostly based on bad apples that don’t survive long in the industry.
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
I think couriers also get a bad rep because a lot of pedestrians in urban centers are tourists who can’t hear a bike and get mad about almost getting hit.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Okay sorry
But I can say that my personal anectdotal experience with couriers in down town Toronto is that they ride on sidewalks and weave befween people. The only riders I ever see do this are couriers. I take back the generalization and stick simply with my experience.
Not sure why a courier would ride on a sidewalk. They get paid to be fast and sidewalks aren’t.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
They weave back and forth
During traffic jams I see them weave on to the sidewalk. I can’t stand it.
I’m with BCapp on this one – Couriers can be nuts, cut both cars and pedestrians off, almost cause an accident then yell at everyone to fuck off.
20 miles to Legoland!
by nhlcheapshot on Oct 13, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
It happens. Stressful job and there’s a lot of nutcases out there and there’s no minimum standard and lots of people came and go. The “assholes” are the ones that don’t last long, but there’s always another to take his place.
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
If I wasn't clear
Generilizing the way I did was wrong and an asshole move. I was just speaking anectodatally from my experience.
Check the Danforth between 4-6pm. Everyday commuters breeze through red lights one after the other, most wearing helmets.
I see bad cyclists everywhere. All shapes and sizes.
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I personally love how entitled they feel. They cut a car off by running a red light and then yell at the car driver for almost hitting them. Follow the rules of the road please, seriously…
Bobby Ryan...can he be acquired?
blurr1974: No.
by Chris Stoikoff on Oct 13, 2010 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
last year I had a fun experience with a cyclist. Saw the same guy run to stop signs (he was on the road). Then as I made a left turn, he made the turn with me right beside my car. If I, for any reason, had gone to my right a single foot, I would have hit him and his buddy. As we straightened out he started mouthing off at me. So i rolled down my window, called him a piece of shit asshole and gave him the finger
Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984
Very brave thing of you to do while in the safety of a motorized vehicle. Why didn’t you just run him over?
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
that’s what i’m talking about!
This is my BOZAK!!!1
by blurr1974 on Oct 13, 2010 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Thanks, I thought so myself.
I have plenty of respect for cyclists. The ones that obey the laws and rules of the road. I see WAY too many cyclists that don’t.
I’m not going to lump all cyclists together.
Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984
I’m not gonna pretend to be an angel. I break the law from time to time, but not recklessly. When I drive a car I often roll the stop sign if it’s my right of way and I’m always 10 to 20 over the speed limit whatever it is but not more. I think that’s normal and within society’s acceptable limits even if it doesn’t follow the law.
How may drivers strictly obey every law, including speed limits and full stops at residential stop signs? Do people have the same contempt for speeding or is it considered normal?
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I completely agree with you. When I see someone talking on their phone while driving it irks me.
If I see a car run a stop sign or a red light, I will call him an asshole too.
Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984
But
How do you know they’re not Italian?
by general borschevsky on Oct 13, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m frequently slightly loose with the law around traffic signs when I’m on my bike… But I consider it my responsibility to not get hit. As far as I’m concerned, when I’m on a bike, stop signs mean “yield to any cars who have the right of way, and otherwise slow down a little so you don’t get blindsided.”
and yeah, I wear a helmet because I’m a psychologist and know how badly closed head injuries suck (free hint: it’s a lot). That said, the helmet doesn’t make me feel very safe. It’s a small bit of foam on one tiny part of my body. The rest of it is all available for unbuffered crushing, and even the head can still get hurt very badly.
I think if they took all the seatbelts out of cars people would slow down and there’d be far fewer accidents.
As someone who studied automobile crash dynamics in college, you better be buckling up because they really do serve a huge purpose. Same with helmets.
What if you just catch a tire in a rut you didn’t see and faceplant onto asphalt? What if a deer jumps in front of your car and you swerve to avoid it and hit a tree? Safety don’t mean dick in those situations.
Certified Grabbo Lover
thats simply untrue
Drivers don’t treat you better, and as skinny pointed out below if you hit a rut, or something else and you go down, there goes your brain. I can tell you OHIP or not, unless you are loaded life is EXTREMELY difficult with a serious brain injury.
And no its not going to make you invincible, and if you think it will then thats the mistake. But the idea that “I won’t use protection because it will give me a false sense of protection” is a logical fallacy.
I think if they took all the seatbelts out of cars people would slow down and there’d be far fewer accidents.
There are cultures that don’t wear seat belts and their accident rates are much higher than jurisdictions that have high seat belt utilization.
I also think bike helmets / seat belts should be mandatory from a risk pool point of view. My tax dollars pay for public health care – if someone falls off their bike without a bucket on your lid, they’re going to cost the system way more resources. Same goes for seat belts.
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
I didn't want to make that argument
But its DAMN true. Universal health care= I pay for your stupidity.
I pay for my own health care. Excuse me while I do some ironing in the bathtub.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Pffft those wall sockets have GFCIs, I run an extension cord into the bathroom so I don’t have to deal with the fuse shutting off every time a little water gets in the toaster.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Only on days that end in y.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I get where GB is coming from, I rode a brakeless track bike with no helmet on city streets. I never really worried about it too much.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
re: concussions
Kids smack their head hard when they fall down. My daughter has already had two concussions (taking after her old man, who, when I was her age, already had 3 before eventually topping out at 4 around 9 years old…) What is interesting is that children’s ER visits in the US for concussions have nearly doubled in the last ten years. Is that a byproduct of more aggressive “playing”, or shoddy equipment? My guess is the bulk of these are probably football injuries, but it’s still a scary statistic. And, don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming coaches or anything, just wondering out loud. Skinny and Chemmy have proven in this forum on countless times that their kids safety is of the utmost importance, and I applaud you both for that. Were I in the same are as you, I’d feel comforted knowing my little bubba would be coached by you two guys. As a parent, I sincerely think that what you guys do for the kids is amazing. Hopefully the parents of your team’s kids say that to you, and if they don’t, I can guarantee they’re thinking it.
I agree with most of the comments here in that, if I can’t provide the adequate equipment to ensure my child’s safety, I would never allow her to participate. Thankfully, my wife and I earn a decent living, and can do just that, but poverty is alive and well, and sometimes a parent goes against their better judgement and allows a child to play a sport the child really loves. In the end, it’s really hard to say no to something that on the surface, doesn’t seem all that dangerous. We parents get constantly reminded of via the government, that we need to get our kids out of the house and involved in sports, so for those of you who don’t have kids, you might begin to understand the type of pressure put on a parent. Whole towns and cities in the US have their entire social calendar geared around athletics. Again, this speaks more to football in my neck of the woods, but the pressure to be involved is quite peculiar.
Anyways, when it comes to pro athletes, I think that so long as the insurance companies will continue to ensure contracts, despite whether or not a player is wearing shoddy equipment, nothing will change. If you want change, you’re going to have to hurt someone’s pocketbook.
This is my BOZAK!!!1
by blurr1974 on Oct 13, 2010 10:45 AM EDT reply actions
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/making-sense-of-the-leafs-cap-situation/article1754464/
Mirtle makes sense of the Leafs cap number. Long story short; good news! But we already kinda knew that, didn’t we?
This is my BOZAK!!!1
by blurr1974 on Oct 13, 2010 10:47 AM EDT reply actions
I like.
@HennyTweets: Pens without their top shutdown pair tonight in orpik and michalek. Marc andre fleury to start.#Leafs
20 miles to Legoland!
Staal’s out and Comrie’s a healthy scratch. I have a preview ready to go but I’m waiting on the Leafs scratches and starter.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Saw that too. This all bodes well, barring the call-up of a Toronto native minor-leaguer who plays the game of his life.
I missed the Sens game because I had to work that morning, but I’m going to be on deck for this one. Really hoping we can leave Pittsburgh with a W.
Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?
Pittsburgh hasn’t won at Consol yet…
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Wow, Gustavsson getting the nod in net tonite
Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984
uhoh to yahoo fantasy
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Oct 13, 2010 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Preview is up. Direct game talk there: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2010/10/13/1748868/leafs-at-penguins-road-trip
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Concussions
I got 4 of em between the ages of 7 and 17 wearing different versions of this bad boy
And I don’t think for an instance anyone (my dad, coaches, me) thought that a better helmet might be a good move. But then I don’t think there was a much better option (except a newer not falling appart version)
I did start wearing a mouthguard after the 3rd one though
Rule #20
by JaredFromLondon on Oct 13, 2010 12:09 PM EDT reply actions
Care of TSN, NHLPA to investigate NJD’s Roster Issues
“We are currently reviewing this matter to ensure that the CBA is complied with and that any potential violation of the agreement is remedied,” NHLPA director of Communications Jonathan Weatherdon told TSN.
The experiment failed: Get rid of the trapezoid.
Consenting adults...
…should be allowed to take whatever risks they like. Is wearing a crappy helmet a dumb risk? Yes. So is a 40-year-old buying a Harley as his first donorcycle.
But being an adult means you are allowed to make dumb choices, as long as you don’t endanger others.
Kids’ leagues should definitely mandate safer helmets.
They should also mandate wood sticks.
helmets is a safty thing for kids, so that should have a mandate
sticks are just sticks at that age, if a parent is dumb enough to drop a c note on his 8 year olds stick then they should be able to of their own free will
Rule #20
by JaredFromLondon on Oct 14, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Disagree
Some smart decisions have to be legislated because it benefits all of society.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Pension Plan Puppets
Related FanShots on Pension Plan Puppets
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- The John Tortorella origin story, including ground balls to the face
- NHL investigates Coyotes; Shane Doan explains tense Game 5 handshake with Kings’ Brown
- NHL Playoff Beard Watch: Blood, Sweat and Beards of unsung unshaven heroes
- Devils guarantee they’ll downplay 1994 conference finals for Game 6 vs. Rangers
- Dodger Stadium Winter Classic; 10 worst NHL fans; ‘While The Men Watch’ debate (Puck Headlines)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Torts expects best from Rangers in must-win game
- Tortorella comfortable and confident that Rangers will be at best in must-win game vs. Devils
- Shawinigan wins, advances to Memorial Cup semifinal
- Cataractes romp to 6-1 win, eliminate Oil Kings from Memorial Cup
- Despite loss, Phoenix Coyotes build solid foundation in the desert with run to West finals
SBNation.com Recent Stories
StatCounter
