Kipper Won't Go and The Flames Heart

Kent Wilson
March 27 2013 10:10AM

Amidst the on-going Iginla melodrama, Nick Kypreos reported last night that Miikka Kiprusoff has told Flames management he won't report to any other team if he's traded at the deadline. Kipper's NTC ran out last summer, but with only one season remaining on his current deal (at $1.5 million in real dollars) Kiprusoff can now play the "I'll just retire if you force me to do anything " card.

Personally, I didn't think the time was right for dealing Kipper anyways. Although there's a non-trivial chance he might take his ball and go home in the summer anyways, the truth is his value has never been lower on the trade market. Kipper's numbers are league and career worst this year, he's almost 37 years old and probably the only residual value he has for a team going into the playoffs is his reputation as a great goalie. 

To be clear, I don't think Kipper is *this bad* in reality, but recent results always count for a lot when you're trying to move somebody. The age thing is just an added layer of risk for a trade partner, to say nothing of another year with a $5.83M cap hit if he chooses to play.

Meaning the return for Kipper right now is likely to be nominal anyways. Pragmatically it would serve the team to try to leverage one of their key pieces from th last decade before he walks into the sunset, of course, but then the club should have tried shopping him a few years ago. For now, Kipper holds all the cards - the final year of his deal in trivial in real dollars relative to his career earnings and he's willing to stick a knife in his final season if circumstances don't suit him.

I'm not sure if I can blame Kiprusoff for this maneuver. On one hand, he's a pro athlete who is compensated millions of dollars and being traded is one of the risks of the job. On the other hand, his priorities at 37 years old have clearly shifted towards other things in life (read: family), so he's using what leverage he has left to ensure those priorities are served.

It's possible Kipper returns for his last year and then accepts a trade at the next deadline (or declines a trade for a second time), but if anyone pushed me, I'd bet on him retiring to Finland in the summer.

Flames Have No Heart!

This is a comment lament in Flamesland these days. Actually, if you tour around other team's messageboards, it's common with pretty much every losing team's fanbase.

Calgary has been legitimately bad recently, to be sure. Very good teams like Chicago and St. Louis have drastically outplayed them. Even Nashville and Phoenix have proven to be overbearing in the last few weeks. It's galling and frustrating and there's a chance the players have indeed accepted the inevitable in the dressing room and are simply playing out the string. 

That said, I almost always reject this line of thinking: specifically that if the team cared more (or had more leadership, will to win, etc) they'd be meaningfully better. First, because we can't possibly know what the true motivations or passion level is of the players in the dressing room. Secondly, because this is a common psychological bias called the error of attribution, which causes people to assume failure in others is due to personal faults rather than situational or circumstantial issues. Thirdly, because if caring a lot predicted success, it would negate the importance of skill (which is clearly doesn't).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly in my view, psychologizing losses and and making it about some kind of character failure (be it acute or chronic) means you stop looking for answers. Let's put it another way: mistakes can be as vital as successes in that they contain information about how to do things right, assuming one can tease apart cause and effect. The problem with thinking that "the Flames could be better if they wanted to be" is that it stops the player and team evaluation process in its tracks. Calgary is good - would be good - if the players wanted to be.

Which is fine, I guess, if it's true and the roster has a congenital case of not giving a crap. I would argue, however, that the collected players just aren't good enough to contend in the league as assembled and that fans and management are better served trying to understand where things have gone wrong.

Other Stuff

- Prospect buff and Bruins writer Kirk Luedeke argues that the Bruins should acquire the Iginla.

- New sponsor WebSim Hockey offered us 12 free subscriptions for Nations Readers. When he revealed that on Monday, they promptly received almost 40 emails looking to claim them. Instead of turning people away, they simply handed out free subscriptions to everyone. Nice!

- Apparently former Flames head coach Mike Keenan was on TV today and said that Kipper and the team "had an understanding" that he would retire for the final season of his contract when it was signed way back when. Matt Fenwick noted this in response on twitter today:

 Meaning, of course, the league could conceivably punish the organization if Kipper actually retires this off-season, assuming they believe Keenan and would be motivated to pursue the issue. Ugh.

- Finally, as noted in the FGD post from yesterday, FN will be at Tilted Kilt on Monday, April 1 to watch the Flames take on the Edmonton Oilers. Of course, if Iginla is still on the team at that point, it could be his final game in Flames colors.

So come out, maybe win a free jersey or a free beer, and hope Iginla can help Calgary beat Edmonton one last time.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current Fn contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#51 Veggie Dog
March 27 2013, 02:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
mk wrote:

I feel like some of the outrage isn't necessarily directed at Kipper, but simply the situation the team is in. I commented earlier that "this is lame", but I can't fault Miikka for his choice, but its unfortunate that it leaves the team in this position.

Another reason management has demonstrated they aren't on the ball here.

I am all for hating management. That's a worthy cause for our outrage, and one I think we can all get behind.

Avatar
#52 the-wolf
March 27 2013, 02:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Colin.S wrote:

Agree with this as well, this isn't a Kyle Turris or other young gun holding out or anything, this is an NHL Vet with a family and as everyone assumes was going to retire very shortly, probably at the end of this year. If he wants to play the last 20 games of his career as a Flame he can do that, or the team can try and trade him and possibly force him to retire. The fact that the fan base has turned on him and demanded he accept any trade is shameful IMO.

Why is it shameful?

1) Adequately compensated - that's ALL the team owes him.

2) Has a year left on his contract.

3) Getting traded is part of the contract. Should Iginla do that too? Ask Leafs fans about Sundin.

As stated, I sort of don't care anymore, but it's not Kipper's right or say anything else.

Forgive my harsh language, but good gravey and cheese and crackers, it's a few months more of hockey and then he can live wherever and do whatever.

Man, why do some fans feel like they, other fans, the team, they city, the universe owe an athlete something because they performed well. That's what he was paid for.

Kipper made 8.5 million the first year. Where's the Flames right to just yank that away whenever?

Honor the pro contract you put your name to.

Avatar
#53 Colin.S
March 27 2013, 02:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Sincity1976 wrote:

Buy outs and demotions are rules within the collective bargaining agreement. Kipper is circumventing the rules by manipulating the process. It is dirty pool.

Retirements are also part of the CBA, there is no limits on when a player is allowed or not allowed to retire. There is no circumvention of ANY rules, all he is done is given the Flames an ultimatum. Either let him play the last few games of this season as a Flame or he'll retire early. NOTHING wrong with that, especially given who he is and the position he's in.

Avatar
#54 suba steve
March 27 2013, 02:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
4
props

Kipper, you have my endorsement, do whatever works best for you and your family. You have earned it. Thanks for the best years of your professional life, you were spectacular. If you choose to return next year I will be happy to have you. Hope all is well with your family.

Those with differing opinions, please reassess your priorities.

Avatar
#55 Veggie Dog
March 27 2013, 02:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
suba steve wrote:

Kipper, you have my endorsement, do whatever works best for you and your family. You have earned it. Thanks for the best years of your professional life, you were spectacular. If you choose to return next year I will be happy to have you. Hope all is well with your family.

Those with differing opinions, please reassess your priorities.

100% with you

Avatar
#56 Colin.S
March 27 2013, 02:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@the-wolf

1.) Yes, he's very adequately compensated and that's what the team chose to pay him, because they signed him to that contract. No where in that contract does it say he's not allowed to retire if he no longer like his circumstances.

2.) Yes he does have a year on his contract, but should he choose to retire, that year no longer exists, he's doesn't have to play and the team doesn't have to pay him for that choice.

3.) Getting traded is NOT part of the contract, it's part of the CBA that allows for trades. No where in Kipper's contract does it state that if the team is crap and they need draft picks and prospects because management is worse than the product on the ice that Kipper is forced to accept a trade.

You know what Sundin did honour his contract and he got ROASTED for it, he chose to stay in the place he signed for, used his NTC to even stay there and they roasted him. So even if you do the right thing and honour the contract he apparently did the wrong thing.

The guys are also human, they don't have to bend over backwards to do everything for their teams, especially when their teams are disturbing their lives for what management believes is the betterment of their team. If these guys feel their lives will be better, like in Kippers case, by just forgoing the money owed in the rest of the contract by retiring he has all the right in the world to do so.

Avatar
#57 Avalain
March 27 2013, 02:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
icedawg_42 wrote:

MOST people who put family first would have no choice but to accept a transfer. Pro atheletes are paid ridiculously, and part of that is because the have to face being traded. - Now to completely contradict myself here, I'm not PO'ed at Kipper at all for some strange reason. Probably because I figure his career is going to finish in a few weeks anyway. Leave him be.

Maybe I'm not most people, but I do put my family first. If my company was going to transfer me across the country right after my kid was born, I'd quit and find something else. Maybe we just have different concepts of what putting family first means.

As for the whole pro athlete issue, well, I only sort of agree with you. The risk of being traded is part of the reason that their pay is so high, but it's really only the difference between players with NTC contracts and those without. Personally, I think that the risk of being traded is more a cost players have to accept for the chance to play hockey as a full time job. In this case, Kipper is willing to give up playing hockey to not be traded. Every player has the right to walk away from the game. That seems fair to me.

Avatar
#58 mcculb
March 27 2013, 02:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@the-wolf

Not blaming Kipper at all. More power to him. Just shows how broken this team is for the story to end this way. Would be alright if he was about to take us on another run and it ended on an upswing. It just feels sour this way. Not his fault at all.

Avatar
#59 the-wolf
March 27 2013, 03:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

You are right. Kipper can retire whenever, so in that sense he's breaking no rules, I admit. But it's still a jerk move in the sense that he he intends to finish the season, doesn't have a NTC, but will take his ball and go home if he is traded.

Kipper wanting to finish out the string here doesn't really bug me. It's this idea that it's owed to him or any other athlete that sticks in my craw.

But yeah, it is his right to retire whenever.

Just all the more reason though that players have to be handled like cold, hard assets.

Avatar
#60 vowswithin
March 27 2013, 03:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

It seems like the only people in life that have to adhere to contracts are suckers that are either poor or middle class... If I cancel my contract with Bell I have to pay them out money. And that is a TINY CONTRACT. I have people calling me all the time until I pay. If I am a big athlete its all good I say F&*( you and I am not doing what you tell me.... What you give me 50 million I don't care screw you...

Then you shouldn't have signed up for it, LEGALLY he has to ITS A CONTRACT.

Its just like how people like O.J. Simpson gets away with murder because hes a rich bastard.

Arrrggg

and btw we don't owe Kipper $#!T

Avatar
#61 Avalain
March 27 2013, 03:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
the-wolf wrote:

Why is it shameful?

1) Adequately compensated - that's ALL the team owes him.

2) Has a year left on his contract.

3) Getting traded is part of the contract. Should Iginla do that too? Ask Leafs fans about Sundin.

As stated, I sort of don't care anymore, but it's not Kipper's right or say anything else.

Forgive my harsh language, but good gravey and cheese and crackers, it's a few months more of hockey and then he can live wherever and do whatever.

Man, why do some fans feel like they, other fans, the team, they city, the universe owe an athlete something because they performed well. That's what he was paid for.

Kipper made 8.5 million the first year. Where's the Flames right to just yank that away whenever?

Honor the pro contract you put your name to.

Looks like almost all of this was already covered above (as in, he did not sign a contract that he would be traded).

But man, why do some fans feel like they, other fans, the team, the city, the universe are owed something from an athlete outside of contractual obligations? He is paid to play hockey, not to be traded. If he is traded he can make up his mind about whether he still wants to be paid to play hockey, but he doesn't owe you anything.

Avatar
#62 vowswithin
March 27 2013, 03:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@the-wolf

Just all the more reason though that players have to be handled like cold, hard assets.

Truer words were never said. You give guys everything and they tell you screw you...

Avatar
#63 CM
March 27 2013, 03:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@FireOnIce

Wow - a lot of vitriol on Murray Edwards. Do all of you who make comments on his ability and how he made his money actually know him? Is this why you sound so sure about his motivations - "made money off the backs of other people" - what kind of comment is that? Is there resentment creeping in - are you trying to rally a group of anarchists to your cause? Is Buzz Hargrove listening?

I don't know Murray Edwards. I have no idea what he was or is thinking and I have no idea how involved he is in the Flames hockey management. I suspect you all don’t either.

I am very disappointed with the Flames and they have to get better. And I really like the discussion on this site. I am just wondering about the level of support for the comments being made about Murray Edwards. I just think it hurts the credibility of all the other good information presented.

Avatar
#64 chillout
March 27 2013, 03:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@icedawg_42

haha yeah but a player at the end of his career can make that choice, just like a normal person in the same boat can do. or even if you're not close to retirement you can tell your bosses that if they transfer you, you won't go due to family reasons. If you've been the backbone of the company for 8 or so years then they'll probably be like hey ok no problem maybe even if you're just a good employee they'll do the same. I've actually seen companies bend over backwards for their employees especially when there is a health issue with somebody in the family

Avatar
#65 Avalain
March 27 2013, 03:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
vowswithin wrote:

It seems like the only people in life that have to adhere to contracts are suckers that are either poor or middle class... If I cancel my contract with Bell I have to pay them out money. And that is a TINY CONTRACT. I have people calling me all the time until I pay. If I am a big athlete its all good I say F&*( you and I am not doing what you tell me.... What you give me 50 million I don't care screw you...

Then you shouldn't have signed up for it, LEGALLY he has to ITS A CONTRACT.

Its just like how people like O.J. Simpson gets away with murder because hes a rich bastard.

Arrrggg

and btw we don't owe Kipper $#!T

If you cancel your contract with Bell and you didn't get a subsidized phone in the beginning, you would be able to get out of the contract without having to pay anything (or perhaps there is a nominal fee for $50 or something). If you cancel your contract in the middle you will have to pay back the difference between how much you have since paid back and how much was "given" to you in the form of a subsidy in the first place.

If Kipper had received his entire pay over the life of the contract in one lump sum when he first signed, I guarantee that he would have to pay back that 1.5 million if he retired in the last year. But that's not how it works. Kipper may be rich, but he can't really get out of his contract. He can't decide that he just doesn't want to play for 1.5 million and go to Edmonton and sign a contract for 3 million or something.

Oh, and isn't OJ Simpson in jail now?

Avatar
#66 icedawg_42
March 27 2013, 03:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@the-wolf

I have to echo the-wolf's sentiments here - I don't like being told I owe a millionaire anything. Again - to clarify my stance, if his intent is to retire at the end of the season (and I'm fully convinced it is) - then he's made the right move and I'm fine with it. If he's "threatening to take his ball and go home", then that's completely backwards. When you become a professional athlete, the fact you may be traded becomes a fact of life, just like when you become a famous rock star, paparazzi and garbage 'newspapers' become a fact of life.

As to the character of Murray Edwards - I have no idea how deep into the decision making he is..but if he is, he needs to stop right now. If he isn't he needs to assess whether the people making the decisions are doing a good job. The Fanbase is getting angry, and worse, in some cases apathetic.

Avatar
#67 Colin.S
March 27 2013, 03:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@vowswithin

Being traded is NOT is his contract, it's in the CBA, as is the option to retire from the sport if he no longer wants to play. And if he doesn't feel motivated to play in an entirely new city while have a young family that's his choice. Also he's not entitled to any of the remaining money owed in his contract if he retires. You don't just sign a contract and retire the next day and get all the money(unless you got a signing bonus or something). The Flames gave Kipper money, he gave them some of the best goaltending the Flames have ever seen, now he wants to retire, that's his choice.

And no, no one owe's Kipper anything, much in the same sense, Kipper owe's you or anyone else in the fanbase or anyone in management anything either. You all act like he somehow owes us the draft picks from trading him, no, he really doesn't

Avatar
#68 icedawg_42
March 27 2013, 03:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Colin.S

Well...I'd say I 90% agree with you here - IF and that's a HUGE IF IMO he intends to continue playing after this season, then he DOES indeed owe the team whatever they decide to move him for..because of that contract, they own his rights.

If he retires, then I agree 100% with this post.

Avatar
#69 shutout
March 27 2013, 03:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I trade Kiprusoff right now just on the principal of the matter. I send him to Toronto for a conditional return. If Kiprusoff reports than I get Joe Colborne. If he plays in the playoffs I get a 4th round pick added. If the Leafs make the second round than I get a 2nd round pick added to Colborne.

Toronto loses nothing by making the deal. Maybe they can convince Kiprusoff to come over for a couple of months. If he does not show up than they suspend him and it costs them nothing. For Calgary it is playing hardball which should help to fix the country club atmosphere in the dressing room, and not having Kiprusoff gives us a better chance at getting a higher draft pick.

Avatar
#70 Colin.S
March 27 2013, 03:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
icedawg_42 wrote:

Well...I'd say I 90% agree with you here - IF and that's a HUGE IF IMO he intends to continue playing after this season, then he DOES indeed owe the team whatever they decide to move him for..because of that contract, they own his rights.

If he retires, then I agree 100% with this post.

If his decision is to retire rather than get traded he can't unretire I believe, at least for more than season or something. There is a lot of rules involving official retirements that prevent players from trying to abuse the retirement system.

As well, with Ramo coming over next year as well and if Kipper forced the Flames hand, I'd figure in the off season they give him the Retire or get traded option again and he will retire. There is no scenario now where he's not retired next year.

And for people thinking he'd take the Backup role, anyone remember the last Olympics? He wanted started or he wasn't going, I'd imagine he'd probably be in a similar boat here.

Avatar
#71 vowswithin
March 27 2013, 04:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I am just so frustrated with this piece of garbage we call the flames. Its all about money, none about the fans and barely about winning. We spend to the cap and some how are beat by teams with half the payroll.

The players don't really seem to care much, despite their millions and even worse all the fans are defending them.

Management has had their hands in since day one, and have kept the team down and profits up.

If they don't send a bunch of pieces packing in the next 7 days you can be sure of two things,

We are going to absolutely suck horse balls and be a bigger joke then we are now (don't know how its possible but it is)

And that next year many fans will stop following the flames. (Its an opinion but I formed that based on talking to flames fans around here)

I won't both reply right now to the other post I made because I think I am just not in the right place to be logical :-(.

Avatar
#72 Sincity1976
March 27 2013, 04:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Colin.S

He isn't retiring. He is threatening to not report to ensure he isn't be traded.

You can spin it and spin it and spin it again. The bottom line is Kipper doesn't want to retire. He wants to prevent being traded so he manipulated the system to ensure he isn't traded.

Players manipulating the system to, in affect, create their own NMC isn't good for the game. That is EXACTLY what he has done. Spin it however you want that remains EXACTLY what he has done.

It is a piss poor thing to do to his team and his fans. This noble crap about him choosing to focus on family is just that. Crap. He is a multi millionaire. Why would anyone feel sorry for a guy that has to spend a month on the road while making millions. Aren't there bigger hardships to worry about?

He is preventing the Flames from employing their contractual RIGHT to trade him. In doing so they are depriving his team, team mates, and the fans from getting a return that would help people in the future.

Take your harp somewhere else. His approach is unethical and this supposed family commitment is BS.

If the Flames had the balls they would demote him to the AHL to make a point. When he doesn't report they should suspend him.

The worst thing about this is how he is tainting he legacy. Our last memories of Kipper are how he manipulated the system to screw the team over to avoid a minor inconvenience.

Avatar
#73 chillout
March 27 2013, 04:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Sincity1976

It is a piss poor thing to do to his team and his fans. This noble crap about him choosing to focus on family is just that. Crap. He is a multi millionaire. Why would anyone feel sorry for a guy that has to spend a month on the road while making millions. Aren't there bigger hardships to worry about?

uhhh yeah stuff like family which is what he is doing. making millions doesn't justify people treating you like crap because you want to take care of your family. They are probably lucky he isn't just taking the rest of the season off. What does money honestly have to do with how one treats their family? you have me confused with this. He doesn't owe anybody anything he's in his mid thirties and has given this team his all and then some. He doesn't owe us draft picks or prospects or anything. He can walk away at any given time and the fact that he wants to at least finish this season with us is something we should be thankful for.

Avatar
#74 Sincity1976
March 27 2013, 04:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@chillout

Seriously people need perspective. We aren't talking about him sending his family to the docks to work while he plays hockey. We are talking about him spending a short time away. Like dozens of other hockey players and billions of other people.

Some people will buy anything. '' But it's for his family... '' Give me a break.

People are way to quick to worry about the little inconveniences of a millionaire. Those millions he has to support his contract came from this contract he is refusing to honor.

Serious lack of perspective.

Avatar
#75 Kevin R
March 27 2013, 04:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Colin.S wrote:

If his decision is to retire rather than get traded he can't unretire I believe, at least for more than season or something. There is a lot of rules involving official retirements that prevent players from trying to abuse the retirement system.

As well, with Ramo coming over next year as well and if Kipper forced the Flames hand, I'd figure in the off season they give him the Retire or get traded option again and he will retire. There is no scenario now where he's not retired next year.

And for people thinking he'd take the Backup role, anyone remember the last Olympics? He wanted started or he wasn't going, I'd imagine he'd probably be in a similar boat here.

Just throwing this out there, here's a little whatif, what if Feaster & Kipper talked & Kipper said, "My wife didnt fair too well from the child birth & she needs me around as she heals. I was thinking of retiring the end of this year, I would like to finish my career in Calgary but in different circumstances I would be open to a trade for one last playoff hurrah. But given my wife's health & young family, that is no longer an option.If I'm traded, I will expedite my decision to retire, its not about the 2.0mill remaining left for this season & 1.5mill next season. But I feel bad, that this situation isnt fair to the Flames who have been so good to me. Dont trade me & I will come back & play whatever role you have for me next year." All the assumptions & conclusions that have posted here is no more accurate than the potential dialogue I put out here. We'll just have to see how this plays out.

Avatar
#76 Danglesnipecelly
March 27 2013, 05:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Not sure if its been mentioned already but Pierre LeBrun was on the Team 1040 in Vancouver this afternoon and said that the Kipper situation is "even more complicated than what's being reported"

Take that for what it's worth.

Avatar
#77 chillout
March 27 2013, 05:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Sincity1976

so would you be fine with this if he was just a regular joe? It almost seems like you have something against these guys for making lots of money.

All I'm saying is these guys are people just like you and me and making millions of dollars has nothing to do with how a person will react to issues with their families.

The company my uncle works for just promoted him and is letting him work from home because my aunt is dying from cancer. He makes a lot of money should he have to go to work at the office because he makes a lot of money? It's just a little inconvenience for a guy that makes a lot of money right?

Now I'm not saying kippers wife or kid is dying but really family is more important than the dollars. If the flames gave him the choice of either being traded or breaking his contract he would likely forego the rest of his pay this year and next and go be with his family.

Avatar
#78 Tenbrucelees
March 27 2013, 05:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Veggie Dog

This

Avatar
#79 W
March 27 2013, 06:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Veggie Dog

Because its a contract and you honor it! I don't give a rats rats a$$ what you've accomplished! So if Edwards just decided to stop paying kipper mid season that would be ok because he had personal reasons not to too? Please! Somehow because he's been #1 all these years he's entitled? BS!

Avatar
#80 Veggie Dog
March 27 2013, 06:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
W wrote:

Because its a contract and you honor it! I don't give a rats rats a$$ what you've accomplished! So if Edwards just decided to stop paying kipper mid season that would be ok because he had personal reasons not to too? Please! Somehow because he's been #1 all these years he's entitled? BS!

If it means retirement, he absolutely is entitled to do whatever he wants.

He is not an indentured servant or serf. He is well paid, but free to stop when he wants.

Avatar
#81 RKD
March 27 2013, 06:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Kipper just had another baby and there are stories circulating there were birth complications which would explain why he would want to remain near his wife and child.

Even if they tried to move Kipper last year or a few years ago he still could have rejected a trade. Maybe Kipper planned to have a baby around this time and knew he would be able to use an out if the team was doing poorly and that he would be used as trade bait.

Never say never, even if he is traded eventually he could report to the team. Would be terrible for a playoff team. Eventually, Nabokov and Visnovsky despite their refusals, both end up reporting to the Isles.

Avatar
#82 Alt
March 27 2013, 06:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Sincity1976 wrote:

He isn't retiring. He is threatening to not report to ensure he isn't be traded.

You can spin it and spin it and spin it again. The bottom line is Kipper doesn't want to retire. He wants to prevent being traded so he manipulated the system to ensure he isn't traded.

Players manipulating the system to, in affect, create their own NMC isn't good for the game. That is EXACTLY what he has done. Spin it however you want that remains EXACTLY what he has done.

It is a piss poor thing to do to his team and his fans. This noble crap about him choosing to focus on family is just that. Crap. He is a multi millionaire. Why would anyone feel sorry for a guy that has to spend a month on the road while making millions. Aren't there bigger hardships to worry about?

He is preventing the Flames from employing their contractual RIGHT to trade him. In doing so they are depriving his team, team mates, and the fans from getting a return that would help people in the future.

Take your harp somewhere else. His approach is unethical and this supposed family commitment is BS.

If the Flames had the balls they would demote him to the AHL to make a point. When he doesn't report they should suspend him.

The worst thing about this is how he is tainting he legacy. Our last memories of Kipper are how he manipulated the system to screw the team over to avoid a minor inconvenience.

Front loaded contract,s are also unethical.Family commitement,s are not BS.

I find it hard to believe that management is surprised by Kipper,s decision.It has been reported for a year that he would most likely retire before going elsewhere.If in fact management is upset with him,they should say so.I doubt that happens because Kipper has been honest with them throughout his career

Avatar
#83 Alt
March 27 2013, 07:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
RKD wrote:

Kipper just had another baby and there are stories circulating there were birth complications which would explain why he would want to remain near his wife and child.

Even if they tried to move Kipper last year or a few years ago he still could have rejected a trade. Maybe Kipper planned to have a baby around this time and knew he would be able to use an out if the team was doing poorly and that he would be used as trade bait.

Never say never, even if he is traded eventually he could report to the team. Would be terrible for a playoff team. Eventually, Nabokov and Visnovsky despite their refusals, both end up reporting to the Isles.

That,s over the top.Kipper planned to have a baby at this time,so he could use it as an out.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Avatar
#84 Betsy
April 07 2013, 06:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

It was apparently always understood, as in right from the beginning, that Kipper would likely or possibly NOT play out that last year. They are accepting it because it comes as no surprise. They knew this was the case, he isn't messing anyone about. They knew this is probably what would happen. If he chooses to go it will not surprise them as unofficially it was agreed that this was a possibility or even a likelihood.

Avatar
#85 Betsy
April 07 2013, 08:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Bad mouthing a guy who has done for the Calgary Flames what Kipper has done is just bad behaviour. Shall we say if there was a behind the scenes agreement that he might not play out the last year, it is hardly something unheard of and I would think that Keenan said that to point out that Kipper wasn't doing something his team didn't want him to do. He wasn't really refusing to go because they likely didn't expect him to as supported by the fact that they easily accepted his not choosing to go. It was all worded as he asked their permission not to go and they gave it to him. He's older now and like all athletes, his skills and abilities aren't what they used to be. It happens to the best of them. It's really unfair not to mention mean spirited behaviour to turn on the guy because he isn't the goalie he was when he was younger. Kipper was our hero and as far as I'm concerned he always will be.

Comments are closed for this article.