Skip to content

Bruins confirm Thomas may take year off

Jun 1, 2012, 3:48 PM EST

Tim Thomas Getty Images

Bruins goalie Tim Thomas is indeed considering a year-long sabbatical, Boston general manager Peter Chiarelli confirmed today in a conference call.

Chiarelli said Thomas’s agent delivered the message in May, and for now the Bruins are operating as if the 38-year-old goalie won’t be with the team next season.

It’s not entirely clear why Thomas wants to step away. Chiarelli thinks the Conn Smythe Trophy winner may be “a little worn down” – a reasonable guess considering the long Stanley Cup run and all that goes with winning a championship, plus the whole White House thing.

So…what happens now?

Thomas has one year remaining on his contract, with a cap hit of $5 million. That hit would reportedly remain even if he were suspended by the club.

Thomas’s no-movement clause expires July 1, meaning he could be traded after that.

The B’s should still be fine in goal, with Tuukka Rask the starter and Anton Khudobin backing up.

Related: Tim Thomas reportedly moved family to Colorado partway through season

  1. eigglesnosuperbowls - Jun 1, 2012 at 4:01 PM

    Yeah Iam a little worn down too from bustin my ass in a steel mill for 30 years !

    • cweez2 - Jun 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

      They have steel mills in the US anymore?

      • eigglesnosuperbowls - Jun 1, 2012 at 6:02 PM

        Yeah they do its were I have to go everyday so I can pay for my tickets ! Is this Tim Thomas Iam replying too ?

  2. mikebel11 - Jun 1, 2012 at 4:09 PM

    The no-movement clause expiring wouldn’t result in a trade if he’s taking a year off. The more likely move would be to demote him when that window opens and clear the cap hit.

    • claysbar - Jun 1, 2012 at 6:52 PM

      The cap hit stays no matter if he’s on the NHL roster, AHL overseas etc.

      Players who sign multi-year contracts when they are age 35 or older (calculated on June 30 of the season the contract begins) count toward the cap under all circumstances, regardless of where (or if) the player is playing. The only cap relief is $100,000 from the player’s cap hit if he is assigned to the minors after the first year of the contract.
      CBA reference: Section 50.5 (d-i-B-5) (P. 203)

  3. mydadyourmom - Jun 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

    well if there was ever a time to take a year off, it’s when you’re a 38 year old goalie who took the long route to the NHL..

  4. bobhpine - Jun 1, 2012 at 4:48 PM

    Woe is the multimillion dollar pro athlete…what a douche

  5. lordfletcher - Jun 1, 2012 at 5:04 PM

    it’s no different than anyone else taking a year off from their jobs, for whatever reason… If Timmy T wants to, so be it.

    I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but he has every right, unless his contract says otherwise….

    • t16rich - Jun 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM

      But a one year hiatus really screws Boston over. If he chooses to take just 1 year off without retiring, Boston will miss out on $5 million in cap space. So Bruins fans have every right to be mad, regardless of what Thomas has the right to do. So it’s a little different than me taking a year off from a 9 to 5 job, because a 9-5 employee is not screwing the employer out of the potential to hire more employees to make the product better. In my opinion, this is a retire or shut up matter.

      • phillyphever - Jun 1, 2012 at 5:42 PM

        Even if he retires, the cap hit is still gonna be there. Same situation (cap-wise) with Pronger: the 35+ rule.

      • t16rich - Jun 1, 2012 at 5:50 PM

        @phillyphever…. Yeah that’s right. My point is invalid. This might be the only case where you want to pay a guy $5 million to stay home. Time for Boston to show Leafs fans how many bad trades they made. Tuuka Rask’s turn.

      • lordfletcher - Jun 1, 2012 at 6:21 PM

        @t16rich. I can’t disagree with much of what you said but unfortunately it is what it is.

        I am not trying to defend anything Tim is doing or has done for that matter but, he can. It’s all within his rights with his contract. (or at least I am 99% sure it does)

  6. mgp1219 - Jun 1, 2012 at 5:05 PM

    As a life long Bruins fan, I am realy tiring of Timmy’s antics. The White House “incident” wasn’t a big deal to me, but his “I’m not talking about it ” attitude and posting of cryptic “non-political” messages on his facebook were annoying and, I believe, a distraction to the team. I certainly appreciate what he has done for this team on the ice, but he is now becoming a disruption off the ice. He is being selfish here and that won’t work for this or any other team.

  7. ikillchicken - Jun 1, 2012 at 5:29 PM

    Good riddance. Tomas has become a selfish, insufferable nut. I can only hope this sabbatical becomes a forcible retirement come contract time when nobody wants to take a gamble on a 39 year old troublemaker who hasn’t played in a year.

  8. frederick987 - Jun 1, 2012 at 6:04 PM

    So long Tim.

  9. mclovinhockey - Jun 1, 2012 at 6:06 PM

    Yeah Thomas would screw over Boston badly. The only bruin I like as well. Since he is over 35 he can’t be sent down I believe so retirement or not, Boston eats 5 mill on the cap.

  10. stakex - Jun 1, 2012 at 7:53 PM

    You know, I use to like Thomas. Then he got all weird, and topped it off with the whole White house snub. That showed me what a d-bag the guy actually is. Ok, so he didn’t agree with Obama…. but you still go to the event. You think every athleat that goes to the White House agrees with the president at the time? Of course not… but you go to show respect to the office. Failing to do so on Thomas’s part exposed a huge, selfish character flaw.

    So really, I could care less if the guy takes next season off. He created the problems hes had over the last season, and if he wants to run away and hide…. go for it. I just hope no teams offer him a second chance next year.

  11. mclovinhockey - Jun 1, 2012 at 8:28 PM

    Thomas is the nicest guy on the bruins, his only choices (not including trades) play, don’t play or retire…. All 3 option are 100 percent of the cap hit. He can’t play for another team unless he gets traded but with all this I doubt anyone will take him. Hope he just retires and has a great life after hockey.

  12. pantherpro - Jun 1, 2012 at 9:35 PM

    Go away redneck. We don’t need your bs Christian values shoved in our face!

    Bill Maher

    • t16rich - Jun 1, 2012 at 9:43 PM

      Hahahahaha. I would love to see Bill Maher dissapear as much as I would Tim Thomas.

    • blomfeld - Jun 2, 2012 at 1:56 AM

      right on friend !

  13. nhbsfan - Jun 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM

    I’m surprised nobody has bothered to research this. When Thomas first signed the extension it was days before his 35th birthday to avoid that rule stated above. He was 34 when he signed so the over 35 rule does not apply if I understand it correctly…

    http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins/extras/bruins_blog/2009/04/thomas_inks_new.html

    “Thomas was scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent on July 1. According to a source in the Bruins front office, part of what was driving the club to get the deal done now is that fact that Thomas will turn 35 years old on April 15.

    When a player signs a new deal after his 35th birthday, per the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), although he can be bought out (at a two-thirds reduction in pay), his cap number can not be deleted from the club’s salary commitments.”

Featured video

Eakins on his way out of Edmonton?

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. S. Crosby (2695)
  2. V. Hedman (2668)
  3. P. Datsyuk (2617)
  4. P. Sharp (2368)
  5. D. Krejci (2214)
  1. Z. Chara (1884)
  2. B. Marchand (1872)
  3. B. Dubinsky (1801)
  4. B. Elliott (1776)
  5. S. Varlamov (1739)