HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Philadelphia Flyers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   Pronger Contract (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=801458)

Schenn10 07-21-2010 07:51 AM

Pronger Contract
 
Say Pronger decides to retire a few years before his new contract is finished, and because it is a 35+ contract we are still stuck with the cap hit. Do you think any teams would be interested in trading for him at that point simply for his cap hit so they can reach the cap floor without actually needing to pay him money because he retired?

Is it even possible to trade a player who has retired or rather that player's contract?

BringBackStevens 07-21-2010 07:57 AM

Doubt it. For all the talk of these "empty contracts to reach the cap floor" deals that people talk about so much, I don't think it has happened at all yet, and if it has its rare.

Although I'm pretty sure if Pronger retires due to injury we could get the cap hit wiped... but I could be wrong there.

Either way I don't see Pronger's 4.9 being a hinderance even at the tail end of that. I think he's going to play out his contract at a high level

IrishSniper87 07-21-2010 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Inebriator (Post 27022591)
Doubt it. For all the talk of these "empty contracts to reach the cap floor" deals that people talk about so much, I don't think it has happened at all yet, and if it has its rare.

Although I'm pretty sure if Pronger retires due to injury we could get the cap hit wiped... but I could be wrong there.

Either way I don't see Pronger's 4.9 being a hinderance even at the tail end of that. I think he's going to play out his contract at a high level

Your wording is a bit off. If he retires at all, we get screwed.

We COULD LTIR him like Rathje/Hatcher, but it would have to be a legit injury.

Larry44 07-21-2010 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philly Flyers (Post 27022533)
Say Pronger decides to retire a few years before his new contract is finished, and because it is a 35+ contract we are still stuck with the cap hit. Do you think any teams would be interested in trading for him at that point simply for his cap hit so they can reach the cap floor without actually needing to pay him money because he retired?

This is completely possible. The cap keeps going up, as does the floor. The floor will be approx. $40M iirc. After the lockout, the cap was $39M, it's up to $58+M.

It would be smart for a team that was struggling with revenue to acquire Pronger for the last two years. Cap hit $4.9M, cost $500K, if Pronger played. That's how they would 'justify' the draft day trade. Then, over the summer, Pronger would have a change of heart and retire. The team would not have to pay him, since he didn't honour the contract, but they could count the salary toward their cap for a couple years. It's the lower end loophole of the CBA. We'll see how it plays out.

DUHockey9 07-21-2010 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry44 (Post 27023211)
This is completely possible. The cap keeps going up, as does the floor. The floor will be approx. $40M iirc. After the lockout, the cap was $39M, it's up to $58+M.

It would be smart for a team that was struggling with revenue to acquire Pronger for the last two years. Cap hit $4.9M, cost $500K, if Pronger played. That's how they would 'justify' the draft day trade. Then, over the summer, Pronger would have a change of heart and retire. The team would not have to pay him, since he didn't honour the contract, but they could count the salary toward their cap for a couple years. It's the lower end loophole of the CBA. We'll see how it plays out.

It's definitely possible, and makes sense in theory...it's just yet to happen, and I'm not sure that I ever see it happening.

I mean, it's one thing to be cheap and only spend to the cap floor. It's another to be so cheap you're technically spending BELOW the cap floor, and doing so on players that aren't even playing for you. I can't imagine fans would be pleased.

Larry44 07-21-2010 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DUHockey9 (Post 27023247)
It's definitely possible, and makes sense in theory...it's just yet to happen, and I'm not sure that I ever see it happening.

I mean, it's one thing to be cheap and only spend to the cap floor. It's another to be so cheap you're technically spending BELOW the cap floor, and doing so on players that aren't even playing for you. I can't imagine fans would be pleased.

Before the lockout, some teams had payrolls of $14-15M. Do you think they suddenly, in the last 5 years, found another $25M in revenue (profit sharing aside)?

If they HAD fans, they wouldn't be in that bind in the first place. Last year there were a couple teams that took on contracts just to reach the cap. This would be another avenue to explore. Not sure if it will happen, but it makes sense.

i am dave 07-21-2010 09:27 AM

With the way the current CBA does not directly and explicitly address "cap circumvention," it's plausible that the NHL would prohibit trading a 35+ contract player who has retired to a team trying to reach the cap floor.

IrishSniper87 07-21-2010 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i am dave (Post 27023623)
With the way the current CBA does not directly and explicitly address "cap circumvention," it's plausible that the NHL would prohibit trading a 35+ contract player who has retired to a team trying to reach the cap floor.

trade him before he retires

Haute Couturier 07-21-2010 09:30 AM

Larry, one thing you are overlooking is that there will be a new CBA and there is talks of the league wanting to lower the cap in the next one. So the cap floor may not be all that high.

I think a team could be interested in his cap hit if you give them incentive such as a first round pick, but otherwise I don't see them helping a competitor out of a cap jam.

PhillyCurt12 07-21-2010 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 27023671)
I think a team could be interested in his cap hit if you give them incentive such as a first round pick, but otherwise I don't see them helping a competitor out of a cap jam.

or if you did something like:

pronger's contract
the cost of pronger's remaining salary in $$$$
6th round pick

for

7th round pick


i don't see why someone out of conference who needed to get to the cap floor would object to something like that.

CptCannon 07-21-2010 10:01 AM

When was the last time someone included cash in a trade?

CantSeeColors 07-21-2010 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyCurt12 (Post 27023989)
or if you did something like:

pronger's contract
the cost of pronger's remaining salary in $$$$
6th round pick

for

7th round pick


i don't see why someone out of conference who needed to get to the cap floor would object to something like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptCannon (Post 27024143)
When was the last time someone included cash in a trade?

Pretty sure you're not allowed to include cash in a trade.

PhillyCurt12 07-21-2010 10:06 AM

ah, did not know that. nevermind.

edit: perhaps change "$$$$" to "cheese steaks" in my last post? i think that can work for everybody!

2nd edit: come to think of it, his actual salary is so low, that you could probably just remove the cash in my original proposal and change the 6th to a 4th or something.

DUHockey9 07-21-2010 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CantSeeColors (Post 27024209)
Pretty sure you're not allowed to include cash in a trade.

I was going to say that but now I'm not sure. I KNOW you can't take on part of a cap hit in a trade; but I'm not so sure you aren't allowed to include cash...as that wouldn't effect the cap hit of a team, but merely provide cash.

CantSeeColors 07-21-2010 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DUHockey9 (Post 27024248)
I was going to say that but now I'm not sure. I KNOW you can't take on part of a cap hit in a trade; but I'm not so sure you aren't allowed to include cash...as that wouldn't effect the cap hit of a team, but merely provide cash.

Fair point. I may have merged the two ideas in my head.

Larry44 07-21-2010 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 27023671)
Larry, one thing you are overlooking is that there will be a new CBA and there is talks of the league wanting to lower the cap in the next one. So the cap floor may not be all that high.

I think a team could be interested in his cap hit if you give them incentive such as a first round pick, but otherwise I don't see them helping a competitor out of a cap jam.

I don't think the new CBA is going to result in a reduced cap - not without another lockout/strike.

There has also been talk of getting rid of some of the over 35 restrictions etc., but I don't think anyone knows what's going to be in the next CBA except Donald Fehr.

I also don't think the incentive would be that high - it is two parties doing each other a favour. Of course, Homer will over pay, that is to be expected.

McNasty 07-21-2010 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 27023671)
Larry, one thing you are overlooking is that there will be a new CBA and there is talks of the league wanting to lower the cap in the next one. So the cap floor may not be all that high.

I think a team could be interested in his cap hit if you give them incentive such as a first round pick, but otherwise I don't see them helping a competitor out of a cap jam.

See I can see them helping. If your a team that struggles to get to the cap floor, and you can get a guy who's cap hit is 4 million dollars more then his salary, that's a real easy way to get to the cap floor without losing money.

CantSeeColors 07-21-2010 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry44 (Post 27024354)
I don't think the new CBA is going to result in a reduced cap - not without another lockout/strike.

There has also been talk of getting rid of some of the over 35 restrictions etc., but I don't think anyone knows what's going to be in the next CBA except Donald Fehr.

I also don't think the incentive would be that high - it is two parties doing each other a favour. Of course, Homer will over pay, that is to be expected.

The other team will be getting a 2026 2nd round pick, no doubt.

jd2210 07-21-2010 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CantSeeColors (Post 27024209)
Pretty sure you're not allowed to include cash in a trade.

I'm not sure. Lindros was traded for the planet and cash. Wasn't Draper traded for cash?

Rick Deckard 07-21-2010 10:20 AM

It happened already.... the Devils traded Malakhov and a 1st to San Jose for future considerations ... but it has to be done BEFORE the player retires.

Larry44 07-21-2010 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McNasty (Post 27024392)
See I can see them helping. If your a team that struggles to get to the cap floor, and you can get a guy who's cap hit is 4 million dollars more then his salary, that's a real easy way to get to the cap floor without losing money.

Briere and Timonen will be in this category eventually too....

Valhoun* 07-21-2010 10:26 AM

Also, you cannot trade cash nor can you trade partial salary (which is something that savvy GMs would abuse.)

I'm not worrying about Pronger's contract since there will be a new CBA between now and when he retires. In addition, he won't be hard to LTIR. It's obvious that the league doesn't look very closely and there is absolutely no way a doctor won't be able to find some significant damage on a 40 year-old's body.

"Doc, if I keep playing will it jeopardize my longterm health?"

"With the state that your back and knees are in, yes."

Boom. LTIR.

It's absolutely not hard at all.

Larry44 07-21-2010 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd2210 (Post 27024445)
I'm not sure. Lindros was traded for the planet and cash. Wasn't Draper traded for cash?

Under the old CBA you could, not now. Draper was traded for $1. Best value deal in NHL history.

Valhoun* 07-21-2010 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry44 (Post 27024536)
Briere and Timonen will be in this category eventually too....

They'll just retire rather than play for peanuts in all likelihood.

JLHockeyKnight 07-21-2010 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 (Post 27023091)
Your wording is a bit off. If he retires at all, we get screwed.

We COULD LTIR him like Rathje/Hatcher, but it would have to be a legit injury.

Tara Lapinski.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.