View Single Post
08-15-2010, 01:31 PM
Global Moderator
GKJ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 114,738
vCash: 965
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
How do you know they didn't know the rule? Because some reporter speculated it?

All words from the organization (unless I missed it somewhere) say that they knew what they were doing when the contract was signed.

Anyway, regardless of that fact, the contract still exists. You can't ignore reality when making these claims.
Child please. They knew it because they said so. OF COURSE they'd say so, if you were the assistant general manager of a professional sports team, and people accused you of not knowing the rule, would you agree with them?

Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
There was also a legitimate fear that Kovalchuk's contract could become one where cap circumvention occurs because of the age involved and the fact that if he retired, the Devils would not be held responsible for the remaining cap hit.

It's hardly the same situation.
Ok fine. But the Flyers didn't know the 35+ Rule (as much as you try to dispute this, they didn't know it, a little bit of reading comprehension when that came to be, and a little bit less naivete, and you might get it).

Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I'd love to see the league provide evidence that the Flyers plan to trade Pronger right before he retires. It's different than providing evidence that a player is a retirement risk because now you also have to look at other facts including other teams and negotiations and values. The other team also has to understand in full that Pronger is retiring. A dump like that also doesn't come cheap. There are far too many factors involved.
I don't need to. See below. The Sharks also knew Vladimir Malakhov was never going to play a game for them.

Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
In the spirit of the law, if the Flyers indeed plan on doing that, it's cap circumvention, but in reality by the letter of the law, it's not cap circumvention. Trades after all do not fall into the realm of cap circumvention. It's apples and oranges.
And the league is attempting to not have it be apples and oranges. This is the whole point. The intention of having contracts is that there is an intention for both team and player to fulfill them, and not give themselves an out should it be needed. They want proof that that they don't intend to do something with his contract should be retire. They won't want the egg on their face should it come to pass, they want it written in stone, whether or not they get it, now that is apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
If the league can prove that the Flyers had a plan in place to ship out Pronger and have been discussing it with other teams, then the league should absolutely go after the Flyers.

Until they can provide such evidence, it's highly unlikely that the league can really do anything about it. It's not technically cap circumvention.
They'll never get that. What they want if for that to not be allowed should it happen. They've been trading draft picks just to get rid of people, so that precedence is there for those trades, (we'll see if those trades burn them), and because they were able to put Mike Rathje on LTIR for 3 1/2 years. "Gee, maybe they're try to do this again, with a player who they plan on being injured.

Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post

Read above. It's the same thing by the letter of the law even if it isn't in spirit.

I'm not so sure the Flyers plan on doing that anyway. I suspect Pronger will play in Philadelphia through the end of his contract unless he is LTIR'd.
And the league suspects there is an exit plan if he doesn't. That's one of the things they're trying to get a stop on.

Philadelphia's Real Alternative

Stop Feeding the Rumor-Monger

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2014 (sorry it's late)
GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote