HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Brooks - Cap Hit Buyouts When Current CBA Ends?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-12-2009, 01:54 PM
  #1
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Brooks - Cap Hit Buyouts When Current CBA Ends?

Stole from devils board.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07122009...tup_178810.htm

Not the entire article, FYI.

Quote:
IT'S mind-boggling that neither general manager Paul Holmgren nor the alleged cap expert within the Flyers organization -- whomever that isn't -- understood that the seven-year Chris Pronger extension that begins in 2010-11 would be treated as an over-35 contract, applicable against the cap under essentially all circumstances as defined by the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.

And yet, Philadelphia likely will never suffer the consequences for the massive blunder in which management agreed to pay $33.4 million of the total $34.9 million within the first five years of the extension. And thus would be on the hook for a $4.921 million cap hit in 2015-16 and 2016-17, even with the defenseman in expected retirement.

The Flyers will not take the hit because the CBA will be long extinct by that time, with another round of rollbacks and amnesty buyouts expected to bridge the gap between the current labor agreement and whatever comes next.

There are no guarantees, of course, but no one knows the fate of contracts that run beyond 2011-12, which is when the CBA will expire once the NHLPA exercises its pro-forma option to extend the deal through that season.

It would, however, be a shock if the league doesn't recalibrate as part of a battle that's certain to include a laundry list of givebacks from the union intended to shrink the cap. Indeed, several general managers have told Slap Shots they believe a rollback of up to 15 percent plus a round of amnesty buyouts will be necessary at the end of next season in order to accommodate a decrease in the 2010-11 cap that is expected to be meaningful.
Thoughts?

Wow, this could be awesome for us.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 01:58 PM
  #2
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
I really hate how established journalists take a huge drop of the cap in 10-11 as an absolute truth instead of looking at the facts (God forbid).

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:10 PM
  #3
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
I have a couple friends in the organization, one of which is very reliable and they both said the Flyers are talking to the league about the "over 35" rule. They said the Flyers are bringing up the wording in the CBA and how it isnt clear. Just yesterday my one friend was telling me they might reword the CBA but allow the Flyers to be exempt on the Pronger deal.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:14 PM
  #4
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
I have a couple friends in the organization, one of which is very reliable and they both said the Flyers are talking to the league about the "over 35" rule. They said the Flyers are bringing up the wording in the CBA and how it isnt clear. Just yesterday my one friend was telling me they might reword the CBA but allow the Flyers to be exempt on the Pronger deal.
They'll have an uphill battle there considering that I believe it's already been used with Dallas Drake and Blues...

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:15 PM
  #5
Ex Storm
Dig out your soul...
 
Ex Storm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
I have a couple friends in the organization, one of which is very reliable and they both said the Flyers are talking to the league about the "over 35" rule. They said the Flyers are bringing up the wording in the CBA and how it isnt clear. Just yesterday my one friend was telling me they might reword the CBA but allow the Flyers to be exempt on the Pronger deal.
That would be beyond fantastic, but we've all seen the league change rules when they feel like it before - so I don't see them giving the Flyers an advantage and then re-wording the CBA afterwards. They'll re-word it first just to screw us.

Ex Storm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:17 PM
  #6
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
They'll have an uphill battle there considering that I believe it's already been used with Dallas Drake and Blues...
I agree. But I do know that they are at least talking to the league about it.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:20 PM
  #7
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
They'll have an uphill battle there considering that I believe it's already been used with Dallas Drake and Blues...
Holmgren's argument would be that Pronger was 34 at the time of the extension. was Drake?

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:21 PM
  #8
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
I agree. But I do know that they are at least talking to the league about it.
Yeah, but what's the point? The rule is the rule and it's already been enforced.

All this really does right now is make me very nervous that the Flyers don't really understand the CBA and signed Pronger to that contract without understanding its full ramifications.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:23 PM
  #9
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovercraft View Post
Holmgren's argument would be that Pronger was 34 at the time of the extension. was Drake?
Nah he was 36 or 37, I guess that's their argument.

But really, the CBA is pretty clear on this subject. The buyout depends on when the SPC actually goes into effect and Pronger's deal goes into effect on June 30, 2010. Furthermore, the SPC is technically an independent contract, not an extension of the existing deal.

I mean, sure its legalese, but the overall message is pretty clear, I'd be pretty worried if the Flyers are really arguing over this clause because it's a losing battle.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:26 PM
  #10
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 View Post
Stole from devils board.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07122009...tup_178810.htm

Not the entire article, FYI.



Thoughts?

Wow, this could be awesome for us.
I was pooh poohed when I alluded to such a thing the other day.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:30 PM
  #11
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,473
vCash: 5500
Brooks is one of those people who says every year the cap is going to fall from the sky, and every year...he says it will happen next year...

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:32 PM
  #12
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Brooks is one of those people who says every year the cap is going to fall from the sky, and every year...he says it will happen next year...
True, but he hs a valid point, if the CBA ends, the NHLPA might try to fight for these amnesty buyouts in order for teams to get back under the cap.

Pronger could very well be an amnesty buyout in a few years, as well as Briere.

With no cap penalties to us.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:35 PM
  #13
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Brooks is one of those people who says every year the cap is going to fall from the sky, and every year...he says it will happen next year...
Looking around at the World economy, I'd be pleasantly shocked if it didn't go down... and at a loss to understand the reason why. Not that I'm privy to any NHL books.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 02:57 PM
  #14
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 View Post
True, but he hs a valid point, if the CBA ends, the NHLPA might try to fight for these amnesty buyouts in order for teams to get back under the cap.

Pronger could very well be an amnesty buyout in a few years, as well as Briere.

With no cap penalties to us.
Why would we want to do that though?

The current CBA will expire after the 2011/2012 season I believe. That would give us 3 years of Pronger in return for Lupul, Sbisa, and our 2 1sts. What if we haven't won the Cup by that time? Would you really want to buy Pronger out? I probably wouldn't unless Bourdon or Marshall develops beyond all expectations.

That brings me to a couple of larger points. I'll start with the expected decrease in the cap.

Despite the global recession and blah blah blah, the NHL experienced small growth again this season, both in attendance and TV viewership. Now obviously, a portion of that revenue does come from STHs, but from most accounts around the league, STH renewal rates have been decent outside of places like FLA, TB, and ATL who have drastically reduced prices and maybe shouldn't have teams anyways. But us, Buffalo, all of the Canadian teams, the NYR, and Detroit have experienced really robust renewals and that's just the teams I could find.

Hockey's hardcore niche actually helps them as well because a lot NHL fans are dumb/passionate enough to continue to watch/go to games even if their homes are being foreclosed which is drastically different from the NBA.

So I mean, as far as I'm concerned, the NHL has come through the recession pretty well so far, especially compared to the NBA which experienced drastic drops in attendance and TV ratings, there were rumors of Memphis games where attendance was literally in the hundreds.

So I think the cap will probably drop a mill or two, but I would be totally floored if it went below 52 mill and I can guarantee you that the NHL will bend over backwards to guarantee that doesn't happen because we wouldn't be the only team that would be screwed.

Okay, so now moving on to the new assumption that we can buy Pronger out after the new CBA.

First of all, let's consider amnesty buyouts. We would have to assume that the cap would have to drop significantly enough to force this buyouts for the 12-13 season which is doubtful. The economy runs in cycles just like everything else, I think we could be on our way back pretty strongly by mid to late 2010. So there should be plenty of time for the 11/12 cap to be decently high. So why would the NHL institute amnesty buyouts if the cap is already high?

Okay, now let's consider that the theory will change the 35+ rule. It makes no sense to do this. Think about it, teams are already exploiting the cap hit idea. Marian Hossa's contract isn't really a 5.23 cap hit. It's a 7.4 mill cap hit over 8 years. Afterwards, I think everybody would be shocked if he wasn't bought out or more likely, retired. The Hawks can do it cheaply if they buy him out and Hossa will have already received 59.3 of the 62.8 mill in the deal.

Unless the NHL does something, stuff like this is going to continue to happen. What would have stopped the Flyers from signing Mike Richards to a 25 year 90 million dollar contract with 80 million dollars coming in the first 15 years of the deal? The only thing that would have stopped them would be that probably no company would have insured that, but he could just decide to play 16-17 years of that deal and then retire and the Flyers would have gotten 17 years of Mike Richards at a 3.6 mill cap hit.

That's obviously an exaggerated example, but it's the type of principle we're talking about. If anything, the NHL is going to make it more risky for teams to hand out these long-term deals instead of making it easier for the Flyers to get out of the Pronger one.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 04:39 PM
  #15
Tripod
Registered User
 
Tripod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,785
vCash: 500
I think one change should be that the contracts can inly go until the player is 40. This at least give everyone the same cut-off time.

Tripod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 04:52 PM
  #16
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod View Post
I think one change should be that the contracts can inly go until the player is 40. This at least give everyone the same cut-off time.
If they insist on a 35+ rule as a deterrent -- on any such age number -- I believe that they should have the contracts cut off at that age, and have them sign one contracts from there on out... As if the NHLPA and the ACLU would ever allow. LOL

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 06:32 PM
  #17
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,473
vCash: 5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersJunky View Post
Looking around at the World economy, I'd be pleasantly shocked if it didn't go down... and at a loss to understand the reason why. Not that I'm privy to any NHL books.
This year the NHLPA invoked the 5% inflator.

I just know that everyone sits around waiting for the cap the fall and totally screw big spenders, only to have it go up - regardless of the reason.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 11:31 PM
  #18
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 30,695
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Brooks is one of those people who says every year the cap is going to fall from the sky, and every year...he says it will happen next year...
I read the article in the paper today.
I just LOL'd it because he just seems to take digs at the Flyers every chance he gets.
I realize he is a NY writer, but the guy is clown.
He also thinks the Rangers should and try and trade for Marc Savard.
The article states Savard has 2 years left on his deal. He has 1.
He cant even get his facts straight more then half the time.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2009, 01:13 AM
  #19
Tender Rip
No cap on coaching!
 
Tender Rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
I have a couple friends in the organization, one of which is very reliable and they both said the Flyers are talking to the league about the "over 35" rule. They said the Flyers are bringing up the wording in the CBA and how it isnt clear. Just yesterday my one friend was telling me they might reword the CBA but allow the Flyers to be exempt on the Pronger deal.
But it is clear. Its about the start of the contract, not how old the player was when it was signed.
I don't blame Philly's management for trying though. Or Sather, Holmgreen and others for arguing that they should be allowed to have an amnesty dump due to the special economic circumstances.

I would blame Bettman and the NHL if they allowed it.

The easiest way around cap-hell 2010/11 - in case the NHL acts like the US government and does not want to confront the problem - seems to me to be allowing teams to designate a franchise player while keeping everything else the same. The teams capable of spending will in most every instance be able to make their immediate problems go away, whereas the small market teams that are struggling to make the floor can simply choose not to designate a franchise player.

Tender Rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2009, 03:50 AM
  #20
dawkins121
Registered User
 
dawkins121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,408
vCash: 500
If a new CBA does allow some corollary for buyouts, I think the Flyers would turn to Briere long before Pronger. A defensman that is smart and adjusts to the game like Pronger has/does can still be effective very late into his career through hockey smarts, sound positioning, etc. Smallish forwards on the other hand....do not age particularly well.

Briere can still be highly effective for another few years, but do you expect him to put up high quality offensive numbers in 4 years? 5 years? 6 years??? I don't. But his cap hit will still be 6.5 mill. And it's certainly not like he makes up for it with defensive skills.

So if the new CBA has some little tweak that gives us a loophole or somehow exempts us from the 35 + rule so we can retire Pronger in 5-6 years with no cap hit, great. But I'm much more interested in the buyout side of things and I'm much more interested in applying it to Briere, not Pronger.

If the current CBA is scrapped, a new one written up, and a limited no-cap penalty buyout period (like after the lockout) is put in place, then Briere will be bought out and his cap space will (hopefully) be invested more wisely, like into someone who can guard between the pipes with some degree of competence.

However, I don't see this happening unless the league is very, very stupid. To allow for such a thing would open a window for moral hazard to enter. If teams see that every half decade or so they can wipe away their bad contracts, then they will be more likely to give those contracts out. If you think these huge 10+ year deals are getting out of hand now, just wait and see what happens if a precedent like this is set. So while we can all hope for it along with Detroit and New York fans, it won't happen.

dawkins121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.