I truly believe that no one in the NHL really has a clue about anything, and just makes **** up as they go along.
I have a feeling the conversation went something like this:
SportingNews: So, Hossa's contract looks fishy?
NHLRep: Yea, we're gonna take a look.
SportingNews: What do you think about Pronger's? That's another one that takes a player past 40.
NHLRep: Pronger? Oh, him. It does go past 40, doesn't it? Yea that's a good idea, we better get on that too.
First off, the Flyers looked at the Hawks deal and proceeded... before that, the hawks looked at the Wings deal and proceeded... Now they go after the Hawks and the Flyers with an investigation. What's wrong with this picture? The Hawks and Flyers see a deal approved and feel that they can make a similar deal.
Also, the Flyers only advantage in this... since unlike the Hawks, they are responsible to the obligation until it is over... is in Pronger receiving up front money and the Cap is relieved -- which, BTW, makes sense in that he will not be worth as much as he gets older -- How is that Cap relief really any better than the Cap relief with Richards dozen years?... Other than the numbers, it isn't.
... The NHL allowed all this crap by allowing an averaged Cap hit -- which was to protect teams from monkeying with numbers, and basically also protecting the players from being dumped after a while with an increasing contract -- Eliminate the averaging and the Cap circumventing also goes away... The NHL wants it cake and eat it too.
In Pronger's case, I really don't see the problem... The Flyers are gambling on his playing it out capably... It is not even a loophole like the Hawks is, for goodness sake.
Sometimes I feel I should become a casual fan and not bother with the details... Attend games and read the box scores and post game stories, and follow who is on and off the team... leaving all this gamesmanship off my radar.
Investigating Hossa? Makes sense, I wouldn't be shocked at all if he has no intention of playing out the length of that contract.
Investigating Pronger? That I don't get...we get stuck with the cap hit if he does retire (thus, it can't "circumvent the cap"), so then they're just investigating whether the Flyers are giving away money to a player they want on their team and accepting a salary cap hit long-term?
It is most likely the lower Cap hit allowed by the averaging that they are questioning... But that is their rules that the Flyers are playing under.
I totally agree with your assessment... However, the NHL may be going through the motions to make it seems as if they are being fair to all teams by looking at all extended and averaged contracts that go past 40. In this way, the Hawks can't scream that they are being singled out... That is the only thing I can rationalize here.
However, the NHL may be going through the motions to make it seems as if they are being fair to all teams by looking at all extended and averaged contracts that go past 40
This is the only thing that makes sense to me. I think they're giving off the allusion of fairness by looking into the Pronger deal. Nothing else really computes.
This is the only thing that makes sense to me. I think they're giving off the allusion of fairness by looking into the Pronger deal. Nothing else really computes.
'Do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain'
Nothing will happen. The NHL is run by a bunch of idiots. The Flyers did not break any rules, they can't be punished for signing contract that they are allowed to make in the first place. What a waste of time
I think you guys arent fully understanding exactly what is being investigated. They arent actually investigating the length or money in Pronger's contract. Word is, the NHL is investigating the signing of Ray Emery, Ole-Kristian Tollefsen, Ian Laperriere, and even Daniel Carcillo. Again, not for cap reasons but because The Kid called Mr. Gary and said he didnt think they were nice people.
This type of stuff is nonsense. They write the rules, then get mad when people follow them and still find ways of making things work. I agree players shouldn't get contracts that pay them till they're 50, but at the same time extending contracts till players are 40 is realistic. The contracts are still on the books and count against the Cap. If you don't like the way your lawyers wrote the rules punish them and yourselves for not catching the loopholes quicker, not the teams who are following the stipulations you set forth.
It is a different scene but anyone remember when the Flyers traded Pete Peeters/Keith Acton to the Jets before the waiver draft then the Jets traded the pair back to the Flyers after the draft for a future pick?
Afterwards, John Zeigler said there was no evidence that the teams were lying but he still fined the Flyers and Jets saying that it was a "loaning of players" which was prohibited by NHL bylaws despite the fact that both organizations said the transaction was legit and the Jets got a draft pick in return.
I remember that deal - I was pleased at how sneaky the Flyers were.
They need to fix this loophole, because as of now no one did anything wrong (unless they can prove that Hossa said he'll retire at a certain point). But, with the way it is now, you can theoretically sign a guy for:
$82M, 50 years.
$10M/year first 6 years. $0.5M/year for remaining 44 years.
Cap Hit: 1.64M/year
In essence, you would get a star player for 6 years, he retires (happy with making $60M in 6 years) and your team only pays for $1.64M in cap hit. Oh, and that $1.64M disappears after he retires, so you don't hold that hit for the next 44 years.
They need to fix this loophole, because as of now no one did anything wrong (unless they can prove that Hossa said he'll retire at a certain point). But, with the way it is now, you can theoretically sign a guy for:
$82M, 50 years.
$10M/year first 6 years. $0.5M/year for remaining 44 years.
Cap Hit: 1.64M/year
In essence, you would get a star player for 6 years, he retires (happy with making $60M in 6 years) and your team only pays for $1.64M in cap hit. Oh, and that $1.64M disappears after he retires, so you don't hold that hit for the next 44 years.
This NEEDS to be changed.
That kind of contract wouldn't be approved by the league in the first place. I think even if a player is 20 years old, the max length the league might allow would be 20-22 year contract.
This type of stuff is nonsense. They write the rules, then get mad when people follow them and still find ways of making things work. I agree players shouldn't get contracts that pay them till they're 50, but at the same time extending contracts till players are 40 is realistic. The contracts are still on the books and count against the Cap. If you don't like the way your lawyers wrote the rules punish them and yourselves for not catching the loopholes quicker, not the teams who are following the stipulations you set forth.
Well, there are loopholes, and then there is knowingly circumventing the salary cap. If both parties signed the contract with the understanding that the player would not play out the contract, then the team essentially wrote years into the contract that are there purely to lower the salary cap hit in order to circumvent the cap hit for the years they intend to pay, and the player intends to play.
In an absolute sense they are allowed to give out that contract, but if neither party actually intends to fulfill the contract...then there's a problem there. That's dirty pool.
