HFBoards

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

Pronger's contract investigated

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-03-2009, 01:19 PM
  #101
EasyMac
Registered User
 
EasyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Cannon View Post
I don't know if this has been mentioned but why doesnt the NHL look at Ohlunds contract?
It would seem as if the league has arbitrarly put the cutoff at 40. Correct me if I am wrong, but Ohlund's contract runs out when he is 39 (turns 40 later that year), Zetterberg's ends when he is 40 (turns 41 later that year) and Franzen's ends when he is 40 (turns 41 later that year).

So I am guessing they are just looking at the ones that end when the player is greater then 40. It is nice how they can just arbitrarily choose an age when it isn't in the rule book.

Unless they can specifically prove the teams talked about players retiring before the end of their contracts (and it doesn't even matter in the case of Pronger) I don't see what the leahue can do.

EasyMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 01:30 PM
  #102
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Cannon View Post
I don't know if this has been mentioned but why doesnt the NHL look at Ohlunds contract?
Good question, because that contract is way more ridiculous than Pronger's. Pronger is a hall of fame player in tip top shape, whereas Ohlund is a decent player already on the decline and its pretty obvious that deal was set up for early retirement.

And this is what is so ridiculous about the arbitrary nature of these investigations... one could easily argue that the Ohlund contract circumvents the cap if Hossa or Pronger's is deemed to

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 01:36 PM
  #103
Andrew Knoll
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Andrew Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersJunky View Post
Sorry if I didn't understand your question(s)... Thus the over detailed response, on what I believed was your concern.

IMO, the contract was front loaded to allow Pronger to get what he probably thought he deserved... and also what he most likely deserved, and would have received on the Open Market. My guess is that Homer was successful in convincing Pronger that his worth would diminish after a certain point, and that other teams would only offer him a contract for a few seasons, and then go from there, or not resign him... Homer than possibly said that the Flyers were willing to commit to him for seven seasons, even if his play ebbed... Also that he wanted to project the lesser salary that Pronger would be worth and guarantee him that he would be employed until he was 42, if he liked, BUT needed to lower the Cap hit for the seven years... and that would occur with inserting the lower salary at the end of his contract; win-win for both sides... and if Pronger decides to retire, the Flyers would eat those later smaller salaries, and the Cap hit they would be obligated to account for.

The advantage for the Flyers would be having a $7.9M D-man for $5.something... and hope that he plays all the years, or that the Cap rises and they can eat the remaining Cap years without the services of the player. It is a bargain basement Cap hit for such a player, and they can afford the actual salary.

IMO, that is what signing such a player for years that they will be responsible, even if he retires and leaves them on the hook... And I really believe that both side feel that Pronger can play that long, based on his condition and style of play, along with his injury history, so the odds aren't as bad as some may believe them to be.

I hope that comes closer to your concern than my other post did.
Thanks yeah I suppose my question was worded unclearly. I pretty much gathered the same thing, it just depends on how many years he can give the Flyers in the end. Seven (and really eight since he is under contract this year) is a pretty tall order.

Andrew Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 01:45 PM
  #104
The Pucks
Registered User
 
The Pucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Cannon View Post
I don't know if this has been mentioned but why doesnt the NHL look at Ohlunds contract?

because nobody has filed a complaint against it. Hossa and Pronger's contracts were brought to the attention of the league, presumably by another team.

The Pucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 01:47 PM
  #105
The Pucks
Registered User
 
The Pucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Do people here understand the difference between something being investigated and somebody being charged with wrong doing?

I kinda thought there was this thing about being innocent until proven guilty. Allot of people around here seem to presume that the Flyers have already been found guilty.

The Pucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 02:02 PM
  #106
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Because if they're paying $8M now on a long-term contract with a $6M cap hit, it means they're going to save in some future years. Moreover, given the types of players we're talking about on these deals, it allows them to build marketing strategies around high-end talent in the long-term. And, as said, if the ownership group is thinking long term, they can assume some spending above their self-imposed cap for future spending below.

Cem on, this is America...do it on credit for now!

Now, a small market team might be less willing to give out such a deal to someone like Hossa who will be relatively old at the tail end of the contract, but they are now capable of locking up their franchise players to long-term contracts that take them through their prime.
But this whole discussion isn't about deals like the ones to Richards, Ovechkin, Nash, et al. Yeah, they can do those. But we're talking about the ones like Hossa's, where Chicago is going to be paying him more than his cap hit every single year of the deal except maybe '16-'17 where he makes $4M. If the team operates on a self imposed cap, they're not going to sign a player to a deal like that where the player probably won't see the years that would save the team money.

Quote:
I also think the larger issue that is getting ignored here, as noted, is that you're seeing the "big market" teams cease being big players on the free agent market. The ONLY premier free agent the Flyers have signed since the lockout is Briere. You can include Timonen and Hartnell, but they were traded for and signed prior to free agency...since that summer we haven't been big players on the free agent market.

Great news if you're a small market club.
Sure, but that really has to do with the cap and teams trying to lock down their assets, not so much with front loaded deals. Actually, would Chicago have made a pitch for Hossa if they had to give him a cap hit of $7M? That doesn't seem like such a great deal for a lower budget team.

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 02:06 PM
  #107
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 pointed this out on the Trade Rumor board, but I'll point it out here too simply because the NHL is just so, so stupid.

Pretend Player A was born on July 1st, 1969 and Player B was born on February 1st, 1969.

According to the NHL now, apparently Player A is allowed to have a long-term deal through 2009-2010 because he'll only be 40 when the deal expires, but Player B isn't because he'll be 41 when the deal expires.

But Player A is only 5 months younger than Player B.

Nice one NHL, the league that gets dumber every day.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 02:27 PM
  #108
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
I pointed this out on the Trade Rumor board, but I'll point it out here too simply because the NHL is just so, so stupid.

Pretend Player A was born on July 1st, 1969 and Player B was born on February 1st, 1969.

According to the NHL now, apparently Player A is allowed to have a long-term deal through 2009-2010 because he'll only be 40 when the deal expires, but Player B isn't because he'll be 41 when the deal expires.

But Player A is only 5 months younger than Player B.

Nice one NHL, the league that gets dumber every day.
With all due respect...guys born 5 minutes apart can be draft eligible a year apart. Fact of the matter is you need to pick a date...arbitrary? Sure. But if you're going to apply a rule that requires a date of demarcation (any age-related rule), then it's going to play out like that.

Moreover, as one of the thing Malcom Gladwell has talked about (specific to Jeff Carter, in fact), being "old" for your draft year is actually an advantage for some of these guys...just as being young for your draft year can be a disadvantage.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 02:32 PM
  #109
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
But this whole discussion isn't about deals like the ones to Richards, Ovechkin, Nash, et al. Yeah, they can do those. But we're talking about the ones like Hossa's, where Chicago is going to be paying him more than his cap hit every single year of the deal except maybe '16-'17 where he makes $4M. If the team operates on a self imposed cap, they're not going to sign a player to a deal like that where the player probably won't see the years that would save the team money.



Sure, but that really has to do with the cap and teams trying to lock down their assets, not so much with front loaded deals. Actually, would Chicago have made a pitch for Hossa if they had to give him a cap hit of $7M? That doesn't seem like such a great deal for a lower budget team.
Well, I think it's important to note immediately that contracts like Hossa's are clearly not going to be acceptable whenever the NHL can get around to doing something about these contracts that go towards the end of players expected careers.

However, while it is certainly involved, these are somewhat different issues. Small market teams can absolutely afford these types of contracts, whether they view them as wise investments for themselves is a different matter. Additionally, the salary cap wasn't meant to purely even the playing field...it was meant to make it better, not perfect. The fact of the matter is that ten years ago we wouldn't be talking about whether the Blackhawks wanted to pay $7M for Hossa, it would have been whether they wanted to pay $8+M. The ceiling for contracts at the end of the previous CBA was around $10M for elite players, we're nowhere near that now.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 02:33 PM
  #110
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pucks View Post
Do people here understand the difference between something being investigated and somebody being charged with wrong doing?

I kinda thought there was this thing about being innocent until proven guilty. Allot of people around here seem to presume that the Flyers have already been found guilty.
Actually, most people around here seem to presume that there is no way the Flyers could be found guilty, so it's just stupid that they're even bothering to ask questions about cap "circumvention" with regard to a contract that cannot avoid the cap hit.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 02:59 PM
  #111
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 Jester View Post
With all due respect...guys born 5 minutes apart can be draft eligible a year apart. Fact of the matter is you need to pick a date...arbitrary? Sure. But if you're going to apply a rule that requires a date of demarcation (any age-related rule), then it's going to play out like that.

Moreover, as one of the thing Malcom Gladwell has talked about (specific to Jeff Carter, in fact), being "old" for your draft year is actually an advantage for some of these guys...just as being young for your draft year can be a disadvantage.
The draft is a necessary evil unfortunately, there's no other real option.

However, there are other options for this problem such as just saying that for any contract, the cap hit remains for the length of the deal, regardless of when the deal was signed.

But I mean, when you're getting into defining boundary for something like this, games played makes a lot more sense than age considering conditioning techniques.

I've brought this up before too, but Kobe Bryant is only 30 years old, yet has drastically altered his playing style over the past 2 years. Why has he done this? Because he has 1100+ games under his belt.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 03:08 PM
  #112
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
The draft is a necessary evil unfortunately, there's no other real option.

However, there are other options for this problem such as just saying that for any contract, the cap hit remains for the length of the deal, regardless of when the deal was signed.
There are problems with how the rule works, absolutely. And I do think they're going to address them in the coming years. However, to set a date (which was merely the league year starting date) is no in itself stupid...they just didn't think it through strategically. There are clearly other methods to go about dealing with retirement issues that would likely be both more effective, and avoid scenarios such as the concern with regard to Hossa.

Quote:
But I mean, when you're getting into defining boundary for something like this, games played makes a lot more sense than age considering conditioning techniques.
This I would disagree with...If you're 33 and spent a longer period of time playing in the minors or something, I'm not sure your body has any less wear and tear on it. Additionally, you might have a guy with chronic injury problems independent of games played...I think they need to base it off of age, but just think about how they want to do it so that it works out a bit better.

Quote:
I've brought this up before too, but Kobe Bryant is only 30 years old, yet has drastically altered his playing style over the past 2 years. Why has he done this? Because he has 1100+ games under his belt.
Games in which he was playing major minutes...what if you were talking about a guy with the same length of career and age as Kobe, but who had spent his entire career as a guy coming off the bench playing 10 minutes a night?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 04:33 PM
  #113
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
Jester, without getting into a debate about the little stuff (such as Kobe Bryant) that I probably shouldn't have brought into this, here's an interesting stat.

At the end of the last season, here's an age breakdown.

1 49 year-old (Chelios)
2 43 year-olds (Lemieux, Roberts)
1 41 year-old (Recchi)
2 40 year-olds (Shanny and Numinen, I'm not counting Richardson who played 2 games).

So the NHL has elected to have 40 have this be arbitrary deadline based on....absolutely nothing. It's not like there's loads of 40 year-olds, but no 42 year-olds and that deadline, should they choose to act on it, is completely unfair on the Flyers and the Hawks.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 04:49 PM
  #114
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Jester, without getting into a debate about the little stuff (such as Kobe Bryant) that I probably shouldn't have brought into this, here's an interesting stat.

At the end of the last season, here's an age breakdown.

1 49 year-old (Chelios)
2 43 year-olds (Lemieux, Roberts)
1 41 year-old (Recchi)
2 40 year-olds (Shanny and Numinen, I'm not counting Richardson who played 2 games).

So the NHL has elected to have 40 have this be arbitrary deadline based on....absolutely nothing. It's not like there's loads of 40 year-olds, but no 42 year-olds and that deadline, should they choose to act on it, is completely unfair on the Flyers and the Hawks.
You realize that the potential problem has nothing to do with whether they think the player in question will be playing then or not, right? The issue is whether there was a specific conversation between the parties concerning when the player intended to retire, and then tacking on years past that date to lower the cap hit for the years in which the player intends to be playing.

For Hossa, it absolutely makes sense to question the contract along those lines. For Pronger, it doesn't make sense...because his cap hit isn't going anywhere.

Moreover, I think those questions about the Hossa contract are entirely accurate...I don't think the Hawks expect him to play out the entirety of the deal, and I would wager heavily that Hossa and the Hawks specifically discussed when he intended to retire (just as I'm sure the Flyers and Pronger did). Translating those conversations (which should not come out in the public sphere) into evidence of dishonest dealing is something the league is going to have a problem proving...but if they could, they absolutely should void the contract.

As to the rule itself...they should change it. Likely, they should change it one of two ways. Either set a limit for the number of years a contract can be signed....or simply make all years past the age of 35 mandatory cap hit years. I would prefer the latter, because I have no problem with teams locking up their players long-term.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 04:58 PM
  #115
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 Jester View Post
You realize that the potential problem has nothing to do with whether they think the player in question will be playing then or not, right? The issue is whether there was a specific conversation between the parties concerning when the player intended to retire, and then tacking on years past that date to lower the cap hit for the years in which the player intends to be playing.

For Hossa, it absolutely makes sense to question the contract along those lines. For Pronger, it doesn't make sense...because his cap hit isn't going anywhere.

Moreover, I think those questions about the Hossa contract are entirely accurate...I don't think the Hawks expect him to play out the entirety of the deal, and I would wager heavily that Hossa and the Hawks specifically discussed when he intended to retire (just as I'm sure the Flyers and Pronger did). Translating those conversations (which should not come out in the public sphere) into evidence of dishonest dealing is something the league is going to have a problem proving...but if they could, they absolutely should void the contract.

As to the rule itself...they should change it. Likely, they should change it one of two ways. Either set a limit for the number of years a contract can be signed....or simply make all years past the age of 35 mandatory cap hit years. I would prefer the latter, because I have no problem with teams locking up their players long-term.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you about the Hossa deal, it's clear circumvention.

The problem is that there are 4 other recent contracts, Lecavalier, Zetterberg, Franzen, and Ohlund that do the exact same thing and the NHL hasn't seen fit to look at those at all for some reason while wasting time looking at Pronger's deal. The NHL decided, based on no evidence, that players were much more likely play a season when they were 40 than they would when they were 41-42 despite no current data conclusively supporting that claim.

It's pretty pathetic.

As for your proposals, I'm fine with your 2nd idea.

EDIT: BTW, for future reference, Hossa is 19 months older than Zetterberg (both deals go into effect at the same time).

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 05:44 PM
  #116
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Oh, I absolutely agree with you about the Hossa deal, it's clear circumvention.

The problem is that there are 4 other recent contracts, Lecavalier, Zetterberg, Franzen, and Ohlund that do the exact same thing and the NHL hasn't seen fit to look at those at all for some reason while wasting time looking at Pronger's deal. The NHL decided, based on no evidence, that players were much more likely play a season when they were 40 than they would when they were 41-42 despite no current data conclusively supporting that claim.

It's pretty pathetic.

As for your proposals, I'm fine with your 2nd idea.

EDIT: BTW, for future reference, Hossa is 19 months older than Zetterberg (both deals go into effect at the same time).
Again, you're running into the problem of you have to pick something. Choosing after 40 years isn't most absurd thing in the world. The further along you go, the less likely it is that the player will still be playing hockey...they chose over 40. It's not some irrational thing, you're just complaining about the choice they made.

And, I agree, they should be looking into all of 'em, but just as they picked 35 for the one rule, it's not bizarre to look 5 years later. Nice round numbers, ya know.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 05:54 PM
  #117
ph
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Again, you're running into the problem of you have to pick something. Choosing after 40 years isn't most absurd thing in the world. The further along you go, the less likely it is that the player will still be playing hockey...they chose over 40. It's not some irrational thing, you're just complaining about the choice they made.

And, I agree, they should be looking into all of 'em, but just as they picked 35 for the one rule, it's not bizarre to look 5 years later. Nice round numbers, ya know.
Using 40 as a cutoff makes sense for the next CBA but you can't change the rules of contracts and then punish teams afterwards who are now in violation and you can't base investigations on an arbitrary cutoff of 40 you just decided to make. I do think it is hilarious the league is saying they don't think either player will play their whole contract but Zetterberg can play to 40 when he's had a bad back most of his career?

ph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 06:01 PM
  #118
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ph View Post
Using 40 as a cutoff makes sense for the next CBA but you can't change the rules of contracts and then punish teams afterwards who are now in violation and you can't base investigations on an arbitrary cutoff of 40 you just decided to make. I do think it is hilarious the league is saying they don't think either player will play their whole contract but Zetterberg can play to 40 when he's had a bad back most of his career?
...the issue has NOTHING to do with the actual contracts, and everything to do with whatever conversations the teams in question had with the players about their retirement. No one is disputing that the contracts themselves are legal, it's whether those are honest contracts or not.

What they would be getting punished for is essentially committing contractual fraud in order to circumvent the cap by putting years on a contract that neither party expects to be fulfilled.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 09:31 PM
  #119
kicksave27
Registered User
 
kicksave27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,247
vCash: 500
anyone else imagine bettman dressed like nero with a fiddle? if he was running a country as bad as he ran the NHL his own people would have deposed him by now.

kicksave27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 09:33 PM
  #120
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kicksave27 View Post
anyone else imagine bettman dressed like nero with a fiddle? if he was running a country as bad as he ran the NHL his own people would have deposed him by now.
we're trying dammit

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 09:39 PM
  #121
kicksave27
Registered User
 
kicksave27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,247
vCash: 500
dictators are hard to get rid off

kicksave27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 01:19 PM
  #122
Murphy7
Drop the puck
 
Murphy7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country:
Posts: 1,635
vCash: 500
Looks like Pronger's deal is being looked at again. Why????? The Flyers are stuck with the cap hit, which is different than all of the other deals in question.

http://www.faceoff.com/Luongo+deal+u...346/story.html

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=330099

Quote:
Bloch's ruling specifically mentioned the contracts of Luongo, Philadelphia Flyers defenceman Chris Pronger, Boston Bruins forward Marc Savard and Chicago Blackhawks forward Marian Hossa as deals that the league is still investigating.
"Each of these players will be 40 or over at the end of the contract term and each contract includes dramatic divebacks," Bloch wrote in his ruling. "Pronger's annual salary, for example, drops from $4,000,000 to $525,000 at the point he is earning almost 97% of the total $34,450,000 salary.

Murphy7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 01:25 PM
  #123
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphy7 View Post
Looks like Pronger's deal is being looked at again. Why????? The Flyers are stuck with the cap hit, which is different than all of the other deals in question.

http://www.faceoff.com/Luongo+deal+u...346/story.html

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=330099
Not really news, they never "closed" the investigation. That being said, the difference between the 35+ Pronger contract and the others appears to evade pretty much every pundit out there, which is mesmerizing to me. They certainly tacked on extra years to bring down the cap hit, and Pronger may or may not play those years... but they are very different animals as far as the ramifications to the team there.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 01:35 PM
  #124
phillyfanatic
Registered User
 
phillyfanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not really news, they never "closed" the investigation. That being said, the difference between the 35+ Pronger contract and the others appears to evade pretty much every pundit out there, which is mesmerizing to me. They certainly tacked on extra years to bring down the cap hit, and Pronger may or may not play those years... but they are very different animals as far as the ramifications to the team there.
ESPN Lebrun was saying why wasn't Prongers deal revoked, it was the same as Kovalchuk. At which point I almost puked. These guys get paid to do what we all do for free, have they ever even looked at a 35+ contract? If Pronger retires, The Flyers are still on the cap for 4.9 Million. If they send him to the minors 4.8 million. That deal is fine, look into Hossa if you want to look. Prongers deal is actually a "problem" for the Flyers, why start there?

"The CBA also contains a 35-and-over rule, sometimes referred to as the Mogilny rule[5]. This rule states that if a player signs a multi-year deal when the player is 35 or older, starting in the second year of the contract, that amount will count towards the team's salary cap regardless of whether the player is on the active roster or not. This is designed to keep teams from signing older players to lucrative front-loaded contracts, thus saving cap room, in which there is no expectation the player will actually play in the latter years."

phillyfanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 01:37 PM
  #125
Hollywood Couturier
Moderator
 
Hollywood Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,739
vCash: 500
http://insider.espn.go.com/nhl/blog?..._ej&id=5451297

Quote:
t was right there for anyone with a magnifying glass. Simply, the arbitrator tells all that the league continues to investigate similarly structured deals signed by Hossa, Roberto Luongo, Chris Pronger and Marc Savard. In the footnote, Bloch references the NHL's continuing investigation of those contracts, saying the league does so with "at least the possibility of a subsequent withdrawal of the registration."

That's interesting; in the NHL, apparently, just because you register a contract doesn't mean the league can't unregister that same contract. That's good to know.

On Monday evening, a high-ranking NHL official confirmed that the league is indeed continuing to investigate those four contracts. To what end, it's hard to know. Would the league really pull its approval of a previously registered deal? I doubt it, but at least for now, that remains a possibility -- albeit a remote one. After all, the league would have to undertake a similar process with each player in front of different arbitrators.
I know it's a insider article but figured i'd post that part at least.

__________________

"I Came Here To Bury Caesar, Not Praise Him" - Roy Halladay
Hollywood Couturier 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 01:31 AM.

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.