HFBoards

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

League to Challenge Pronger Contract

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2010, 12:15 PM
  #26
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I just did.

You keep bringing up this 35+ Rule, which we don't even know if the Flyers knew about it, but it is completely irrelevant. The 35+ Rule isn't going to save them, if they even need saving.
The 35+ rule was in theory designed to prevent cap circumvention.

It's so you can't throw a boatload at an older player over a few years, drive the cap down, and have them retire.

In Pronger's case, the 35+ rule is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Pronger is being paid over $34M over 7 years, with just over $1 in the last two years. That's cap circumvention. Moreover, Chris Pronger would never reduce himself to play for the league minimum at age 41, he'd sooner retire. We all know that. Chris Chelios was getting paid more into his 40s.
That's not cap circumvention. If it was cap circumvention, then every player with a frontloaded and backloaded contract is cap circumvention.

These are the following Flyers that have cap circumvention contracts according to your theory: Briere, Richards, Pronger, Timonen, Carter, Hartnell, Laperriere, Giroux, Leino, Meszaros, Carle, Walker, Leighton.

Cap circumvention is when the full cap hit, spread out over the duration of the contract, is not paid in full. That can only happen when a player's cap hit is not on the NHL record, regardless of the team he plays for. If it only effected one team, then salary dumps like Gagne, and if we were to dump Briere or anyone else, would be illegal under the grounds of cap circumvention.

So trades cannot be cap circumvention. The only way for their to be cap circumvention is LTIR and retirement. 35+ rules out retirement. Even if Pronger retired, the full cap hit charge of his contract would be paid in full. As far as LTIR is concerned, I'd be damned if the league let any team falsify an LTIR. They have doctors for that kind of stuff obviously.

So regardless of what Pronger is getting paid, there is no cap circumvention taking place.

The reason why these contracts were brought up was that there could be cap circumvention on the grounds of retirement before the end of the contract. In Pronger's case, that point does not matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
With that said, it's still within the rules of the CBA, as demonstrated by other teams doing similar contracts. Rick Nash, when he signed his contract extension, went back to the Blue Jackets and asked for an extra year, just to lower his cap hit (this is documented). That's still cap circumvention, but was ok'd.
Because it's not cap circumvention if the full cap hit is paid. Otherwise every frontloaded and backloaded contract is cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
These contract where they're getting paid peanuts in the least 2 or 3 years of the deal are done deliberately to get around the cap. The obvious intention here is to trade 12 2nd round draft picks to the Islanders if Pronger is going to retire, but the league is not going to wait 5 years just in case he doesn't finish the contract.
A trade is not cap circumvention, as I pointed out before.

GJK, you are completely incorrect on this topic. In spirit, you may have the right idea, but in reality, it's not even close.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:15 PM
  #27
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,895
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrindamoursNose View Post
I think the problem is that people have two different definitions of what cap "circumvention" is.
I use what's in the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumvention

circumvent (ˌsɜːkəmˈvɛnt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

vb
1. to evade or go around
2. to outwit
3. to encircle (an enemy) so as to intercept or capture

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
For me, it's also the years too. Signing a player for 7 years with the last one or two as "circumvention years" compared to signing a player to 12 years is a lot different for me.
It's different, but deliberate at that. It is, but it says they can so this.

If it was OK to register at that time, it should be OK now. It either was or it wasn't which makes these "investigations" a witch hunt because the NHL didn't completely cover their ass, especially when the PA had theirs bent over.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:16 PM
  #28
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,687
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I just did.

You keep bringing up this 35+ Rule, which we don't even know if the Flyers knew about it, but it is completely irrelevant. The 35+ Rule isn't going to save them, if they even need saving.

Pronger is being paid over $34M over 7 years, with just over $1 in the last two years. That's cap circumvention. Moreover, Chris Pronger would never reduce himself to play for the league minimum at age 41, he'd sooner retire. We all know that. Chris Chelios was getting paid more into his 40s.

With that said, it's still within the rules of the CBA, as demonstrated by other teams doing similar contracts. Rick Nash, when he signed his contract extension, went back to the Blue Jackets and asked for an extra year, just to lower his cap hit (this is documented). That's still cap circumvention, but was ok'd.

These contract where they're getting paid peanuts in the least 2 or 3 years of the deal are done deliberately to get around the cap. The obvious intention here is to trade 12 2nd round draft picks to the Islanders if Pronger is going to retire, but the league is not going to wait 5 years just in case he doesn't finish the contract.
This. It's cap circumvention, but it's technically allowed within the parameters of the CBA. Adding years to decrease the cap hit is cap circumvention, but is technically allowed. Kovalchuk went so far to adding a ridiculous amount of years to the point that the league couldn't allow it. Richards' contract is cap circumvention, so is Luongo's, Hossa's, Zetterberg's, Franzen's, Savard's, and others.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:19 PM
  #29
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,687
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
That's not cap circumvention. If it was cap circumvention, then every player with a frontloaded and backloaded contract is cap circumvention.

Because it's not cap circumvention if the full cap hit is paid. Otherwise every frontloaded and backloaded contract is cap circumvention.
You really don't get it. Cap circumvention is legal, and illegal at the same time. It's technically legal within the CBA, but illegal in the sense that if you take it too far, the league will call you out on it and void the contract, like Kovalchuk.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:19 PM
  #30
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I use what's in the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumvention

circumvent (ˌsɜːkəmˈvɛnt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

vb
1. to evade or go around
2. to outwit
3. to encircle (an enemy) so as to intercept or capture
Exactly, to evade the salary cap. No one can evade the salary cap in Pronger's case unless he is legitimately unable to play, i.e. Hatcher/Rathje. Therefore no circumvention can occur.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:20 PM
  #31
BrindamoursNose
Registered User
 
BrindamoursNose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I use what's in the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumvention

circumvent (ˌsɜːkəmˈvɛnt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

vb
1. to evade or go around
2. to outwit
3. to encircle (an enemy) so as to intercept or capture
.
That's my point though...I look at the definition (which I know already, thanks), but it's up for interpretation still.

Is evading the cap using extra years to lower the cap hit? or is evading the cap doing that + being able to hop out of the contract easily at the end? (meaning under 35 contract)?

BrindamoursNose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:21 PM
  #32
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
You really don't get it. Cap circumvention is legal, and illegal at the same time. It's technically legal within the CBA, but illegal in the sense that if you take it too far, the league will call you out on it and void the contract, like Kovalchuk.
No, I get it very well.

In theory you "circumvent" part of the cap in the short-term, but in the long-term, you don't circumvent any cap as long as you pay for the entirety of the contract.

You're concerning yourself with a short-term view of circumvention, when unfortunately for you, most contracts are longer than 1 year.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:29 PM
  #33
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,895
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
The 35+ rule was in theory designed to prevent cap circumvention.

It's so you can't throw a boatload at an older player over a few years, drive the cap down, and have them retire.

In Pronger's case, the 35+ rule is doing exactly what it was designed to do.



That's not cap circumvention. If it was cap circumvention, then every player with a frontloaded and backloaded contract is cap circumvention.

These are the following Flyers that have cap circumvention contracts according to your theory: Briere, Richards, Pronger, Timonen, Carter, Hartnell, Laperriere, Giroux, Leino, Meszaros, Carle, Walker, Leighton.

Cap circumvention is when the full cap hit, spread out over the duration of the contract, is not paid in full. That can only happen when a player's cap hit is not on the NHL record, regardless of the team he plays for. If it only effected one team, then salary dumps like Gagne, and if we were to dump Briere or anyone else, would be illegal under the grounds of cap circumvention.

So trades cannot be cap circumvention. The only way for their to be cap circumvention is LTIR and retirement. 35+ rules out retirement. Even if Pronger retired, the full cap hit charge of his contract would be paid in full. As far as LTIR is concerned, I'd be damned if the league let any team falsify an LTIR. They have doctors for that kind of stuff obviously.

So regardless of what Pronger is getting paid, there is no cap circumvention taking place.

The reason why these contracts were brought up was that there could be cap circumvention on the grounds of retirement before the end of the contract. In Pronger's case, that point does not matter.



Because it's not cap circumvention if the full cap hit is paid. Otherwise every frontloaded and backloaded contract is cap circumvention.



A trade is not cap circumvention, as I pointed out before.

GJK, you are completely incorrect on this topic. In spirit, you may have the right idea, but in reality, it's not even close.
Actually it's very close. If you give a guy $7.6M for 2 years and then a few years later give him $525K to do the same job, that's a significant difference, and yes the Briere contract is very similar even if it's not as extreme.

I didn't even bring up LTIR, so, that's sort of irrelevant. They're not going to try to put him on it if he has a broken pinky nail.

A calculated dispersing of a contract based on an agreement is different, so no, that isn't my theory at all. Paying different amounts of a real salary is different than the obvious discount Pronger gets at the end of his contract. That's done more to help the budget of teams like Buffalo who can't keep up and still want to sign players to decent contracts, not to do what some of these teams are doing, even if the NHL was naive enough to not outline it. Paying Scott Hartnell $3.2M in the last year of his deal is a far different animal than paying Chris Pronger $1.05M over the last two years. So, stop acting like it's the same, because it's not.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:35 PM
  #34
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,687
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
It depends on how you, and the league, view "circumvention". Yeah, they're paying him the entirety of the contract, but they are "avoiding" a higher cap hit, as is the definition of circumvention, by adding years at the end where the salary is low to lower the cap hit.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:37 PM
  #35
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Actually it's very close. If you give a guy $7.6M for 2 years and then a few years later give him $525K to do the same job, that's a significant difference, and yes the Briere contract is very similar even if it's not as extreme.

I didn't even bring up LTIR, so, that's sort of irrelevant. They're not going to try to put him on it if he has a broken pinky nail.

A calculated dispersing of a contract based on an agreement is different, so no, that isn't my theory at all. Paying different amounts of a real salary is different than the obvious discount Pronger gets at the end of his contract. That's done more to help the budget of teams like Buffalo who can't keep up and still want to sign players to decent contracts, not to do what some of these teams are doing, even if the NHL was naive enough to not outline it. Paying Scott Hartnell $3.2M in the last year of his deal is a far different animal than paying Chris Pronger $1.05M over the last two years. So, stop acting like it's the same, because it's not.
It doesn't matter if it's the same. At the end of the day, it's not cap circumvention because of the 35+ contract.

There is no cap being circumvented regardless.

At that point, since there is no possibility for the cap to be circumvented, it falls into the realm of signee's discretion. If Pronger didn't get what he was due, that's his fault. In the eyes of the league though, it's no different than if I were to pay Giroux $5.00m next year and $1.00m/year for four years after that. In the end, it's Giroux's fault for taking that little money.

If the Flyers could possibly circumvent the cap through Pronger's retirement, then there would be a legitimate cause for concern based on those final two years.

Even so, you might as well treat Pronger's contract as if it were $4.92m each year. It won't change anything for the Flyers if you restructure his contract. If Pronger chooses to retire then that's his choice, but for the Flyers, it only means they lose the player, not the cap hit for that player.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:42 PM
  #36
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
It depends on how you, and the league, view "circumvention". Yeah, they're paying him the entirety of the contract, but they are "avoiding" a higher cap hit, as is the definition of circumvention, by adding years at the end where the salary is low to lower the cap hit.
They're not avoiding anything.

The Savings:
2010-11: +2.68
2011-12: +2.68
2012-13: +2.28
2013-14: +2.08
2014-15: -0.92
2015-16: -4.40
2016-17: -4.40
NET: 0.00

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:47 PM
  #37
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Exactly, to evade the salary cap. No one can evade the salary cap in Pronger's case unless he is legitimately unable to play, i.e. Hatcher/Rathje. Therefore no circumvention can occur.
adding the last 2 years of his deal with him making peanuts while within the rules is clearly circumvention. How can you sya otherwise? Then why not give him a 5 year deal for the amoutn of money he is scheduled to make int he first 5 year? Teh cap hit then goes up by a few million. So they stretched it out, all withint he rules to get a lower cap hit.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:50 PM
  #38
nuclear reactor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 506
vCash: 500
This might all work out well if the Flyers are forced to spread his money out evenly over the length of the contract and Pronger has to play those two extra years to get his money.

nuclear reactor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:52 PM
  #39
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
It really doesn't matter if its a 35+ contract or not. The fact that Pronger's cap hit is significantly lower because of those last 2 years is clearly cap circumvention. Yes, we are stuck with the cap hit even if he retires but it doesn't change the fact that for the next few years we are clearly getting over a million dollars more to spend on players in our "win now" period which is circumvention the cap.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:53 PM
  #40
C77
Registered User
 
C77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Junior's Farm
Country: United States
Posts: 12,888
vCash: 500
It's the NHL's own fault. The league should never have approved any of those blatantly obvious cheat contracts (Zetterberg, Hossa, Pronger, Savard) and now the league looks foolish investigating what it has already approved.

It also screws up the teams because they have to put everything on hold.

C77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:54 PM
  #41
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 30,944
vCash: 50
trade Pronger to Pittsburgh and this goes away

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:54 PM
  #42
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
adding the last 2 years of his deal with him making peanuts while within the rules is clearly circumvention. How can you sya otherwise? Then why not give him a 5 year deal for the amoutn of money he is scheduled to make int he first 5 year? Teh cap hit then goes up by a few million. So they stretched it out, all withint he rules to get a lower cap hit.
He gets a lower cap hit, but we get a cool $5m tacked on for two more years for a player that will either be very diminished skill-wise or may not even be on the team.

Everyone looks at the savings now but neglects the fact that we're screwed later on in the deal; something that most of the same people here now arguing with me were complaining about when Pronger's deal was announced in the first place.

You can't ignore things at your own convenience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
It really doesn't matter if its a 35+ contract or not. The fact that Pronger's cap hit is significantly lower because of those last 2 years is clearly cap circumvention. Yes, we are stuck with the cap hit even if he retires but it doesn't change the fact that for the next few years we are clearly getting over a million dollars more to spend on players in our "win now" period which is circumvention the cap.
It does matter because the 35+ rule was designed to prevent cap circumvention.

IT IS NOT CAP CIRCUMVENTION IF THERE IS NO CAP BEING CIRCUMVENTED.

How does everyone seem to miss that little fact?

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 12:56 PM
  #43
Chairman Maouth
Global Moderator
 
Chairman Maouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fire Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,741
vCash: 50
The title of this thread is misleading.

Chairman Maouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:01 PM
  #44
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
He gets a lower cap hit, but we get a cool $5m tacked on for two more years for a player that will either be very diminished skill-wise or may not even be on the team.

Everyone looks at the savings now but neglects the fact that we're screwed later on in the deal; something that most of the same people here now arguing with me were complaining about when Pronger's deal was announced in the first place.

You can't ignore things at your own convenience.



It does matter because the 35+ rule was designed to prevent cap circumvention.

IT IS NOT CAP CIRCUMVENTION IF THERE IS NO CAP BEING CIRCUMVENTED.

How does everyone seem to miss that little fact?
Not ignoring it at all. They want the savings now and will worry about the extra 2 years down the line. Yes it will hose them down the line. However i can clearly see them getting otu from under that cap hit either via injury or some other method(thats not the point though).That is how the flyers operate. Well since you said it means it it true. No cap circumvention here. They are circumventiong his cap hit though. Othwerwise they would have just given him a shorter term deal.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:03 PM
  #45
C77
Registered User
 
C77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Junior's Farm
Country: United States
Posts: 12,888
vCash: 500
The whole thing is ridiculous because the Flyers organization (just like the other teams with these contracts) have made other decisions based on Pronger's league-approved contract. It's completely unfair to all of a sudden declare the contract void.

What if (just a hypothetical) Pronger had been traded this year by the Flyers...would the team that got him in the trade then get screwed over by having him become a UFA?

C77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:05 PM
  #46
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,895
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
It doesn't matter if it's the same. At the end of the day, it's not cap circumvention because of the 35+ contract.

There is no cap being circumvented regardless.
Yes it does matter, and no the 35+ does not. Because they didn't know the rule when they got Pronger to sign the contract, so that's not a legitimate defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
At that point, since there is no possibility for the cap to be circumvented, it falls into the realm of signee's discretion. If Pronger didn't get what he was due, that's his fault. In the eyes of the league though, it's no different than if I were to pay Giroux $5.00m next year and $1.00m/year for four years after that. In the end, it's Giroux's fault for taking that little money.
Becomes irrelevant. It was Kovalchuk's fault he wanted to be paid a minimum salary for 6 years, but that didn't stop them from putting the kibosh on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
If the Flyers could possibly circumvent the cap through Pronger's retirement, then there would be a legitimate cause for concern based on those final two years.

Even so, you might as well treat Pronger's contract as if it were $4.92m each year. It won't change anything for the Flyers if you restructure his contract. If Pronger chooses to retire then that's his choice, but for the Flyers, it only means they lose the player, not the cap hit for that player.
Trading dead cap space is absolutely cap circumvention, and the league isn't going to wait for it to happen to judge upon it. They want that option taken completely off the table, since it's very real.

Part of the ruling on Kovalchuk was that Kovalchuk's no-move becomes a no-trade so that it would be easier to lose his cap hit. This is not trading Gomez or Gagne because they don't fit under it, this is trading someone who isn't even playing to lose the whole cap hit. Of course Pronger would have to be retired, but the league isn't sitting around waiting for that to happen. They want teams abiding by the cap and it's purpose, not to manipulate it. That's not the same thing as paying Andrej Meszaros a different salary every season.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:05 PM
  #47
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
Not ignoring it at all. They want the savings now and will worry about the extra 2 years down the line. Yes it will hose them down the line. However i can clearly see them getting otu from under that cap hit either via injury or some other method(thats not the point though).That is how the flyers operate. Well since you said it means it it true. No cap circumvention here. They are circumventiong his cap hit though. Othwerwise they would have just given him a shorter term deal.
They are not circumventing anything. Not a single thing. I can't show you any more clearly. You'll just have to wake up at some point I guess.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:09 PM
  #48
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
They are not circumventing anything. Not a single thing. I can't show you any more clearly. You'll just have to wake up at some point I guess.
No you wake up chief. Then why did they not give him a 5 year deal for the exact same $ instead of a 7 year deal?

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:11 PM
  #49
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
He gets a lower cap hit, but we get a cool $5m tacked on for two more years for a player that will either be very diminished skill-wise or may not even be on the team.

Everyone looks at the savings now but neglects the fact that we're screwed later on in the deal; something that most of the same people here now arguing with me were complaining about when Pronger's deal was announced in the first place.

You can't ignore things at your own convenience.



It does matter because the 35+ rule was designed to prevent cap circumvention.

IT IS NOT CAP CIRCUMVENTION IF THERE IS NO CAP BEING CIRCUMVENTED.

How does everyone seem to miss that little fact?
Pronger's cap hit over the entirety of the contract is less than it would be if he signed a shorter contract that actually paid him what he's worth. The Salary Cap is partly designed to ensure that teams cannot get too good just by throwing money at players; Pronger tacking on throwaway years at the league minimum salary allows us to get a lower cap hit for a player of his quality in order to spend more on other players. Which attempts to circumvent the salary cap's goal of making sure teams cannot overspend to stack their rosters.

How do you seem to miss that little fact?

Having a less-able Pronger at his 4.92 cap hit at the last 2 years or so of his contract is worth having 3-5 years of beastmode Pronger playing for less than his cap hit ought to be.

Just because the money all gets paid out doesn't mean that the contract isn't designed to get around certain rules.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:13 PM
  #50
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Yes it does matter, and no the 35+ does not. Because they didn't know the rule when they got Pronger to sign the contract, so that's not a legitimate defense.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Becomes irrelevant. It was Kovalchuk's fault he wanted to be paid a minimum salary for 6 years, but that didn't stop them from putting the kibosh on it.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Trading dead cap space is absolutely cap circumvention, and the league isn't going to wait for it to happen to judge upon it. They want that option taken completely off the table, since it's very real.
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.

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Part of the ruling on Kovalchuk was that Kovalchuk's no-move becomes a no-trade so that it would be easier to lose his cap hit. This is not trading Gomez or Gagne because they don't fit under it, this is trading someone who isn't even playing to lose the whole cap hit. Of course Pronger would have to be retired, but the league isn't sitting around waiting for that to happen. They want teams abiding by the cap and it's purpose, not to manipulate it. That's not the same thing as paying Andrej Meszaros a different salary every season.
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.

CS 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 05:19 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.