HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

League to Challenge Pronger Contract

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2010, 01:14 PM
  #51
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
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?
I'm not your chief pal.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:15 PM
  #52
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 infidelappel View Post
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.
Again, that's not circumvention. Otherwise every frontloaded and backloaded deal falls into the realm of circumvention.

The NHL is exploring these specific contracts based on the theory of retirement. They're not re-analyzing the part of the CBA that allows such contracts to exist.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:18 PM
  #53
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I'm not your chief pal.
i know what you are but this is a fmaily message board. so answer the question. Why didnt they give him a year deal for the same 4 instead of a 7 year deal.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:19 PM
  #54
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
i know what you are but this is a fmaily message board. so answer the question. Why didnt they give him a year deal for the same 4 instead of a 7 year deal.
To spread his cap hit out over a longer amount of time.

Why did they give Briere his deal?

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:20 PM
  #55
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I'm not your chief pal.
why then didnt they give him a 5 year deal for the same $, instead of a 7 year deal. What is your explanation for that?

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:20 PM
  #56
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Again, that's not circumvention. Otherwise every frontloaded and backloaded deal falls into the realm of circumvention.

The NHL is exploring these specific contracts based on the theory of retirement. They're not re-analyzing the part of the CBA that allows such contracts to exist.
I don't agree. Frontloaded and backloaded deals for players who are ostensibly signed through the end of their career is very different from contracts for younger players. Frontloaded/backloaded contracts have to be looked at on a per-case basis, relative to the player's age and past/expected performance, in order to evaluate what they're doing. It's one thing to think Giroux will steadily earn more money each year over the next six or seven, for example, than to think Pronger is worth millions for the next five years, and then suddenly only worth 1 million over the last two of his contract. Those last two years are obviously only there to decrease his cap hit over the duration of his entire contract, which violates the spirit of the salary cap. Hence the reason why it's being looked at. If there was no circumvention going on because we still have to take the hit if he retires, why would they be looking at it?

Just face it: 'cap circumvention' is a bit of a fuzzy topic, and it's something the league is learning how to deal with because owners and GMs are finding ways to manipulate the rules. Pronger's contract is technically legal, but to act like it doesn't circumvent the purpose of the cap in spirit is just foolish. Let's be honest: contracts like Pronger's break the rules in spirit if not in accordance to the letter of the law.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:23 PM
  #57
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
To spread his cap hit out over a longer amount of time.

Why did they give Briere his deal?
I would say yes that is why. To get a lower cap hit. So they manipulated the cap hit did they not? they want the cap space int he first few years to have more $ to allocate to other players. They will then worry about the consequnces of having those extra 2 years later. There really was no need to give those extra 2 years except to lower the cap hit. That is clearly manipulating the cap all the while doign it legally.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:28 PM
  #58
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
If they investigate us before Hossa/Luongo/Franzen/Zetterberg/Savard, that's a frickin travesty.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:28 PM
  #59
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
.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.

In your scenario, Pronger plays out his deal. If we were to pay him 4.92 million ever year, is that cap circumvention? Of course not. It's the same exact thing, provided that he plays every year of the contract. The cap circumvention issue doesn't com into play until players start missing the tail ends of those deals. What if we signed him to a 3 year, 21 million deal now, then a smaller deal later, and it averaged out to 4.92 million? You're basically saying if the contract in anyway causes the cap hit to stray in any year from what the player's projected worth is, it is cap circumvention.

Really, the way I view the Pronger deal, (in effect, not necessarily the Flyers' original intention IMO), is that they are getting a 6+ million dollar player, but they are amortizing that cost a little bit. They still have to pay the piper, cap-wise, it's just the structure of the contract makes it hurt later instead of now. The possibility of cap circumvention isn't itself cap circumvention. A cap-dump trade or fraudulent LTIR assignment would only be circumvention if it were to happen.

But in the end I honestly think the Flyers were trying to tack on a few years thinking they weren't going to be bound by the over 35 rules. What can you do?


Last edited by Giroux tha Damaja: 08-15-2010 at 01:35 PM.
Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:31 PM
  #60
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,917
vCash: 5792
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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).


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:32 PM
  #61
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
In your scenario, Pronger plays out his deal. If we were to pay him 4.92 million ever year, is that cap circumvention? It's the same exact thing, provided that he plays every year of the contract. The cap circumvention issue doesn't com into play until players start missing the tail ends of those deals.

Really, the way I view the Pronger deal, (in effect, not necessarily the Flyers' original intention IMO), is that they are getting a 6+ million dollar player, but they are amortizing that cost a little bit. They still have to pay the piper, cap-wise, it's just the structure of the contract makes it hurt later instead of now. The possibility of cap circumvention isn't itself cap circumvention. A cap-dump trade or fraudulent LTIR assignment would be the circumvention if it were to happen.

But in the end I honestly think the Flyers were trying to tack on a few years thinking they weren't going to be bound by the over 35 rules. What can you do?
See, that's the problem with all of this speculation: the idea of cap circumvention is sketchy at best, and can be interpreted in many ways. That's why they have arbitrators come in and decide these things, and investigate contracts on a per-case basis.

Getting a 6+ million dollar player for a cap hit of under 5 million is one way of trying to get around the rules of the salary cap world. Technically, I think Pronger's contract won't be rejected because ultimately the 35+ rule keeps his hit on the books and therefore you're missing one of the elements that made the Kovy deal so ridiculous. However, I think that the contract still violates the spirit of the rule.

Even if these contracts don't get rejected now, I have a feeling there may be some sticking points with them when the next CBA rolls around. I wouldn't be surprised if some clause is added so that the single-year monetary amounts attached to contracts all have to be within a certain percentage of each other to avoid frontloaded or backloaded contracts that are clearly designed to lower cap hit relative to what a player's hit should be.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:40 PM
  #62
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
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?
Child please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
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).
Fine, let's say they didn't know it. It still doesn't matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I don't need to. See below. The Sharks also knew Vladimir Malakhov was never going to play a game for them.

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.
Then add a stipulation to the 35+ contract that disallows trades. Since it doesn't fall under the realm of cap circumvention, that's about all they can do.

If they were smart, they would've put that stipulation in when they wrote up the CBA seeing as that's what the 35+ rule was designed to do. The NHL opened their own loophole in the 35+ rule.

That's not the same as the loophole other teams are using for actual cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
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.
Not sure if you're agreeing with me or trying to refute me there.

Who will never get what?

The Flyers will never get Pronger to stay on the LTIR illegally? Obviously not.

The NHL will never get proof the Flyers are planning to trade before hand if they are indeed planning a trade? Obviously not.

Not sure what you're getting at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
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.
The league is trying to stop an "exit plan," yes.

But that's not as easy as saying a Pronger trade is cap circumvention. Technically it isn't, and on top of that, it's a lot easier to speculate a possible retirement as opposed to a possible trade scenario.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 01:42 PM
  #63
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 infidelappel View Post
See, that's the problem with all of this speculation: the idea of cap circumvention is sketchy at best, and can be interpreted in many ways. That's why they have arbitrators come in and decide these things, and investigate contracts on a per-case basis.

Getting a 6+ million dollar player for a cap hit of under 5 million is one way of trying to get around the rules of the salary cap world. Technically, I think Pronger's contract won't be rejected because ultimately the 35+ rule keeps his hit on the books and therefore you're missing one of the elements that made the Kovy deal so ridiculous. However, I think that the contract still violates the spirit of the rule.

Even if these contracts don't get rejected now, I have a feeling there may be some sticking points with them when the next CBA rolls around. I wouldn't be surprised if some clause is added so that the single-year monetary amounts attached to contracts all have to be within a certain percentage of each other to avoid frontloaded or backloaded contracts that are clearly designed to lower cap hit relative to what a player's hit should be.
You're missing the ONLY thing that made Kovalchuk's deal so ridiculous. If Kovalchuk retired, there would be no punishment, so basically they get to have their cake and throw out the plate when they're done as opposed to the Flyers, who get to eat their cake but are stuck washing the plate themselves when all is said and done.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:11 PM
  #64
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
People disagreeing with me is the cool thing to do these days.
Why do you think that is?

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:18 PM
  #65
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 I am The Mush View Post
Why do you think that is?
Obviously not because he's wrong.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:20 PM
  #66
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,917
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Child please?



Fine, let's say they didn't know it. It still doesn't matter.
Never heard of Chad John...uh...whoever he is now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Then add a stipulation to the 35+ contract that disallows trades. Since it doesn't fall under the realm of cap circumvention, that's about all they can do.


If they were smart, they would've put that stipulation in when they wrote up the CBA seeing as that's what the 35+ rule was designed to do. The NHL opened their own loophole in the 35+ rule.
Well, duh. Not all 35+ are designed like this. If they want to trade Ian Laperriere, they should still have every right to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
That's not the same as the loophole other teams are using for actual cap circumvention.
A loophole none the less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Not sure if you're agreeing with me or trying to refute me there.

Who will never get what?

The Flyers will never get Pronger to stay on the LTIR illegally? Obviously not.

The NHL will never get proof the Flyers are planning to trade before hand if they are indeed planning a trade? Obviously not.

Not sure what you're getting at.
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
The league is trying to stop an "exit plan," yes.
That's the idea here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
But that's not as easy as saying a Pronger trade is cap circumvention. Technically it isn't, and on top of that, it's a lot easier to speculate a possible retirement as opposed to a possible trade scenario.
Technically it's not because when the league filed the contract it wasn't. All contracts are supposed to be approved by the league as it pertains to the CBA. If there was a violation, they shouldn't have filed it. It's either compliant or it's not, however, the contract is still designed to keep Pronger's cap hit as low as they can with it looking as clean as possible.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:22 PM
  #67
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,690
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
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
Yes, they ****ing are. They deliberately added those last years to keep the cap hit lower. There are other types of cap circumvention other than giant contracts for guys that are under 35. It's you against everyone, wake up and realize it.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:30 PM
  #68
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
Yes, they ****ing are. They deliberately added those last years to keep the cap hit lower. There are other types of cap circumvention other than giant contracts for guys that are under 35. It's you against everyone, wake up and realize it.
There is no cap being circumvented.

Zero.

None.

It's not possible.

It doesn't matter if they deliberately added years. If you count this contract as cap circumvention, then every contract that changes the amount of salary a player actually receives has to be viewed as cap circumvention.

Cap Circumvention occurs when a team does not pay the entire charge of cap designated by the total dollar amount and length of a contract.

What you're citing is not circumvention. It's concentrating on the present and paying for it in the future. It's basically the same as trading away your draft picks for veterans. There's nothing illegal or circumventing about it.


Last edited by CS: 08-15-2010 at 02:49 PM.
CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:37 PM
  #69
King Forsberg
21 68 88 16 44 28
 
King Forsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 5,187
vCash: 300
I agree with Chris here. It cant be cap circumvention because even if Pronger retires the cap hit will still be there.

King Forsberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:39 PM
  #70
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,026
vCash: 500
I hate to say it but im with Shafer on this one. If Pronger's contract is circumvention then they damn well better nix any front or back loaded contract as circumvention as well.

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:44 PM
  #71
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
Yes, they ****ing are. They deliberately added those last years to keep the cap hit lower. There are other types of cap circumvention other than giant contracts for guys that are under 35. It's you against everyone, wake up and realize it.
Of course they added the last years to make the cap lower. So what? Thousands of contracts do the same exact thing. It's called front loading and it is NOT illegal under the CBA. Do the Flyers get a benefit by doing this? Sure, they lower the cap hit ~2 million dollars. But if Pronger does not play the entirety of the contract there is MASSIVE risk in signing this and there are negative repercussions for the player not playing out the contract, in the name of 5 million dollars of dead cap space for 2 years. Compare that to Kovalchuk who when he wanted to walk away, would leave the Devils with zero negative repercussions on the cap. THAT is cap circumvention.

The issue has entirely to do with the 35+ rule no matter how many people want to deny it. If you want to argue that front loaded contracts are cap circumvention then please explain why the CBA expressly defines how much a contract can fluctuate year by year?

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:48 PM
  #72
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,443
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
There is no cap being circumvented.

Zero.

None.

It's not possible.

It doesn't matter if they deliberately added years. If you count this contract as cap circumvention, then every contract that changes the amount of salary a player actually receives has to be viewed as cap circumvention.

Cap Circumvention occurs when a team does not pay the entire charge of cap designated by the total dollar amount and length of a contract.

What you're citing is not circumvention. It's concentrating on the future and paying for it in the past. It's basically the same as trading away your draft picks for veterans. There's nothing illegal or circumventing about it.
Cap circumvention is lowering a cap hit artificially when you know the player isn't going to play the final years.

You've been arguing that just because it's a 35+ contract, than it can't be cap circumvention. That's simply false. Just because your GM didn't understand the rules doesn't make the contract not circumventing the cap. You can't claim stupidity if you broke the law anywhere else, can you? Simply doesn't work.

I wouldn't have a problem with the Flyers trading Pronger's dead cap space like the Devils, essentially, did. It would cost the Flyers first round picks and/or top prospects.

You just cannot argue, however, that the contract is not circumventing the cap. Just because it will hurt your team pretty badly in the future doesn't mean the contract is not cap circumvention.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:50 PM
  #73
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,443
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inebriator View Post
I hate to say it but im with Shafer on this one. If Pronger's contract is circumvention then they damn well better nix any front or back loaded contract as circumvention as well.
Show me players who have huge front loaded deals where they are getting paid the minimum or slightly above it by the end of it who are not near their retirement years (and the deal never reaches there). These really don't exist. The only hugely front loaded deals have been to older players where the contract extends towards their retirement years. You generally don't see HUGELY front loaded deals in the NHL.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:53 PM
  #74
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Cap circumvention is lowering a cap hit artificially when you know the player isn't going to play the final years.

You've been arguing that just because it's a 35+ contract, than it can't be cap circumvention. That's simply false.
Just because your GM didn't understand the rules doesn't make the contract not circumventing the cap. You can't claim stupidity if you broke the law anywhere else, can you? Simply doesn't work.

I wouldn't have a problem with the Flyers trading Pronger's dead cap space like the Devils, essentially, did. It would cost the Flyers first round picks and/or top prospects.

You just cannot argue, however, that the contract is not circumventing the cap. Just because it will hurt your team pretty badly in the future doesn't mean the contract is not cap circumvention.

You clearly don't understand the situation. It doesn't matter if Pronger plays the final years, because it is a 35+ contract. Our GM attempted to circumvent the cap, but was unable to because he is dumb and didn't understand the rules.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 02:57 PM
  #75
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 Jonathan. View Post
Cap circumvention is lowering a cap hit artificially when you know the player isn't going to play the final years.
Regardless of whether Pronger plays his final years, we take on his cap hit. So for all intents and purposes, Pronger never retires. He's on that contract until the end no matter what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
You've been arguing that just because it's a 35+ contract, than it can't be cap circumvention. That's simply false.
I think I've clearly demonstrated that it can't possibly be cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Just because your GM didn't understand the rules doesn't make the contract not circumventing the cap. You can't claim stupidity if you broke the law anywhere else, can you? Simply doesn't work.
What do you mean? It doesn't matter how the contract came to be. All that matters is that it exists now. Holmgren has claimed he understood everything involved when he made that contract. Even so, whether he did or did not is completely irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if he claims stupidity because he didn't even break the law. There is no law being broken and there is no cap being circumvented.

Now, if this was not a 35+ contract, then there'd be a legitimate argument for it being thrown out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I wouldn't have a problem with the Flyers trading Pronger's dead cap space like the Devils, essentially, did. It would cost the Flyers first round picks and/or top prospects.
Yeah, I'd much rather see Pronger play out his contract than blow it on 1sts/bluechips.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
You just cannot argue, however, that the contract is not circumventing the cap. Just because it will hurt your team pretty badly in the future doesn't mean the contract is not cap circumvention.
It doesn't circumvent the cap. It's actually the opposite of what you're saying. In your right mind, you cannot possibly say that it circumvents the cap. It physically and quite literally cannot circumvent any cap. That's the way it was designed.

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 08:39 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.