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, 03:02 PM
  #76
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
If they investigate us before Hossa/Luongo/Franzen/Zetterberg/Savard, that's a frickin travesty.
Agreed.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:08 PM
  #77
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 73,363
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
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.
How am I missing the point? I am agreeing with you completely. But he also circumvented the cap for the time being since Pronger is on a lower-than-market value contract as of right now. Just because the GM is a moron doesn't make the contract not currently circumventing the cap. That's the point that's clearly being debated.

Just because I didn't know I can't kill people doesn't make me not a murderer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
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.
And? As I said -- just because your GM is an idiot doesn't make the contract not currently cap circumvention. He's being paid below market value due to an artificially lowered cap hit. Just because there are reprecussions down the line doesn't make it somehow right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I think I've clearly demonstrated that it can't possibly be cap circumvention.
The only thing you've demonstrated is a lack of understanding on what cap circumvention actually is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
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.
You really don't understand what cap circumvention is. It's the artificial lowering of a cap hit on a contract by front loading it significantly. Doesn't matter if the player is signed as a 27 year old or a 35 year old. Pronger is currently making below market value due to the added years at a minimum salary at the end of the deal. End of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Yeah, I'd much rather see Pronger play out his contract than blow it on 1sts/bluechips.
Clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
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.
I actually have a grasp on what cap circumvention is. You really do not. You are arguing just because it's a stupid contract with a pretty ****** self-inflicted punishment at the end that it's somehow not cap circumvention. This is just ridiculous. You were able to make a run for the Cup, despite being right up against the cap ceiling, due to Pronger's play and his artificially deflated salary. Do you not understand this?

The contract is pure cap circumvention. I'm OK with it since it will severely handicap your team in the future so I'd prefer to see it kept in place. But in all reality, it should be voided due to the clear cap circumvention taking place.

Again -- just because your team is punishing itself in the future (due to the non-grasping of the rules) does not mean the contract isn't currently circumventing the cap. It absolutely is and it almost won you a Cup this year (just as how Hossa's contract helped Chicago to win a Cup).

You need to really sit down and think about what you're saying. You do not have a grasp on what cap circumvention actually is.

__________________
"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, 03:13 PM
  #78
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post

You really don't understand what cap circumvention is. It's the artificial lowering of a cap hit on a contract by front loading it significantly. Doesn't matter if the player is signed as a 27 year old or a 35 year old. Pronger is currently making below market value due to the added years at a minimum salary at the end of the deal. End of story.




The contract is pure cap circumvention. I'm OK with it since it will severely handicap your team in the future so I'd prefer to see it kept in place. But in all reality, it should be voided due to the clear cap circumvention taking place.
the first part is 100% correct.

I dont think it will handicap them at all as after the next CBA there will be an out clause r something in place to make it go away imo.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:14 PM
  #79
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,396
vCash: 500
I have to agree with Shafer, I am the Mush, and Inebriator on this one.

The biggest reason why Kovalchuk's contract was so ridiculous was because it was pretty obvious he wouldn't play the last few years of that contract and the Devils wouldn't have to deal with his cap hit throughout the entirety of the contract. Pronger's deal is 10 years shorter and the Flyers are stuck with his cap hit no matter what.

Sure, he's getting paid near league minimum near the end of it. So what? That's called front-loading a contract and a very, very large amount of contracts do it. The 35+ rule and Pronger's age gives us a bargain for the first three or four years of the contract and a very large risk for the last three our four years. That's not circumvention and it's not advantageous to us at all if Pronger doesn't help us win a Cup before his play starts to decline.

I don't see how anyone can argue that this is cap circumvention or that it's anywhere in the same league as the Hossa, Kovalchuk, Luongo, etc. contracts.

Kovalchuk's contract involved practically no risk at all for the Devils. Pronger's contract is a pretty big risk for the Flyers.

Let me ask you guys this. If the Devils were stuck with Kovalchuk's cap hit for the entirety of the contract (short of LTIR or something like that), would you guys be so against the contract? I'd be fine with it. Since the Devils would be assuming a huge risk just for the chance to win now.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:16 PM
  #80
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
How am I missing the point? I am agreeing with you completely. But he also circumvented the cap for the time being since Pronger is on a lower-than-market value contract as of right now. Just because the GM is a moron doesn't make the contract not currently circumventing the cap. That's the point that's clearly being debated.

Just because I didn't know I can't kill people doesn't make me not a murderer.



And? As I said -- just because your GM is an idiot doesn't make the contract not currently cap circumvention. He's being paid below market value due to an artificially lowered cap hit. Just because there are reprecussions down the line doesn't make it somehow right.



The only thing you've demonstrated is a lack of understanding on what cap circumvention actually is.



You really don't understand what cap circumvention is. It's the artificial lowering of a cap hit on a contract by front loading it significantly. Doesn't matter if the player is signed as a 27 year old or a 35 year old. Pronger is currently making below market value due to the added years at a minimum salary at the end of the deal. End of story.



Clearly.



I actually have a grasp on what cap circumvention is. You really do not. You are arguing just because it's a stupid contract with a pretty ****** self-inflicted punishment at the end that it's somehow not cap circumvention. This is just ridiculous. You were able to make a run for the Cup, despite being right up against the cap ceiling, due to Pronger's play and his artificially deflated salary. Do you not understand this?

The contract is pure cap circumvention. I'm OK with it since it will severely handicap your team in the future so I'd prefer to see it kept in place. But in all reality, it should be voided due to the clear cap circumvention taking place.

Again -- just because your team is punishing itself in the future (due to the non-grasping of the rules) does not mean the contract isn't currently circumventing the cap. It absolutely is and it almost won you a Cup this year (just as how Hossa's contract helped Chicago to win a Cup).

You need to really sit down and think about what you're saying. You do not have a grasp on what cap circumvention actually is.
You're a Rags fan, right? Didn't you use to have an Ugly Americans avatar?

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:20 PM
  #81
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
How am I missing the point? I am agreeing with you completely. But he also circumvented the cap for the time being since Pronger is on a lower-than-market value contract as of right now. Just because the GM is a moron doesn't make the contract not currently circumventing the cap. That's the point that's clearly being debated.

Just because I didn't know I can't kill people doesn't make me not a murderer.
Nobody has done anything illegal, not even Kovalchuk's contract was "illegal."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
And? As I said -- just because your GM is an idiot doesn't make the contract not currently cap circumvention. He's being paid below market value due to an artificially lowered cap hit. Just because there are reprecussions down the line doesn't make it somehow right.
You're right, just because Holmgren screwed up (if he even screwed up at all) doesn't make the contract not circumvent any cap. It's the fact that it doesn't circumvent any cap that makes it not circumvent any cap.

I have news for you: if this contract circumvents cap, then something like 80% of NHL contracts do as well. I know for a fact the majority of Flyers' contracts should be thrown out based on your theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
The only thing you've demonstrated is a lack of understanding on what cap circumvention actually is.
That's what you're doing. Altering the amount of money paid per season is NOT cap circumvention regardless of how much the dollar amount changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
You really don't understand what cap circumvention is. It's the artificial lowering of a cap hit on a contract by front loading it significantly.
That's not circumvention at all.

Circumvention is not paying the entirety of the cap charge created by the total dollar amount paid along with the number of years on the contract.

What you're saying is perfectly legal. In fact, Kovalchuk's contract was perfectly legal. It got thrown out because there was an inherent and almost blatant risk of cap circumvention through retirement.

Just "artificially altering" (because nothing is being lowered) the cap hit of a player by paying him more money when he wants more money is NOT circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Doesn't matter if the player is signed as a 27 year old or a 35 year old. Pronger is currently making below market value due to the added years at a minimum salary at the end of the deal. End of story.
Market value is whatever Pronger is signed at. I don't care if it's a discount or whatever you want to call it. His contract is his contract. Who are you to determine what Pronger deserves? Are we going to go through and arbitrate the entire NHL? If you plan on doing that you might as well remove GMs from the game completely. There's no need for them then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Clearly.
Yep.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I actually have a grasp on what cap circumvention is.
You're actually pretty freaking clueless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
You really do not. You are arguing just because it's a stupid contract with a pretty ****** self-inflicted punishment at the end that it's somehow not cap circumvention. This is just ridiculous.
No, what's ridiculous is that you want to throw out the vast majority of contracts in the NHL on the grounds of cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
You were able to make a run for the Cup, despite being right up against the cap ceiling, due to Pronger's play and his artificially deflated salary. Do you not understand this?
Pronger hasn't even started this contract. He was at like $6.25m/year last year in terms of cap hit or something.

Also, are you a Devils fan? I assume so being from NJ. Anyway, you were able to make the playoffs because of Parise's low cap hit. Do you understand that? Maybe you're circumventing, and the NHL should throw out his contract.

That's basically what you're suggesting for Pronger. It's an absolutely unbelievable argument you're trying to make right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
The contract is pure cap circumvention. I'm OK with it since it will severely handicap your team in the future so I'd prefer to see it kept in place. But in all reality, it should be voided due to the clear cap circumvention taking place.
It is NOT cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Again -- just because your team is punishing itself in the future (due to the non-grasping of the rules) does not mean the contract isn't currently circumventing the cap. It absolutely is and it almost won you a Cup this year (just as how Hossa's contract helped Chicago to win a Cup).
It's not circumventing the cap because it isn't circumventing the cap. That's just the way it is.

If you think that it's cap circumvention then go write Bettman a letter and tell him to redraft the CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
You need to really sit down and think about what you're saying. You do not have a grasp on what cap circumvention actually is.
Jesus ****ing christ.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:21 PM
  #82
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
I agree that there aren't as many EXACTLY like it or near exact, however what you are arguing is essentially a degree of circumvention that is allowable. So where is the line drawn between circumvention and simply a front loaded contract? Right now it appears that the line is drawn at the Kovalchuk contract.

On a different note, how ridiculous is it that the NHL will approve these contracts and let them sit for 1, 2 years and then talk about deeming them circumvention? What changed during that time? The contracts are the same. I really hope the NHL doesn't try to rule one or two of these contracts illegal and leave some of the others because there really is little that separates them. The only contract really that sticks out as being less likely to circumvent the cap is Pronger's because of the 35+ rule. Imagine if they were to de-register Pronger's SPC and leave Hossas. There are way too many problems to be messing with contracts that were already registered quite some time ago, and even more so those that have been in effect

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:23 PM
  #83
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Let me ask you guys this. If the Devils were stuck with Kovalchuk's cap hit for the entirety of the contract (short of LTIR or something like that), would you guys be so against the contract? I'd be fine with it. Since the Devils would be assuming a huge risk just for the chance to win now.
This.

A 44-year-old Kovalchuk would be a blast to play against.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:23 PM
  #84
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,818
vCash: 500
The main reason CBA/Salary Cap was put into to place, was to make the league more profitable.

The league does not want contracts that will mess with revenues, which is what the Kovy deal was pretty much going to do. In Pronger's case this will not mess up any revenues, because the contract will always be on someone's book. Thus the contract will be paid in full.

Yes it can be seen as cap circumvention, but in the grand scheme of things it should have no affect on the business side of Hockey, unlike the Hossa, Kovy, etc.. deals. Which is where Bettman and Co have a problem.

If people have a problem with Pronger's front loaded contract, then they should have a problem with every single front loaded contract, even if the last few years are not that much of a drop off. Because technically that team could trade the player once his Salary is less then his cap hit, which is cap circumvention.

If either Crosby or Malkin are traded before their UFA year would that be considered cap circumvention? I mean they would have payed them more then the cap hit. Do we have to look at every trade and see how much a team payed a player related to his cap hit?

KimiFerrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:27 PM
  #85
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I actually have a grasp on what cap circumvention is. You really do not. You are arguing just because it's a stupid contract with a pretty ****** self-inflicted punishment at the end that it's somehow not cap circumvention. This is just ridiculous. You were able to make a run for the Cup, despite being right up against the cap ceiling, due to Pronger's play and his artificially deflated salary. Do you not understand this?

Again -- just because your team is punishing itself in the future (due to the non-grasping of the rules) does not mean the contract isn't currently circumventing the cap. It absolutely is and it almost won you a Cup this year (just as how Hossa's contract helped Chicago to win a Cup).
This point doesn't hold water, Pronger was in the final year of his previous deal, whereas Hossa was in the first year of his "circumvention" contract

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:29 PM
  #86
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,004
vCash: 500
By the way, Jonathan.

If you want Pronger's contract thrown out based on what you're saying, then you basically want Lundqvist's and Parise's contracts thrown out as well.

I'm not sure if you're a Devils or Rangers fan, but that's about what it amounts to.

The vast majority of NHL contracts are frontloaded or backloaded.

In fact, those contracts, since they're not 35+, are technically more of a cap circumvention risk than Pronger. Funny how that works eh?

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:33 PM
  #87
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
How am I missing the point? I am agreeing with you completely. But he also circumvented the cap for the time being since Pronger is on a lower-than-market value contract as of right now. Just because the GM is a moron doesn't make the contract not currently circumventing the cap. That's the point that's clearly being debated.
You're missing the point in two ways:

We're stuck with Pronger's entire hit for the duration of his contract. retirement or no. So the attempted circumvention of having him retire at 40 is out the window.

Having a player on a "lower-than-market-value contract" does not in and of itself constitute cap circumvention. I would also argue that we will end up paying about market value for Pronger's services over the course of his contract. We are underpaying now (cap wise), but will likely be overpaying later (cap wise). We just happen to be enjoying the early part of the contract right now.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Just because I didn't know I can't kill people doesn't make me not a murderer.
No, but if you tried to kill someone, but were so dumb you ended up somehow mowing their lawn instead, that doesn't mean a murder has taken place.

Holmgren tried to sign him to a deal under the regular contract rules, not anticipating that the over 35+ rules applied. So his attempted circumvention was botched. He attempted to circumvent the cap, but was foiled. No circumvention took place, though ti was attempted.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:49 PM
  #88
Moose29
Registered User
 
Moose29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Newark, DE
Country: United States
Posts: 82
vCash: 500
Regardless of what people refer to as "cap circumvention", (and I agree with Schafer on this one) what everyone will agree to is that the Kovalchuk/Hossa....etc. deals and the Pronger deal are two different animals because of the 35+ contract.

The way I personally look at it is this: Kovalchuk would in essence be paid a large chunk of his contract under the table away from the eyes of the NHL and the cap, while Pronger's contract is all accounted for with the NHL and is all on the cap. Period.

Sure I understand that Pronger's cap hit is lower than it would be had it been a five year contract, but that's not circumventing the cap, it's merely spreading out a cap hit over more years. Pronger's contract is a double-edged sword to the Flyers and Kovalchuk's contract is a single-edged sword (no sword?) to the Devils, if that makes sense.

At least that's how I look at it.

Moose29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:51 PM
  #89
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose29 View Post
Regardless of what people refer to as "cap circumvention", (and I agree with Schafer on this one) what everyone will agree to is that the Kovalchuk/Hossa....etc. deals and the Pronger deal are two different animals because of the 35+ contract.

The way I personally look at it is this: Kovalchuk would in essence be paid a large chunk of his contract under the table away from the eyes of the NHL and the cap, while Pronger's contract is all accounted for with the NHL and is all on the cap. Period.

Sure I understand that Pronger's cap hit is lower than it would be had it been a five year contract, but that's not circumventing the cap, it's merely spreading out a cap hit over more years. Pronger's contract is a double-edged sword to the Flyers and Kovalchuk's contract is a single-edged sword (no sword?) to the Devils, if that makes sense.

At least that's how I look at it.
Plus Kovalchuk was signed to 17 years and Pronger was signed to 7. That's a huge difference.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:57 PM
  #90
Moose29
Registered User
 
Moose29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Newark, DE
Country: United States
Posts: 82
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Plus Kovalchuk was signed to 17 years and Pronger was signed to 7. That's a huge difference.
Right. What would make sense for the league to do would be to turn any contract that extends past the player turns 35 into a 35+ contract. Then I wouldn't have a problem with the Kovalchuk contract.

I haven't really thought out the ramifications for that yet but it seems good to me at the moment haha.

Moose29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 03:58 PM
  #91
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 73,363
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
By the way, Jonathan.

If you want Pronger's contract thrown out based on what you're saying, then you basically want Lundqvist's and Parise's contracts thrown out as well.

I'm not sure if you're a Devils or Rangers fan, but that's about what it amounts to.

The vast majority of NHL contracts are frontloaded or backloaded.

In fact, those contracts, since they're not 35+, are technically more of a cap circumvention risk than Pronger. Funny how that works eh?
Are you kidding? Lundqvist is making over 5M the last year of his contract. It was frontloaded to give him a bit up front. This is nowhere near like the Pronger, etc. contracts. Now you're arguing just for the sake of it. There's a massive difference in having a 4M drop during RETIREMENT YEARS than to a guy making 5M at the end of his contract.

They are nothing alike whatsoever. You are so far off base it's not even funny, man.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:06 PM
  #92
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Are you kidding? Lundqvist is making over 5M the last year of his contract. It was frontloaded to give him a bit up front. This is nowhere near like the Pronger, etc. contracts. Now you're arguing just for the sake of it. There's a massive difference in having a 4M drop during RETIREMENT YEARS than to a guy making 5M at the end of his contract.
Not based on what you're saying.

Basically you're either picking on Pronger just because it's Pronger or because it's the Flyers, or you're saying that all NHL frontloaded and backloaded contracts are inherently some form of circumvention and thus should be thrown out.

If you're not admitting to either of those charges right now, you're a hypocrite.

Well, that or you have no idea what you're saying, which I'm willing to guess is the right answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
They are nothing alike whatsoever. You are so far off base it's not even funny, man.
The level of cluelessness pouring off you and into the Flyers' forum is actually kind of sickening. I recommend you just drop the subject.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:13 PM
  #93
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 73,363
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose29 View Post
Regardless of what people refer to as "cap circumvention", (and I agree with Schafer on this one) what everyone will agree to is that the Kovalchuk/Hossa....etc. deals and the Pronger deal are two different animals because of the 35+ contract.
The way I personally look at it is this: Kovalchuk would in essence be paid a large chunk of his contract under the table away from the eyes of the NHL and the cap, while Pronger's contract is all accounted for with the NHL and is all on the cap. Period.

Sure I understand that Pronger's cap hit is lower than it would be had it been a five year contract, but that's not circumventing the cap, it's merely spreading out a cap hit over more years. Pronger's contract is a double-edged sword to the Flyers and Kovalchuk's contract is a single-edged sword (no sword?) to the Devils, if that makes sense.

At least that's how I look at it.
They definitely are.

The Kovalchuk contract was just plain cheating. The league took swift and justifiable action against it and won. Thank God.

The Pronger contract is funny. It will severely hamper the team down the road if they need to move picks and prospects to get rid of his cap hit (and if he retires, they can't do jack **** with it other than live with it).



Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
You're missing the point in two ways:

We're stuck with Pronger's entire hit for the duration of his contract. retirement or no. So the attempted circumvention of having him retire at 40 is out the window.
But tell me how this matters? You are getting him at a discount now. It helped you almost win a Cup due to circumventing the cap. Again -- just because you're going to be punished in the future does not mean it is not CURRENTLY *TODAY* cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
Having a player on a "lower-than-market-value contract" does not in and of itself constitute cap circumvention. I would also argue that we will end up paying about market value for Pronger's services over the course of his contract. We are underpaying now (cap wise), but will likely be overpaying later (cap wise). We just happen to be enjoying the early part of the contract right now.
I agree that just because someone is on a lower-than-market-value contract doesn't mean it's cap circumvention. Players take discounts all the time to play for their teams. But when the contract is artificially lowered in the case of extending it years down the road for minimum dollar value? That constitutes cap circumvention no matter how you slice it. You really cannot say it's not cap circumvention.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Nobody has done anything illegal, not even Kovalchuk's contract was "illegal."
Oh, now you're arguing semantics? Nice!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
You're right, just because Holmgren screwed up (if he even screwed up at all) doesn't make the contract not circumvent any cap. It's the fact that it doesn't circumvent any cap that makes it not circumvent any cap.

I have news for you: if this contract circumvents cap, then something like 80% of NHL contracts do as well. I know for a fact the majority of Flyers' contracts should be thrown out based on your theory.
Start pointing out all these contracts that circumvent the cap by dipping to near league minimum salaries at the end of the deals. You can skip the Rangers because we don't have any. So that leaves another 29 teams for you to go through and point out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Circumvention is not paying the entirety of the cap charge created by the total dollar amount paid along with the number of years on the contract.

What you're saying is perfectly legal. In fact, Kovalchuk's contract was perfectly legal. It got thrown out because there was an inherent and almost blatant risk of cap circumvention through retirement.
That is NOT the only thing that cap circumvention is. Cap circumvention is ALSO adding the extended years that are around the minimum salary (or slightly above). These two play hand in hand because, generally, these years start around the age of 40. There is a "blatant risk" that Pronger will retire before the end of his cap. It just so happens that your GM didn't understand the rules when he signed him.

This does not matter. At all. It helped you almost win a Cup this year due to the artificially lowered cap hit. You seem to think that just because you're going to get hurt later, today somehow doesn't matter. Just laughable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Market value is whatever Pronger is signed at. I don't care if it's a discount or whatever you want to call it. His contract is his contract. Who are you to determine what Pronger deserves? Are we going to go through and arbitrate the entire NHL? If you plan on doing that you might as well remove GMs from the game completely. There's no need for them then.
And we see the market value of Pronger during his first few years. Then it drops to nothing. That's not market value. That's circumventing the cap to artificially lower the cap hit. Try and argue otherwise -- you just will end up looking foolish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
No, what's ridiculous is that you want to throw out the vast majority of contracts in the NHL on the grounds of cap circumvention.
Again -- show me all of these contracts that would violate the cap. There are a few of them, and the majority of these are still under investigation. Just because a contract is front loaded does not mean it's there to circumvent the cap.

Players do tend to want the majority of their money up front. The league and an arbitrator, though, have now shown that placing these minimum wage years at the end of a contract violates the CBA and is cap circumvention. When something is so obvious (as to the Pronger, Hossa, Kovalchuk, etc. deals) like that? Well, it makes it easy for anyone with half a brain to see the cap circumvention.

The quip about Parise is nice and all, but that's all about limiting contract years rather than cap circumvention. Backloading a contract to buy some UFA years of a young player is simply nothing like having LEAGUE MINIMUM SALARY YEARS at the end of a players career WHEN HE WON'T ****ING PLAY. What is so hard about this? The contracts are not comparable. There is no risk of Parise quitting before his contract is up and seeing all the years that the Devils benefitted from having him at a minimal cap hit be questionable.

Apples and oranges. Just because you're trying to paint the apple orange, doesn't mean it suddenly can make delicious, pulpy juice.

Devils fans had the same arguments that you did about frontloading. Guess who was right?

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:17 PM
  #94
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 73,363
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Not based on what you're saying.

Basically you're either picking on Pronger just because it's Pronger or because it's the Flyers, or you're saying that all NHL frontloaded and backloaded contracts are inherently some form of circumvention and thus should be thrown out.

If you're not admitting to either of those charges right now, you're a hypocrite.

Well, that or you have no idea what you're saying, which I'm willing to guess is the right answer.



The level of cluelessness pouring off you and into the Flyers' forum is actually kind of sickening. I recommend you just drop the subject.
How is anything I am saying hypocritical? I feel that the contracts that dip into these miniscule amounts at the end to artificially lower the cap hit are against the spirit of the cap. Just because some contracts are frontloaded a bit doesn't make them remotely in the same category. I have an issue with every single one of those long term contracts.

The Rangers have never given one out and our GM has actually been very outspoken against them.

What you clearly aren't getting is that the problem people have with all of these questionable deals is that the players will not play those years. They are just there to cut money off of the cap number. There is a massive, massive difference when a player will be playing to the end of his current contract compared with players who will never play to the end of their contracts. Keep trying and spin it any way you want, but the facts are right there in front of you with the arbitration ruling against Kovalchuk. There's a reason why only certain contracts are under investigation and not "80%" of the contracts in the league.

Can you really not see the difference here?

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:18 PM
  #95
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 73,363
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose29 View Post
Right. What would make sense for the league to do would be to turn any contract that extends past the player turns 35 into a 35+ contract. Then I wouldn't have a problem with the Kovalchuk contract.

I haven't really thought out the ramifications for that yet but it seems good to me at the moment haha.
That's something that they should definitely look into in the next CBA. I'd be 100% for it.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:21 PM
  #96
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
They definitely are.

The Kovalchuk contract was just plain cheating. The league took swift and justifiable action against it and won. Thank God.

The Pronger contract is funny. It will severely hamper the team down the road if they need to move picks and prospects to get rid of his cap hit (and if he retires, they can't do jack **** with it other than live with it).

That's just borderline trolling.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
But tell me how this matters? You are getting him at a discount now. It helped you almost win a Cup due to circumventing the cap. Again -- just because you're going to be punished in the future does not mean it is not CURRENTLY *TODAY* cap circumvention.
You just kind of showed that you don't know what you're talking about. This has already been mentioned, but last year he was on his Ducks contract still. He doesn't start his new contract until next year.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:22 PM
  #97
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose29 View Post
Right. What would make sense for the league to do would be to turn any contract that extends past the player turns 35 into a 35+ contract. Then I wouldn't have a problem with the Kovalchuk contract.

I haven't really thought out the ramifications for that yet but it seems good to me at the moment haha.
You could, but my problem with that is that players could still be signing deal in the 10+ year range and still have some really cap circumventing contracts going on.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:23 PM
  #98
JCameron418
Registered User
 
JCameron418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,448
vCash: 500
First of all who cares what cap circumvention means? We have Pronger or we don't.

The NHL probably won't have the balls to do anything to contracts that are already in progress.

They ruled on Kovys contract days after it was announced. They're not gonna rip up Prongers a year after it was announced.

JCameron418 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:23 PM
  #99
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 73,363
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
That's just borderline trolling.




You just kind of showed that you don't know what you're talking about. This has already been mentioned, but last year he was on his Ducks contract still. He doesn't start his new contract until next year.
My point remains (I actually didn't know he was on the Ducks contract now) and holds true for this year and next, then. Pretty much the same thing, no? Just picking out one thing from it doesn't change the contract.

And it was a joke. Calm down. I even posted a smiley face to avoid ignorant claims of trolling.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:25 PM
  #100
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 73,363
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCannon18 View Post
First of all who cares what cap circumvention means? We have Pronger or we don't.

The NHL probably won't have the balls to do anything to contracts that are already in progress.

They ruled on Kovys contract days after it was announced. They're not gonna rip up Prongers a year after it was announced.
I think their belief was that these contracts REALLY were pushing it (hence leaving the door open), and that they were waiting for one that was clearly outrageous before they did anything with the rest of them. Smart move, really.

This all could just blow over (and I don't think the league will do anything, either -- though they should). But it's clear that contracts like these will now be in much more danger of being voided.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 PM.

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

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