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, 04:29 PM
  #101
Moose29
Registered User
 
Moose29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Newark, DE
Country: United States
Posts: 82
vCash: 500
Jonathan, i understand your argument until we bring 35+ contracts into the fold. Money dispersion really doesn't matter in a 35+ deal because it all boils down the the same thing in the end - the cap hit. Would you have had a problem with a Pronger contract that looks like this:

2010-2011 : $4,921,429
2011-2012 : $4,921,429
2012-2013 : $4,921,429
2013-2014 : $4,921,429
2014-2015 : $4,921,429
2015-2016 : $4,921,429
2016-2017 : $4,921,429

instead of the actual contract? Because for cap purposes they're exactly the same in a 35+ contract.

(oh yeah and those numbers are from capgeek: http://capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=316

Moose29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:30 PM
  #102
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Pronger's contract is absolutely a cap circumvention because his contract CAN be traded. 35+ rule or not.

Now, I hope the league does rip up the Pronger contract. Id rather sign Pronger to a shorter deal on a higher cap hit given his age. This win-now attitude is bull****. I can't wait to watch a Flyers team that has $5 mill in dead capspace 5 years down the road. A time when we will be forced to play young players, but of course Homer trades all our good picks, so our prospect pool is a joke.

I'll take Pronger at 5 years at $6 ($7.5, $7.5, $6, $5, $4) in a deal that decreases the risk he is ineffective at that age.

To save capspace, we can then send Matt Walker to the AHL.



I believe a new CBA will stipulate how much a contract can go up and down a year as well as putting a 7 year max on contracts.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:30 PM
  #103
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
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.
It's not cap circumvention. It would be cap circumvention if there were a way for us to get out of the contract with out being "punished" (not that I would use that term). Simply amortizing a player's large initial salary over the length of the contract isn't cap circumvention, unless you plan to end the contract prematurely.

It isn't cap circumvention because every dollar he gets paid (and perhaps even some that he doesn't) will count against the Flyers' cap. There will be no situation where he retires, and he has earned millions more than he ever counted for against the cap.

That is what makes the Kovy deal and others like it cap circumvention. That is what would've made the Pronger deal circumvention if it was an under 35 contract (which Holmgren thought it was): the ability to pay a player more than he will ever count against your cap. If you pay a player 35 million over x years, then his total cap hit over those years had better be 35 million. I don't care how it is spread out, so long as the totals match up.

Structuring a contract to suit your needs with in the rules of the cap is not circumvention, it's just cap management.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
Only if the club has the option of ending the contract prior to it's completion with out penalty. In our case we don't. All we have is a player with a front loaded contract. We are on the hook for the entire dollar total of the contract, so it's not circumvention.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:35 PM
  #104
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,821
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose29 View Post
Jonathan, i understand your argument until we bring 35+ contracts into the fold. Money dispersion really doesn't matter in a 35+ deal because it all boils down the the same thing in the end - the cap hit. Would you have had a problem with a Pronger contract that looks like this:

2010-2011 : $4,921,429
2011-2012 : $4,921,429
2012-2013 : $4,921,429
2013-2014 : $4,921,429
2014-2015 : $4,921,429
2015-2016 : $4,921,429
2016-2017 : $4,921,429

instead of the actual contract? Because for cap purposes they're exactly the same in a 35+ contract.

(oh yeah and those numbers are from capgeek: http://capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=316
If Pronger took a discount for the Flyers and actually signed a deal like that (same amount for every year -- which he wouldn't), than how could you have a problem with it? That's not the point, though. Pronger took his money up front with years that he will never play at the end. That's what makes this circumvention.

Players take discounts for teams now and then. It happens. It's just how it is. They are fine because they tend to play out their contracts, you know? The whole point is that it is almost written in stone that Pronger won't be playing for pennies when he's made up nearly all his money up front. It's just there to lower his cap hit. That's the ONLY reason those years exist.

__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:37 PM
  #105
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,821
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
I am the Mush -- your entire argument is that it's not circumvention because you get punished in the end? That just doesn't fly. And the whole "plan" was for the contract to end "prematurely" (hence the minimum salary at the end of it). I don't see how you can say, at all, that just because he's 35 it isn't cap circumvention. That's such a poor argument, man. Show me where in the CBA that it says that if a team can't end the contract without penalty that it isn't circumvention. This argument is just flat out wrong.

Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:38 PM
  #106
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
The whole point is that it is almost written in stone that Pronger won't be playing for pennies when he's made up nearly all his money up front. It's just there to lower his cap hit. That's the ONLY reason those years exist.
And we will then have 4.92 million in dead space for two years, because the 35+ rule doesn't allow us to circumvent the cap.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:39 PM
  #107
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,998
vCash: 500
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.
IT DID NOT HELP US ALMOST WIN THE CUP. He was on his other contract before that. So now, you're wrong once again.

Agreed, just because it's hurting us in the future does not mean that it's no cap circumvention. The fact that it's not cap circumvention means that it's not cap circumvention. You keep skipping this obvious fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
All contracts are artificially lowered whether before the contract or after the contract, and that is NOT cap circumvention.

Circumvention occurs when a team does not pay the full cap charge designated by the dollar amount over the duration of years in a contract.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but what you're explaining is not now, never has been, and will NEVER be cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Oh, now you're arguing semantics? Nice!
Kovalchuk's contract was not illegal.

They threw out Kovalchuk's contract because it was at risk for becoming illegal should he retire. The risk of retirement was made stronger by the number of years tacked onto his contract at a bargain even though they, in and of themselves, did not constitute cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
I'll use your rules of "Cap Circumvention" where if a player is on a deal that alters his cap hit, whether it is frontloaded or backloaded, he will have his contract thrown out:

EDIT: Wow, there's way too many. I'll just do our division.

NJD: Elias, Rolston, Zajac, Parise, Clarkson, Zharkov, Pelley, Tallinder, Greene, Salmela, Hedberg
NYI: Comeau, Nielsen, Eaton, Martinek, MacDonald, Hillen, DiPietro, Roloson
NYR: Drury, White, Callahan, Prospal, Avery, Dubinsky, Boogaard, Anisimov, Boyle, Rozsival, Girardi, Gilroy, Eminger, Lundqvist, Biron
PHI: Briere, Richards, Carter, Hartnell, Laperriere, Shelley, Leino, Pronger, Timonen, Coburn, Carle, Walker, Leighton, Boucher
PIT: Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kunitz, Cooke, Tangradi, Rupp, Godard, Martin, Goligoski, Fleury

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
What you're proclaiming to be cap circumvention is NOT cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
PRONGER'S CAP HIT WAS NOT LOWERED. HE BEGINS HIS CONTRACT THIS YEAR!

Oh wait, I forgot your definition of artificially lowered cap hit means. Yes, I think his cap hit was artificially lowered, but I don't remember the exact terms of the contract he signed with the Ducks.

Then again, Richards contract was artificial this year too. So was Briere's and Carter's and Leino's and Timonen's and Carle's, etc.

Oh my god! The Flyers cheated their way to the Cup Finals! Alert the media!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
It's not circumvention.

Pronger's market value is whatever he signs for. That has nothing to do with cap circumvention.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
It's not cap circumvention until a player retires from one of these deals, and in Pronger's case, it can't possibly be cap circumvention because if he retires he still counts.

God this is getting annoying fast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
Pronger will still be playing according to the cap.

I'm not sure what you're missing kid, but you're unbelievable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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?
Devils fans must not realize that Kovalchuk was a risk for circumvention.

It makes them about as unbelievably and incredibly and unquestioningly lost as you are right now.


Last edited by William H Bonney: 08-15-2010 at 05:30 PM. Reason: removed flaming
CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:41 PM
  #108
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I am the Mush -- your entire argument is that it's not circumvention because you get punished in the end? That just doesn't fly.
Can you explain why?

Quote:
And the whole "plan" was for the contract to end "prematurely" (hence the minimum salary at the end of it). I don't see how you can say, at all, that just because he's 35 it isn't cap circumvention. That's such a poor argument, man. Show me where in the CBA that it says that if a team can't end the contract without penalty that it isn't circumvention. This argument is just flat out wrong.
It's not that unreasonable to think Pronger plays out this contact. And the drop in salary is easily explained by the likely reduced effectiveness he will have at that age

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:42 PM
  #109
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
If Pronger took a discount for the Flyers and actually signed a deal like that (same amount for every year -- which he wouldn't), than how could you have a problem with it? That's not the point, though. Pronger took his money up front with years that he will never play at the end. That's what makes this circumvention.

Players take discounts for teams now and then. It happens. It's just how it is. They are fine because they tend to play out their contracts, you know? The whole point is that it is almost written in stone that Pronger won't be playing for pennies when he's made up nearly all his money up front. It's just there to lower his cap hit. That's the ONLY reason those years exist.
THAT'S NOT CAP CIRCUMVENTION!

CAP CIRCUMVENTION OCCURS WHEN A TEAM DOES NOT PAY THE FULL CAP CHARGE, aka "CIRCUMVENTS THE NHL SALARY CAP," BY SIGNING A PLAYER TO A CONTRACT THAT HE WILL NOT FINISH.*

*THIS IS ONLY APPLICABLE IF THE PLAYER'S CAP HIT IS NO LONGER ON THE BOOKS.


There, I've finally resorted to all caps. Maybe you'll read it now after I've had to repeat myself upwards of 10 times already.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:44 PM
  #110
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
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 don't know about that one honestly. I think the league WILL come after the Pronger contract. The Flyers will put up a fight but ultimately lose, since I believe the "arbitration" hearings are really just rigged boxing matches. I also believe that other contracts such as the Luongo contract and the Hossa contract among others will never be contested. The real fight will begin during the next CBA I have a feeling the owners and players will not be very ****ing happy.

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:47 PM
  #111
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
And we will then have 4.92 million in dead space for two years, because the 35+ rule doesn't allow us to circumvent the cap.
What if we were to buy out the remaining 2 years?

Is that permitted for a 35+?

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:49 PM
  #112
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
I am the Mush -- your entire argument is that it's not circumvention because you get punished in the end?
My argument is that we aren't circumventing the cap, because there are no years that the Flyers should be burdened with Pronger's cap hit that they won't be. They are on the hook, not that they're being punished, but they will be honoring the letter of their contract, and thus not circumventing the cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
That just doesn't fly. And the whole "plan" was for the contract to end "prematurely" (hence the minimum salary at the end of it). I don't see how you can say, at all, that just because he's 35 it isn't cap circumvention.
That was the plan, but Holmgren didn't understand the application of the 35+ rule. The plan was to circumvent the cap. Now that he can't end the contract with out the last years counting against the cap, all he has done is amortized Pronger's cap hit over 7 years, instead of five. We're still on the hook for those cap dollars, and that isn't against the rules. It is only against the rules if you added those years with the precise intention of ending the contract early so as to manipulate the player's cap hit to not be reflective of what they were payed while they played for your team. That was our intention, but isn't what is going to end up happening with the Pronger contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
That's such a poor argument, man.
That's like, totally your opinion, man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Show me where in the CBA that it says that if a team can't end the contract without penalty that it isn't circumvention. This argument is just flat out wrong.

I am not reading the entire CBA to find something for you. I am not holding you to the standard of finding support for everything you say in the CBA (lucky for you), so I am not going to meet that standard.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:50 PM
  #113
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,821
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inebriator View Post
Can you explain why?



It's not that unreasonable to think Pronger plays out this contact. And the drop in salary is easily explained by the likely reduced effectiveness he will have at that age
Why should a contract be considered OK just because the team gets hurt?

It is pretty unreasonable (as the arbitrator decided in the Kovalchuk case) that a star player will not play for peanuts. That's pretty much what was set in a real nutshell with that case. The drop in salary is due to lessening the cap hit. You know that, man.

What's so funny about all of this, is I actually hope the contract IS considered OK and NOT voided just because it hurts your team in the future.

Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:52 PM
  #114
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,178
vCash: 500
1) It's a very realistic thing that Pronger plays till he's 42. 42 or 43 is a common retirement age and d-men usually last longer then forwards.

2) What does it matter if Pronger retires at the end of the contract? He's still getting payed and we're still on the hook for his cap hit either way.

Garbage Goal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:53 PM
  #115
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 Flyerfan808 View Post
What if we were to buy out the remaining 2 years?

Is that permitted for a 35+?
Good question. I'm not sure if there is a separate set of buyout rules regarding 35+ contracts. That would be a good question to pose to one of the cap-guys over in the business section.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:54 PM
  #116
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Why should a contract be considered OK just because the team gets hurt?

It is pretty unreasonable (as the arbitrator decided in the Kovalchuk case) that a star player will not play for peanuts. That's pretty much what was set in a real nutshell with that case. The drop in salary is due to lessening the cap hit. You know that, man.

What's so funny about all of this, is I actually hope the contract IS considered OK and NOT voided just because it hurts your team in the future.
1) Because the cap hit is what is important to the team... they are feeling the effects of the contract they signed

2) No kidding, but Pronger isn't going to be worth a 7 million dollar cap hit in 5 years, either. So averaging out what he is "worth" over the length of the contract the cap hit is spot on...

3) That's fine, but I personally think Pronger will play at a reasonably effective rate for the duration of his contract

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:54 PM
  #117
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,821
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
My argument is that we aren't circumventing the cap, because there are no years that the Flyers should be burdened with Pronger's cap hit that they won't be. They are on the hook, not that they're being punished, but they will be honoring the letter of their contract, and thus not circumventing the cap.

That was the plan, but Holmgren didn't understand the application of the 35+ rule. The plan was to circumvent the cap. Now that he can't end the contract with out the last years counting against the cap, all he has done is amortized Pronger's cap hit over 7 years, instead of five. We're still on the hook for those cap dollars, and that isn't against the rules. It is only against the rules if you added those years with the precise intention of ending the contract early so as to manipulate the player's cap hit to not be reflective of what they were payed while they played for your team. That was our intention, but isn't what is going to end up happening with the Pronger contract.

That's like, totally your opinion, man.

I am not reading the entire CBA to find something for you. I am not holding you to the standard of finding support for everything you say in the CBA (lucky for you), so I am not going to meet that standard.
Was more of a rhetorical question on the last part just because it doesn't exist.

I understand the logic of what you're saying. It does make enough sense for the most part to feel that it's not circumvention because it will hurt you guys in the future. The problem is, though, that that lowering of the cap hit is circumvention no matter how you put it.

It's clearly the intention to end Pronger's contract early before the final years of minimum salary. That, in and of itself, lowers the cap hit (and will lessen the future punishment as well) currently. I understand where you are coming from, but that kind of logic just really doesn't hold up.

Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:55 PM
  #118
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Why should a contract be considered OK just because the team gets hurt?

It is pretty unreasonable (as the arbitrator decided in the Kovalchuk case) that a star player will not play for peanuts. That's pretty much what was set in a real nutshell with that case. The drop in salary is due to lessening the cap hit. You know that, man.

What's so funny about all of this, is I actually hope the contract IS considered OK and NOT voided just because it hurts your team in the future.
That's not what the arbitrator decided at all.

He decided Kovalchuk was a risk for retirement before his contract was over.

You missed the WHOLE point. The ENTIRE point. In the end, you really don't know what you're talking about, and it's kind of annoying that you keep making a charge that's completely incorrect.

It's only cap circumvention if cap space is circumvented.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:56 PM
  #119
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,821
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
1) It's a very realistic thing that Pronger plays till he's 42. 42 or 43 is a common retirement age and d-men usually last longer then forwards.

2) What does it matter if Pronger retires at the end of the contract? He's still getting payed and we're still on the hook for his cap hit either way.
It really doesn't matter, which is why this whole thing is so ****ing stupid.

The Flyers get hurt either way this ends (more-so if the contract actually stands).

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
Good question. I'm not sure if there is a separate set of buyout rules regarding 35+ contracts. That would be a good question to pose to one of the cap-guys over in the business section.
I don't believe there is and the contract counts fully. I think kbd posted this a while back. I'm not totally sure, but fairly sure.

Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 04:57 PM
  #120
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I am the Mush -- your entire argument is that it's not circumvention because you get punished in the end? That just doesn't fly. And the whole "plan" was for the contract to end "prematurely" (hence the minimum salary at the end of it). I don't see how you can say, at all, that just because he's 35 it isn't cap circumvention. That's such a poor argument, man. Show me where in the CBA that it says that if a team can't end the contract without penalty that it isn't circumvention. This argument is just flat out wrong.
It doesn't have to be in the CBA.

The rules about cap circumvention are intentionally vague. That's already been established by this Kovalchuk ********. It's pretty much up to the league to decide what's circumvention and what's not. Of course, there's rules and limits for contracts, but a contract can perfectly follow the rules of the CBA and still be denied by the NHL for a myriad of reasons (cap circumvention, not believing a player will fulfill the contract, etc.).

It's pretty obvious that, according to the league, the line in the sand is somewhere between the Kovalchuk and Hossa contracts. If you're intent on following the CBA to deem what's cap circumvention and what's not then you should be fine with the Pronger contract considering that it was allowed pass by the league.

Garbage Goal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 05:00 PM
  #121
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
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.
Would you be in favor of limiting contract lengths in the next CBA?

Moose29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 05:00 PM
  #122
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
What if we were to buy out the remaining 2 years?

Is that permitted for a 35+?
I don't think we're allowed to buy him out. The only way I know of that will get rid of his cap hit for us is LTIR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Why should a contract be considered OK just because the team gets hurt?

It is pretty unreasonable (as the arbitrator decided in the Kovalchuk case) that a star player will not play for peanuts. That's pretty much what was set in a real nutshell with that case. The drop in salary is due to lessening the cap hit. You know that, man.

What's so funny about all of this, is I actually hope the contract IS considered OK and NOT voided just because it hurts your team in the future.
IIRC, the arbitrator said his reasoning was that it seemed unrealistic that Kovalchuk would play until the age of 44. The NHL can deny a contract if they don't believe a player will fulfill it and apparently the arbitrator didn't think he would fulfill it.

Garbage Goal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 05:01 PM
  #123
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
It really doesn't matter, which is why this whole thing is so ****ing stupid.

The Flyers get hurt either way this ends (more-so if the contract actually stands).



I don't believe there is and the contract counts fully. I think kbd posted this a while back. I'm not totally sure, but fairly sure.
You could be right. I tried it on capgeek a second ago. When you click "Buyout" Calculator and search for Chris Pronger... it isn't available

If we could buy him out, I wonder how much it would be for the remaining 2 years?

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 05:01 PM
  #124
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose29 View Post
Would you be in favor of limiting contract lengths in the next CBA?
Personally, yes.

There's far more creative ways out there though. There's guys in the business section that are pretty smart and unbiased when it comes to this stuff.

Garbage Goal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 05:05 PM
  #125
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,821
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Personally, yes.

There's far more creative ways out there though. There's guys in the business section that are pretty smart and unbiased when it comes to this stuff.
I think I'm about as unbiased as possible since I actually want the contract to stand in all honesty! Haha.

Bird Law is online now   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 06:52 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.