HFBoards

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

Pronger's contract investigated

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-11-2010, 01:57 PM
  #176
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
If you plan to do something stupid, then it's still stupid when you accomplish it. Ya know?
Now you're just grasping at straws..... Flail away.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 02:08 PM
  #177
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Oh no!

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 02:25 PM
  #178
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
Now you're just grasping at straws..... Flail away.
How am I grasping at straws?

If you plan to do something stupid (overspend on defense) and in order to accomplish that do something stupid (trade away an expiring contract, and valuable player), all while not investing anything in the real problem (goalie, again)... then you're doing something stupid (mismanaging your salary cap).

To say it's OK and not poor management because they had a *ing plan in advance is about the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 03:28 PM
  #179
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
If you plan to do something stupid, then it's still stupid when you accomplish it. Ya know?
Stupid use of assets. Yes.

Mismanagement of cap. No.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 03:53 PM
  #180
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
Stupid use of assets. Yes.

Mismanagement of cap. No.
If the assets you are using have known cap consequences... then the stupid use of 'em is mismanagement of the cap.

It isn't like we dealt for Meszaros and said, "Oh ****, he's worth that much?"

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 04:35 PM
  #181
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
This.

With a 35+ contract, even if there is retirement involved, there is NO cap circumvention.

I find it hilarious that the NHL is "investigating" (re-investigating actually) a contract on the grounds of CAP CIRCUMVENTION that has NO possible chance of any CAP CIRCUMVENTION unless Holmgren takes a bat to Pronger's knees to put him on LTIR for a few years until his contract is up.

Yes, we could in theory trade Pronger's cap hit, but that is not cap circumvention either. That's another matter entirely, and if the NHL wanted to do anything about that, they'd have to write in that 35+ contracts cannot be traded in order to relieve cap situations in the event that a player should retire after being traded. That would also be extremely hard for them to do.

So Bloch is completely clueless, doesn't understand the rules of a 35+ contract, is blowing smoke without any real fire, or Pronger's contract is not a 35+ contract.
Look here, why do people not listen at all.

There are two things that are wrong with the pronger contract.

1.
it would certainly seem the way that the flyers did not understand the 35 year old rule, and are now ****ed because of it. However if it was somehow deemed that the flyers were trying to sort out the deal so that pronger could retire before the contract was up then they should be on the hook for some serious punishment. I would seriously not put it past holmgren to have ****ed up this somehow. Sorting a under the table deal out and then getting caught with your pants down because you didn't know the rule doesn't mean you should get off scott free.

2.
The two years tacked onto the end of the contract make up just over a 1/7th of the salary in his first year. That's a big problem. Prongers cap hit is 4.9 million or whatever, but his actual salary for most of the contract is over 7 million. That a pretty big drop, not as significant as some of the other contracts around the league, but with the pathetic amount of salary in the last 2 years of the deal it looks more significant.

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 05:04 PM
  #182
ToTheNet
Registered User
 
ToTheNet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Holland, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ToTheNet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Look here, why do people not listen at all.

There are two things that are wrong with the pronger contract.

1.
it would certainly seem the way that the flyers did not understand the 35 year old rule, and are now ****ed because of it. However if it was somehow deemed that the flyers were trying to sort out the deal so that pronger could retire before the contract was up then they should be on the hook for some serious punishment. I would seriously not put it past holmgren to have ****ed up this somehow. Sorting a under the table deal out and then getting caught with your pants down because you didn't know the rule doesn't mean you should get off scott free.

2.
The two years tacked onto the end of the contract make up just over a 1/7th of the salary in his first year. That's a big problem. Prongers cap hit is 4.9 million or whatever, but his actual salary for most of the contract is over 7 million. That a pretty big drop, not as significant as some of the other contracts around the league, but with the pathetic amount of salary in the last 2 years of the deal it looks more significant.

Or PERHAPS there is a huge drop-off because while he is in those last two years of his contract he is NOT going to be our #1 D man anymore. If the Flyers still rely on Pronger for 28+ minutes a night when he is 41-42 then they really deserve what is coming to them. I still think he'll be playing, but he will not be the player he is now and by then I'd HOPE that Coburn or Carle or Mez or SOMEONE develops into a true #1 and #2 and Pronger can be an extremely stable #5/#6 guy to help with the youngsters.

ToTheNet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 05:08 PM
  #183
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
Pronger says he won't be 100 percent for camp

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/..._for_camp.html

Pronger was asked when he thought his knee would be 100 percent. I do not have a time frame. The team knows that. I spoke to the doctor and trainer and it is really just about when my knee feels good and strong again. I dont want to come back early and play a couple of games and then be out of the lineup and then play a few more and be out. I want to come back when the knee is as close to 100 percent as possible so I can play every single game from then on.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 05:09 PM
  #184
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Look here, why do people not listen at all.

There are two things that are wrong with the pronger contract.

1.
it would certainly seem the way that the flyers did not understand the 35 year old rule, and are now ****ed because of it. However if it was somehow deemed that the flyers were trying to sort out the deal so that pronger could retire before the contract was up then they should be on the hook for some serious punishment. I would seriously not put it past holmgren to have ****ed up this somehow. Sorting a under the table deal out and then getting caught with your pants down because you didn't know the rule doesn't mean you should get off scott free.
I think the "they didn't know" thesis, has some problems with it... as noted earlier.

Quote:
2.
The two years tacked onto the end of the contract make up just over a 1/7th of the salary in his first year. That's a big problem. Prongers cap hit is 4.9 million or whatever, but his actual salary for most of the contract is over 7 million. That a pretty big drop, not as significant as some of the other contracts around the league, but with the pathetic amount of salary in the last 2 years of the deal it looks more significant.
Also, as noted, the total value of the contract and AAV don't seem particularly odd given the ages we're talking about for Pronger in these seasons. Additionally, players have EVERY reason to want heavily front-loaded contracts (money in their pockets and earning interest) as opposed to even or back-loaded contracts.

However, that's only "not a problem" if the player cannot retire and make those years magically disappear from the teams cap structure (thus why the 35+ rule makes sense).

So, it really isn't a big problem... unless you just have a problem with front-loading the contracts, but, at the same time, that type of deal is perfectly reasonable for a player to want independent of whether they want to retire before the completion of a deal or not. This is, quite literally, the way the NFL works contractually with signing bonuses, they just don't have guaranteed deals which makes things a bit more complicated.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 07:02 AM
  #185
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
If the assets you are using have known cap consequences... then the stupid use of 'em is mismanagement of the cap.

It isn't like we dealt for Meszaros and said, "Oh ****, he's worth that much?"
It appears the Flyers off-season plan was to bring in a top 4 defenseman for around 4M per year, a goalie for 2M or less and to trade Gagne so they could accomplish this. They didn't trade for Mez, sign Leighton and then say Oh crap! we need to trade Gagne. It was part of their plan. You can say that the plan stinks (and thus they mismanaged assets they had), but they didn't mismanage the cap. They knew what they wanted to do and they did it. Every player has a known cap consequence, the Flyers apparently didn't want to have Gagne at 5.25M anymore and thought it better to have a young defenseman at 4M. One of the drawbacks of a salary cap is that you have to let go of players that you have grown to love.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 07:09 AM
  #186
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Also, as noted, the total value of the contract and AAV don't seem particularly odd given the ages we're talking about for Pronger in these seasons. Additionally, players have EVERY reason to want heavily front-loaded contracts (money in their pockets and earning interest) as opposed to even or back-loaded contracts.

However, that's only "not a problem" if the player cannot retire and make those years magically disappear from the teams cap structure (thus why the 35+ rule makes sense).

So, it really isn't a big problem... unless you just have a problem with front-loading the contracts, but, at the same time, that type of deal is perfectly reasonable for a player to want independent of whether they want to retire before the completion of a deal or not. This is, quite literally, the way the NFL works contractually with signing bonuses, they just don't have guaranteed deals which makes things a bit more complicated.
Agree. If teams had their way, they would back-load the contracts. I'm sure the Flyers would love to re-work the contract to give Pronger more money in the final two years.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 09:42 AM
  #187
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
It appears the Flyers off-season plan was to bring in a top 4 defenseman for around 4M per year, a goalie for 2M or less and to trade Gagne so they could accomplish this. They didn't trade for Mez, sign Leighton and then say Oh crap! we need to trade Gagne. It was part of their plan. You can say that the plan stinks (and thus they mismanaged assets they had), but they didn't mismanage the cap. They knew what they wanted to do and they did it. Every player has a known cap consequence, the Flyers apparently didn't want to have Gagne at 5.25M anymore and thought it better to have a young defenseman at 4M. One of the drawbacks of a salary cap is that you have to let go of players that you have grown to love.
They mismanaged their cap structure... just like they did last year when they didn't leave enough wiggle room to have any money for goalie (hey, look, that happened again!).

Just because you plan to do it, doesn't mean it isn't "mismanagement." This gets back to the fact that the problem isn't random... this team is poorly managed because Holmgren is a ****ty manager in relation to the salary cap.

Look, jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't, in itself, a real problem (you can free fall perfectly well); it's that you have to land. So, if you plan to jump out of a plane without a parachute and then go thud, was that a good on you because you planned to do it?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 09:52 AM
  #188
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
They mismanaged their cap structure... just like they did last year when they didn't leave enough wiggle room to have any money for goalie (hey, look, that happened again!).

Just because you plan to do it, doesn't mean it isn't "mismanagement." This gets back to the fact that the problem isn't random... this team is poorly managed because Holmgren is a ****ty manager in relation to the salary cap.

Look, jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't, in itself, a real problem (you can free fall perfectly well); it's that you have to land. So, if you plan to jump out of a plane without a parachute and then go thud, was that a good on you because you planned to do it?
If you plan to jump out of a plane without a parachute, it probably isn't a good plan. But it isn't mismanagement when you could have jumped out of the plane with a parachute but chose not to.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 09:58 AM
  #189
DenverBoone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
If you plan to jump out of a plane without a parachute, it probably isn't a good plan. But it isn't mismanagement when you could have jumped out of the plane with a parachute but chose not to.

DenverBoone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 10:01 AM
  #190
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
If you plan to jump out of a plane without a parachute, it probably isn't a good plan. But it isn't mismanagement when you could have jumped out of the plane with a parachute but chose not to.
No, that's mismanagement of your life expectancy. Dumb is dumb.

So, sure, in an absolute sense (if you take out the whole salary cap thing that the Flyers tend to ignore) the Flyers didn't mismanage their situation... they had a plan and they went and did it. But that plan, from start to finish, was mismanagement of the salary cap. They spent too much money on defense; they committed too much money to contracts that carry over to next year (a problem given the growth potential already on the team); they didn't get a goalie... which they needed; and they traded a valuable commodity for a pile of 5-day old dog ****.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 10:05 AM
  #191
might2mash
Post-apocalyptic
 
might2mash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Bend
Country: United States
Posts: 4,616
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to might2mash
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Sorting a under the table deal out and then getting caught with your pants down because you didn't know the rule doesn't mean you should get off scott free.
Maybe, but I doubt that would be a reason for anything to happen. If you intentionally steal a candy bar from a store, but didn't notice that there was a sign saying "Free samples - take one" above it, you don't get prosecuted for malicious intent. I seriously doubt they would have been that sloppy anyway.

might2mash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 10:56 AM
  #192
agrudez*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,612
vCash: 500
Guys, the metaphors in this thread are getting ridiculous.

agrudez* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 11:03 AM
  #193
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,307
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by agrudez View Post
Guys, the metaphors in this thread are getting ridiculous.
if you wanna be a holmgren, its like riding a brontosaurus while masturbating a monkey.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 11:26 AM
  #194
agrudez*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
if you wanna be a holmgren, its like riding a brontosaurus while masturbating a monkey.
That is a Simile, bro, I think.

agrudez* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 10:13 PM
  #195
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/devil...KN88KdA5LaSpDN

Quote:
It is believed Bettman would use his sweeping powers under Article 26 to impose heavy penalties -- including fines to all parties, reduction of team cap space and forfeiture of team draft picks -- if circumvention is found.

The league has informed the union that it has accepted Chris Pronger's year-old, front-loaded, seven-year, $34.45 million contract with Ed Snider's Flyers under which the defenseman will earn $1.05 million over the final two years of the deal.
Duh.

Also important:

Quote:
The Post has learned that Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly informed the still-leaderless and obviously rudderless NHLPA by e-mail late last night that the league would grandfather the recently re-submitted Kovalchuk 15-year, $100 million contract into the collective bargaining agreement, as well as Luongo's year-old, 12-year, $64 million contract and Hossa's year-old 12-year, $63.3 million contract, under the following conditions:

1. That the cap hit on future multiyear contracts will not count any season that ends with the player over 40 years of age. The cap hit would be based on the average salary of the seasons in the contract up to age 40.

2. That the cap hit on future contracts longer than five years would be calculated by granting additional weight -- perhaps the average -- to the five consecutive years with the largest average salary.
And...

Quote:
The NHL has informed the union that if it does not accept these givebacks two years prior to the end of the CBA -- a quintuple cap, now -- then the league will take the following actions:

1. It will reject the Kovalchuk contract. The Post has learned that the final two years of the deal are for $3 million and $4 million, respectively. The final five years of the 15-year deal account for $10 million.

2 It will de-register Luongo's contract under which the goaltender will earn $3.618 million over the final three years of his deal. The goaltender is carrying a $5.333 million cap hit.

3. It will move to open a formal investigation of Hossa's contract under which the winger will earn $4 million over the final four years of his contract. Hossa is carrying a cap hit of $5.275 million per.
How 'bout them apples?

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 10:27 PM
  #196
JABEE
Registered User
 
JABEE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/devil...KN88KdA5LaSpDN



Duh.

Also important:



And...



How 'bout them apples?
2009-10 Philadelphia Flyers Stanley Cup Champions!!!

JABEE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 10:33 PM
  #197
dbr2
Lockout Beard
 
dbr2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,340
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dbr2
Thank God Pronger is okay.

Something Holmgren didn't **** up.

dbr2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 10:58 PM
  #198
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,183
vCash: 500
So....um....I have a lot more respect for the NHL and Gary than I did before this off season. I'm impressed.

The Pronger contract is difficult to explain as to why it's not circumvention. But basically, the average of what Pronger's contract actually provides us, will ultimately be worth $4.9M. We get the really good discount years in the first 5, but then we get the really ****** 2 years at the end. That's why the cap hit is calculated by the average of the contract. With the Hossa deal (and all the other cap circumventers), they will only get Hossa for the duration of the discount years, then not be forced to put up with the consequences later.

Good on Gary.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 11:01 PM
  #199
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 hockeyfreak7 View Post
The Pronger contract is difficult to explain as to why it's not circumvention. But basically, the average of what Pronger's contract actually provides us, will ultimately be worth $4.9M. We get the really good discount years in the first 5, but then we get the really ****** 2 years at the end. That's why the cap hit is calculated by the average of the contract. With the Hossa deal (and all the other cap circumventers), they will only get Hossa for the duration of the discount years, then not be forced to put up with the consequences later.
Actually the Pronger contract is not circumvention because it is not circumvention.

Circumvention occurs when the cap charge of a player's contract (the full salary divided by the number of years on the contract) is not paid in full. Thus the only real means of circumvention are retirement and LTIR.

Since you can't really fake LTIR, that leaves retirement, and if Pronger retires, nothing changes for his team except they need to fit another roster player in his place.

So yeah, Pronger's contract was never and could never be cap circumvention.

That's why the NHL's decision should not come as a shock.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 12:09 AM
  #200
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Actually the Pronger contract is not circumvention because it is not circumvention.

Circumvention occurs when the cap charge of a player's contract (the full salary divided by the number of years on the contract) is not paid in full. Thus the only real means of circumvention are retirement and LTIR.

Since you can't really fake LTIR, that leaves retirement, and if Pronger retires, nothing changes for his team except they need to fit another roster player in his place.

So yeah, Pronger's contract was never and could never be cap circumvention.

That's why the NHL's decision should not come as a shock.
Before this whole thing gets started up again, let's just move on to Bettman and Daly's actual criteria for accepting the deals....

I think they're smart impositions, and fair, all things considered. Good on them for that.

And like I said before...everyone had to know that these contracts got around the spirit of the Cap rules, and it's no surprise that the league is amending things to get rid of them.

infidelappel* 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 10:55 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.