Just do away with the 35+ rule. Change the rule that when over 35, there is a maximum contract term based on current age. 35, 5 years max, 36, 4 years max, ... , 40+ 1 year max
Still accomplishes the point of the rule to prevent teams from signing old players for longer than they attend to play
Removes the punishment that a 36 year old player can get a life altering concussion and stick a team with their cap hit. It's kind of stupid and and not necessary at all
I also think this is very likely. The owners are going to want to cut the 57% (the NBA and NFL are closer to 50/50) and have a Kovalchuk rule, so I expect the players to get rid of some of the other restrictions (35+ rule, shorter RFA period or less compensation at top end, reentry waivers).
Just do away with the 35+ rule. Change the rule that when over 35, there is a maximum contract term based on current age. 35, 5 years max, 36, 4 years max, ... , 40+ 1 year max
Still accomplishes the point of the rule to prevent teams from signing old players for longer than they attend to play
Removes the punishment that a 36 year old player can get a life altering concussion and stick a team with their cap hit. It's kind of stupid and and not necessary at all
Not unreasonable, but I'm not sure it really addresses the league's concern about circumventing the cap. For the sake of argument, they's say Kimmo was UFA this offseason.
He's 36 now, right? Let's say he intends to come back and give it two more years. Let's say he's comfortable with 5 million in compensation.
Contact option A: two years, $10 million (5-5) = $5 million cap hit.
Option B: Four years, $14 million 5-5-2.5-1.5 = 3.5 million cap hit.
Kimmo retires after season 2 either way, having banked $10 million, but the team reaps the advantage of the lower cap hit with the latter option.
Not unreasonable, but I'm not sure it really addresses the league's concern about circumventing the cap. For the sake of argument, they's say Kimmo was UFA this offseason.
He's 36 now, right? Let's say he intends to come back and give it two more years. Let's say he's comfortable with 5 million in compensation.
Contact option A: two years, $10 million (5-5) = $5 million cap hit.
Option B: Four years, $14 million 5-5-2.5-1.5 = 3.5 million cap hit.
Kimmo retires after season 2 either way, having banked $10 million, but the team reaps the advantage of the lower cap hit with the latter option.
What am I missing.
They could also change the way a contract can scale over time. For example maybe you could only take a 20% drop from one year to the next once over 35 and implement a maximum length or something like that.
They could change the cap hit for 35+ contracts to the annual value, instead of average.
And leave the rest of the restrictions in place (e.g., no relief from retirement, etc.)?
In that case, they Flyers would have to eat 7.6, 7.2, and 7.0, over the next three seasons if he retired. (The last three years of his deal are @ 4.0, .525, .525, per capgeek).
Homer says the stick to the eye seems to be where all the Pronger problems started. As expected.
Quote:
Homer when asked if its career threatening: I guess you'd have to say yeah.
Quote:
Homer: if we have the chance to improve our team now and for the future we'd probably be interested.
Alright looks like the presser with the media has died down. Hope some of this answers some questions. Also I didn't see any updates on the other injuries.
Flyers Will Have To Proceed As If Pronger Is Never Returning
The devastating news was reported early Thursday evening by Sportsnet’s Nick Kypreos via Twitter, and confirmed by the team later during the first period of last night’s Philadelphia Flyers contest in Montreal — the club’s top defenseman and team captain, Chris Pronger, will miss the remainder of the regular season and playoffs due to severe post-concussion symptoms.
Well looks like we're going to have to bleed another batch of picks and prospects to get anything of significance to replace Pronger. Trade for Pronger ultimately wasn't worth the cost IMO..always a high risk but we almost pulled off a cup.
I just hope we don't mess with the chemistry too much....I think Schenn might have to be moved along with our first rounders and maybe Bob..sux but we need a quality big minute D man no matter what for now and the future. Looks like Prongs short career as a Flyer is over..sadly. Hopefully, his personal life is not impacted by this as badly as it sounds right now...
Not unreasonable, but I'm not sure it really addresses the league's concern about circumventing the cap. For the sake of argument, they's say Kimmo was UFA this offseason.
He's 36 now, right? Let's say he intends to come back and give it two more years. Let's say he's comfortable with 5 million in compensation.
Contact option A: two years, $10 million (5-5) = $5 million cap hit.
Option B: Four years, $14 million 5-5-2.5-1.5 = 3.5 million cap hit.
Kimmo retires after season 2 either way, having banked $10 million, but the team reaps the advantage of the lower cap hit with the latter option.
What am I missing.
It might not be perfect in the exact form I proposed it, but I think it would be better along those lines.
In your same scenario, if Timonen was 34 and signed the contract to play until he was 38, the cap hit would be wiped no matter how long it was, since it would have not been a 35+ contract.
So why is there punishment for a 36 year old player signing for 4 years but only to play for 2, but it's OK for a 34 year old player to sign for 6 years only to play for 4?
I would probably ammend my idea to apply to all contracts. Can only take you to somewhere around 40 and after that its 1 year deals. Perhaps you could also sign only for a maximum of 8-10 years as well.
Still could be a degree of "circumvention" but it would be reigned in to a reasonable level. And removes the need to punish a team for a player that has to retire due to injury
I am lost. WHy is everyone complaning about the 35+ rule? The 35+ rule is a good one; it prevents the signing of a contract with the full intention of a player retiring before the end of the deal. LTIR is where Pronger is; not retirement. If he retires, we are ******. If he stays LTIR, then we can spend the 4.9 million per year on another player. LTIR is in place for this reason; Snider is willing to pay more than the cap; we will spend the 65 million instead of 60 million and have 60 million worth of injury free players on our team; just like everyone else.
I wish Pronger wasn't injured; but the CBA rules are fine.
I am lost. WHy is everyone complaning about the 35+ rule? The 35+ rule is a good one; it prevents the signing of a contract with the full intention of a player retiring before the end of the deal. LTIR is where Pronger is; not retirement. If he retires, we are ******. If he stays LTIR, then we can spend the 4.9 million per year on another player. LTIR is in place for this reason; Snider is willing to pay more than the cap; we will spend the 65 million instead of 60 million and have 60 million worth of injury free players on our team; just like everyone else.
I wish Pronger wasn't injured; but the CBA rules are fine.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with this.
I am lost. WHy is everyone complaning about the 35+ rule? The 35+ rule is a good one; it prevents the signing of a contract with the full intention of a player retiring before the end of the deal. LTIR is where Pronger is; not retirement. If he retires, we are ******. If he stays LTIR, then we can spend the 4.9 million per year on another player. LTIR is in place for this reason; Snider is willing to pay more than the cap; we will spend the 65 million instead of 60 million and have 60 million worth of injury free players on our team; just like everyone else.
I wish Pronger wasn't injured; but the CBA rules are fine.
It's a good idea, but poor execution.
What if Pronger got his severe concussion in a car accident? Is there anything in there that prevents the team from being stuck with his cap hit? And why should they be on the hook for something like that?
What if Pronger got his severe concussion in a car accident? Is there anything in there that prevents the team from being stuck with his cap hit? And why should they be on the hook for something like that?
He would go on LTIR and the insurance would cover his salary, no? I mean, how is the situation different from the Flyers perspective?
I am lost. WHy is everyone complaning about the 35+ rule? The 35+ rule is a good one; it prevents the signing of a contract with the full intention of a player retiring before the end of the deal. LTIR is where Pronger is; not retirement. If he retires, we are ******. If he stays LTIR, then we can spend the 4.9 million per year on another player. LTIR is in place for this reason; Snider is willing to pay more than the cap; we will spend the 65 million instead of 60 million and have 60 million worth of injury free players on our team; just like everyone else.
I wish Pronger wasn't injured; but the CBA rules are fine.
If the Player wants to retire, he can retire. The team can't stop him from doing that. But if he's doing so because he's injured too badly to play, then whats the difference between LTIR and retirement? In either case it's unfair to stick the team with the cap hit.
Pronger shouldnt have to come back every year and pretend to try and come back if he truly can't just to help the team out
If the Player wants to retire, he can retire. The team can't stop him from doing that. But if he's doing so because he's injured too badly to play, then whats the difference between LTIR and retirement? In either case it's unfair to stick the team with the cap hit.
Pronger shouldnt have to come back every year and pretend to try and come back if he truly can't just to help the team out
What's the alternative, doing away with the 35+ rule entirely. Then we are back to square one re: cap abuse.
You're also forgetting the part where Pronger gets paid to try to come back each year. It's not like he (or any other player) would be doing it solely out of fidelity to the organization.
I am lost. WHy is everyone complaning about the 35+ rule? The 35+ rule is a good one; it prevents the signing of a contract with the full intention of a player retiring before the end of the deal. LTIR is where Pronger is; not retirement. If he retires, we are ******. If he stays LTIR, then we can spend the 4.9 million per year on another player. LTIR is in place for this reason; Snider is willing to pay more than the cap; we will spend the 65 million instead of 60 million and have 60 million worth of injury free players on our team; just like everyone else.
I wish Pronger wasn't injured; but the CBA rules are fine.
I'm not expert on LTIR but I would guess that if you're on LTIR you have to make some sort of effort to make a return. If his brain injury won't allow him to be cleared to play again, he will be unable to make that effort regardless, thus be forced into retirement, where his cap hit will effect everything.
I don't know if that's true or not but might explain why everyone is going nuts.
As a hockey fan, I really, really hope that the Penguins' decision to let him play (and not be cautious) following the Winter Classic isn't the decision that changed everything. That Hedman hit definitely did something.
Yeah it would be a shame. I never had anything against Crosby, only the people who fawned over him.
What's the alternative, doing away with the 35+ rule entirely. Then we are back to square one re: cap abuse.
I feel like it would be handled better by putting in restrictions on contract term. I think it achieves the same effect.
Theres also a possibility that a 35+ player could one day wake up and decide he's sick of playing and stick the team with the cap hit, and it was not part of a circumvention conspiracy. Unlikely but if someone pulled a Legein on you it would be frustrating
What if Pronger got his severe concussion in a car accident? Is there anything in there that prevents the team from being stuck with his cap hit? And why should they be on the hook for something like that?
Define "on the hook". If by "on the hook" you mean they have to pay it; then it doesn't matter the age, all NHL contracts are guaranteed contracts, so regardless of where the injury occured, the player gets paid. If you are talking about against the cap; then again, the CBA allows teams to spend that players dollars in replacement players. If the replacement player money does not take you "over the cap", then your cap number does not increase. If it does, then you are allowed to go over by the injured players salary (pro-rated based on average daily number for the days he is injured).
LTIR is a problem when players "come back" before end of year. The Flyers got screwed with this when Briere was hurt, in Prongers case, he is gone, the Flyers are free to spend money to replace him because he is not coming back.
IMO - The system is working. If they didn't have a 35+ rule, Lidstrom could sign in Detroit for 5 years 3 million per cap hit front loaded at 6 mllion per in the first two years. Then retire about year 2 leaving 3 million on the table; Lidstrom wins, Detroit wins......but every other team is the league loses. No good. You need the 35+ rule in place. The only way out of it is; if you have a major injury that is preventing you from playing. Pronger has that injury, is on LTIR, so we are not screwed by the 35+ rule.
If the Player wants to retire, he can retire. The team can't stop him from doing that. But if he's doing so because he's injured too badly to play, then whats the difference between LTIR and retirement? In either case it's unfair to stick the team with the cap hit.
Pronger shouldnt have to come back every year and pretend to try and come back if he truly can't just to help the team out
If he retires he doesn't get his salary either.
It can't be difficult to come to Philly skate around in non contact drills for two weeks and get 1 million dollars.
I really don't see how anyone just walks away from that.
Heck even if he can't skate for 1 minute, there is the LTIR. He's not going to "retire" on paper until the contract ends.
I'm not expert on LTIR but I would guess that if you're on LTIR you have to make some sort of effort to make a return. If his brain injury won't allow him to be cleared to play again, he will be unable to make that effort regardless, thus be forced into retirement, where his cap hit will effect everything.
I don't know if that's true or not but might explain why everyone is going nuts.
I don't think that's right. If you aren't medically cleared to practice, then you don't need to practice to show that you are trying to return.
Basically, as long as he isn't medically cleared to practice or play, and decides not to voluntarily retire, the Flyers problem is more an inconvenience (less flexibility in the offseason) than a catastrophe. As long as Pronger is stands to take in millions of dollars just to not say he's retiring, I'm fairly confident he won't.
The last two years of his deal, when he stands to make "just" 525, would be the only time I could really imagine him voluntarily walking away.
