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

Pronger's contract investigated

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-10-2010, 01:42 PM
  #126
Hollywood Couturier
Moderator
 
Hollywood Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 20,044
vCash: 500
Hypothetically speaking the league voids all those contracts, Pronger is a UFA isn't he....

__________________

"I Came Here To Bury Caesar, Not Praise Him" - Roy Halladay
Hollywood Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 01:44 PM
  #127
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Prongers counts if he retires, i still dont get why they would look at him

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 01:47 PM
  #128
jd2210
Registered Non User
 
jd2210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
What did I miss? I thought they had already ruled it a +35 contract.

jd2210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 01:48 PM
  #129
DeadPhish5858
Rumham!
 
DeadPhish5858's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: the Shade
Country: United States
Posts: 13,476
vCash: 200
Send a message via AIM to DeadPhish5858
I guess its only fair now that they made the ruling to look at the other long contracts. They won't do anything. Playing til your 42 is alot different than playing til 50.

DeadPhish5858 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 01:49 PM
  #130
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Cannon View Post
Hypothetically speaking the league voids all those contracts, Pronger is a UFA isn't he....
Yep.

But the league isn't going to go there. I think they wanted to draw a line in the sand, and they did. Kovalchuk will sign a deal that takes him to 42 (like some of these others) and if the NHL wants to void it, then they're going to have to be prepared to go after all the others (and I don't think they will).

Even then, Pronger is in a different discussion. Flyers accepted a HUGE risk in that deal that the other teams do not have to worry about.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 01:49 PM
  #131
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,099
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not really news, they never "closed" the investigation. That being said, the difference between the 35+ Pronger contract and the others appears to evade pretty much every pundit out there, which is mesmerizing to me. They certainly tacked on extra years to bring down the cap hit, and Pronger may or may not play those years... but they are very different animals as far as the ramifications to the team there.
I have never understood how anyone can lump the Pronger contract with all the others. Someone's on the hook for the cap hit every year of Pronger's contract while everyone else is free to retire freeing up space for their particular team.

It might have been 'cap circumvention' in terms of lowering the cap hit, but it certainly isn't smooth sailing in the later years of the contract like the others are (provided that there's a good chance many of these guys retire before the contract is up).

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 02:04 PM
  #132
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You realize that the potential problem has nothing to do with whether they think the player in question will be playing then or not, right? The issue is whether there was a specific conversation between the parties concerning when the player intended to retire, and then tacking on years past that date to lower the cap hit for the years in which the player intends to be playing.

For Hossa, it absolutely makes sense to question the contract along those lines. For Pronger, it doesn't make sense...because his cap hit isn't going anywhere.

Moreover, I think those questions about the Hossa contract are entirely accurate...I don't think the Hawks expect him to play out the entirety of the deal, and I would wager heavily that Hossa and the Hawks specifically discussed when he intended to retire (just as I'm sure the Flyers and Pronger did). Translating those conversations (which should not come out in the public sphere) into evidence of dishonest dealing is something the league is going to have a problem proving...but if they could, they absolutely should void the contract.

As to the rule itself...they should change it. Likely, they should change it one of two ways. Either set a limit for the number of years a contract can be signed....or simply make all years past the age of 35 mandatory cap hit years. I would prefer the latter, because I have no problem with teams locking up their players long-term.
I agree they need to change the rule, but don't think it matters at all whether the player intends to play out the contract or whether the team expects them too. It could never be proven.

The issue of 35+ is also a bit of red herring because, while Pronger's contract will count against the cap if he retires and misses the last two years, the cap hit for the whole contract is substantially reduced by the two low out years.

That directly benefits the Flyers for five years even though it would punish them if (when) he retires early.

If you remove the final two years, Pronger's contract would be a $6.59M cap hit over 5 years, which is a lot bigger cap hit than $4.93M, even if that reduced hit has to be counted whether he plays or not.

The Flyers could argue it's not like Kovalchuk, Hossa, etc. but the Islanders could argue that they suffer a competitive disadvantage against the Flyers the same as they would the Devils with Kovy.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 02:08 PM
  #133
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
I really don't think the NHL has a leg to stand on here because it's not really cap circumvention. There are plenty of long term deals out there like Richards' that aren't retirement contracts, but have cheaper years to balance it out, if the pronger contract circumvents the cap then so do they.

Still baffling how Detroit avoids the investigations when their contracts for Zetterberg and Franzen are the same thing.

McNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 02:09 PM
  #134
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Cannon View Post
Hypothetically speaking the league voids all those contracts, Pronger is a UFA isn't he....
... and a UFA we probably could not afford on the open market.

And Chicago would probably be ecstatic, Vancouver less so....

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 02:13 PM
  #135
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
I agree they need to change the rule, but don't think it matters at all whether the player intends to play out the contract or whether the team expects them too. It could never be proven.
Whether it could be proven or not is a secondary issue as to whether such an understanding exists. If such an understanding exists, then the contract is inherently fraudulent in nature. I agree that it is nearly impossible to prove such an agreement unless the parties involved are idiots.

Quote:
The issue of 35+ is also a bit of red herring because, while Pronger's contract will count against the cap if he retires and misses the last two years, the cap hit for the whole contract is substantially reduced by the two low out years.

That directly benefits the Flyers for five years even though it would punish them if (when) he retires early.
...a "red herring" until you forced to address that there is ZERO negative consequence for retirement of a pre-35 contract. BIG difference between the two.

Quote:
If you remove the final two years, Pronger's contract would be a $6.59M cap hit over 5 years, which is a lot bigger cap hit than $4.93M, even if that reduced hit has to be counted whether he plays or not.

The Flyers could argue it's not like Kovalchuk, Hossa, etc. but the Islanders could argue that they suffer a competitive disadvantage against the Flyers the same as they would the Devils with Kovy.
They certainly tacked on some extra years to make the cap hit come down. However, at the same time, a $4.93M cap hit for a contract paying a player between the ages of 35 and 42 strikes me as pretty damn reasonable in the grand scheme of things.

Moreover, the problem here has NOTHING to do with competitive advantage or disadvantage, so who the F cares what the Islanders might say? The ONLY issue is whether it's circumventing the salary cap. And, you can certainly bring up issues with the structure of the Pronger contract, but the Pronger contract has very different elements to it as far as how the CBA treats it. The fact that he can't retire and make the cap hit go away puts it into an entirely different area code, because it is not a retirement contract. The Flyers get NO advantage from him retiring, in fact they get penalized.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 02:23 PM
  #136
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,757
vCash: 5888
The 35+ Rule doesn't have anything to do with this, it's strictly the cap hit.

Anyways, they won on Kovalchuk - as they should have. They shouldn't win the others, because it's taking so damn long. The only reason they were waiting was so they could get one like Kovalchuk and bring all the others up, because now they know there is a precedent and they will try to blur that line. Hossa already played a year under his contract, what are they going to do, say they broke the rules? Doesn't that make him ineligible to play?

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 02:23 PM
  #137
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Moreover, the problem here has NOTHING to do with competitive advantage or disadvantage, so who the F cares what the Islanders might say? The ONLY issue is whether it's circumventing the salary cap. And, you can certainly bring up issues with the structure of the Pronger contract, but the Pronger contract has very different elements to it as far as how the CBA treats it. The fact that he can't retire and make the cap hit go away puts it into an entirely different area code, because it is not a retirement contract. The Flyers get NO advantage from him retiring, in fact they get penalized.
The only reason to circumvent the cap is to gain a competitive advantage, and the Flyers have certainly structured Pronger's deal to circumvent the cap now, even if they risk a penalty later - and even if the other teams would benefit more by their guys retiring.

You're just talking about the scale of the benefit, not the existence of one.

And there is also no guarantee the Flyers will suffer the penalty, they could simply trade his rights to a team struggling to meet the cap floor, as has been discussed many times here.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 02:32 PM
  #138
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
The 35+ Rule doesn't have anything to do with this, it's strictly the cap hit.

Anyways, they won on Kovalchuk - as they should have. They shouldn't win the others, because it's taking so damn long. The only reason they were waiting was so they could get one like Kovalchuk and bring all the others up, because now they know there is a precedent and they will try to blur that line. Hossa already played a year under his contract, what are they going to do, say they broke the rules? Doesn't that make him ineligible to play?
The 35+ rule has EVERYTHING to do with these deals, there's a reason no one is signing players that are 35+ to these types of deals other than the Flyers. You jump on guys with these deals when they're 30 or whatever and you're fine... 35+ contract and you accept huge risk for negative blowback down the line.

The pre-35 rules allow you to essentially sign players to contracts at lower cap hits than they will actually pay out. You literally cannot do that with a 35+ contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
The only reason to circumvent the cap is to gain a competitive advantage, and the Flyers have certainly structured Pronger's deal to circumvent the cap now, even if they risk a penalty later - and even if the other teams would benefit more by their guys retiring.

You're just talking about the scale of the benefit, not the existence of one.

And there is also no guarantee the Flyers will suffer the penalty, they could simply trade his rights to a team struggling to meet the cap floor, as has been discussed many times here.
...it's not "cap circumvention," though... because you can't circumvent anything with a 35+ contract... the rules specifically prohibit you from doing so. NHL contracts are X dollars over Y years... that's it. With a 35+ deal you can't change that math... with a pre-35 contract, you can.

And, yes, the Flyers could potentially deal Pronger to avoid the dead cap space, but they'd likely have to send an asset along with it. Negative consequence. However, that's, again, a separate issue to the contract itself.

And, to be clear, "circumvent" means "to go around or bypass," and, as noted, that's impossible to do with a 35+ deal. So, at that point, you're just complaining about how the money is distributed throughout the life of the contract... and that's a VERY different argument than the issues surrounding these retirement deals.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 02:35 PM
  #139
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
The 35+ Rule doesn't have anything to do with this, it's strictly the cap hit.

Anyways, they won on Kovalchuk - as they should have. They shouldn't win the others, because it's taking so damn long. The only reason they were waiting was so they could get one like Kovalchuk and bring all the others up, because now they know there is a precedent and they will try to blur that line. Hossa already played a year under his contract, what are they going to do, say they broke the rules? Doesn't that make him ineligible to play?
Well the Briere contract would fall into that category then, ditto Richards, Duncan Keith, Zetterberg. The ones they are looking at are contracts that take players into their 40's, so the 35+ rule would come into effect IMO.

McNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 02:37 PM
  #140
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
they know exactly what these contracts are. their just pretending to "look into them" as a formality. but hossa's the only real gray area. their just using this to set some guidelines from here on out, which they should. i hate that kovalchuk was looking at that kind of contract to set the bar for every consistent one way 40 goal scorer. we might have our own consistent one way 40 goal guy and if that contract goes through im sure he's outta here next year. gotta keep things somewhat reasonable. 40 aint 60. (or 50 either)

funghoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 02:41 PM
  #141
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by funghoul View Post
they know exactly what these contracts are. their just pretending to "look into them" as a formality. but hossa's the only real gray area. their just using this to set some guidelines from here on out, which they should. i hate that kovalchuk was looking at that kind of contract to set the bar for every consistent one way 40 goal scorer. we might have our own consistent one way 40 goal guy and if that contract goes through im sure he's outta here next year. gotta keep things somewhat reasonable. 40 aint 60. (or 50 either)
Hossa's is very similarly structured with a significantly smaller amount of cash involved. However, there are some others questionable deals floating around out there.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:14 PM
  #142
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
The issue is the actual dollars these guys will be paid out in the final years. They could trade Prongers cap hit of 4.9mm but the other team who needs to get to the cap floor only has to pay him 550k. The 35 year old rule is another example of the drunk GM not knowing the rules of teh cap. That in itself is embarassing.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:19 PM
  #143
mypunkrock
Registered User
 
mypunkrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 2,426
vCash: 500
Eh, if they declare Pronger a free agent, I say we sign him for fewer years and a cap hit equal to what he has now. Hell, we make out better because it would allow us to restructure (and also have leverage given Pronger's recent knee issue).

Really, do you think people would support that? Absolutely not.

mypunkrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:21 PM
  #144
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,412
vCash: 500
Did Holmgren seriously not know the over-35 rule?

That's a joke right? There's no way a GM could be that incompetent.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:22 PM
  #145
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
The issue is the actual dollars these guys will be paid out in the final years. They could trade Prongers cap hit of 4.9mm but the other team who needs to get to the cap floor only has to pay him 550k. The 35 year old rule is another example of the drunk GM not knowing the rules of teh cap. That in itself is embarassing.
Huh? I think the GM knew the rules perfectly. And if we traded his rights, and he retired, the team receiving him would count the cap hit without having to pay him one red cent (assuming the US and Canada have not done away with the penny too, by the time the contracts expire), since he'd be suspended without pay for not honouring his contract.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:23 PM
  #146
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypunkrock View Post
Eh, if they declare Pronger a free agent, I say we sign him for fewer years and a cap hit equal to what he has now. Hell, we make out better because it would allow us to restructure (and also have leverage given Pronger's recent knee issue).

Really, do you think people would support that? Absolutely not.
...Chris Pronger could absolutely sign for a higher cap hit on a shorter deal.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:27 PM
  #147
GentlemanOfLeisure
Ride Space Mountain
 
GentlemanOfLeisure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: East Windsor NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,971
vCash: 500
The league can and will do this. With Pronger there is a sliver lining in that he didnt play under his extension yet, meaning there would be no penalty like what Chicago could be given with Hossa.

Google Jonas Frogren and see what I mean. The League took a 4th round pick away from Toronto a year after Frogren signed an illegal contract.

Just because the contract is registered doesnt mean it's legal.


At worst Pronger would be an UFA and lets be honest, considering how many other teams that are good that have no cap room, he just re-sign a reworked deal with Phili although I can see Burke in Toronto making things difficult.

GentlemanOfLeisure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:29 PM
  #148
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GentlemanOfLeisure View Post
The league can and will do this. With Pronger there is a sliver lining in that he didnt play under his extension yet, meaning there would be no penalty like what Chicago could be given with Hossa.

Google Jonas Frogren and see what I mean. The League took a 4th round pick away from Toronto a year after Frogren signed an illegal contract.

Just because the contract is registered doesnt mean it's legal.


At worst Pronger would be an UFA and lets be honest, considering how many other teams that are good that have no cap room, he just re-sign a reworked deal with Phili although I can see Burke in Toronto making things difficult.
Just re-sign him to his original $6.5 mill contract without those last two years and waive Walker. Done and done.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:32 PM
  #149
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
Huh? I think the GM knew the rules perfectly. And if we traded his rights, and he retired, the team receiving him would count the cap hit without having to pay him one red cent (assuming the US and Canada have not done away with the penny too, by the time the contracts expire), since he'd be suspended without pay for not honouring his contract.
I dont think he did at all, especially reading all the things that were out there last summer. Soemone probably (ask kim johnnson) has all those articles.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 04:51 PM
  #150
JABEE
Registered User
 
JABEE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,601
vCash: 500
If Pronger's gone the Flyers would probably not be able to resign him. His Cap hit would have to go up and then you risk losing Giroux next season.

JABEE 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 09:57 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.