HFBoards

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

League to Challenge Pronger Contract

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2010, 05:06 PM
  #126
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I think I'm about as unbiased as possible since I actually want the contract to stand in all honesty! Haha.
You can be unbiased all you want, but you need to actually know what Cap Circumvention is before you enter a discussion on it.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 05:08 PM
  #127
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,001
vCash: 500
http://proicehockey.about.com/od/lea...salary_cap.htm

Quote:
The 35-and-Older Clause:

* When a player aged 35 or older signs a multi-year contract, his average salary is counted against the team's salary cap during every year of the contract, even if the player retires before the contract is up.
* If the player is sent to the minor leagues, his cap hit is reduced by $100,000.
Quote:
Contract Buyouts:

* For players under the age of 26, a buyout costs the team one-third of remaining contract value.
* For players 26 or older, a buyout costs two-thirds of remaining contract value.
* On a buyout, the team takes a cap hit for a percentage of the buyout value (according to a very complex formula) spread over twice the length of the remaining contract years.
Okay, found some random site.

Apparently if we could buy it out the final 2 years... and I still don't see any reason why not. We are on the hook for $183,425.00 for 4 seasons? Instead of 4.92M for 2 seasons is this correct?

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 05:12 PM
  #128
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
http://proicehockey.about.com/od/lea...salary_cap.htm





Okay, found some random site.

Apparently if we could buy it out the final 2 years... and I still don't see any reason why not. We are on the hook for $183,425.00 for 4 seasons? Instead of 4.92M for 2 seasons is this correct?
Per capgeek:

Quote:
NOTE: Contracts that fall in the "35-plus" category are not included in the buyout calculator because the player's cap hit remains unchanged even after a buyout.
Capgeek is correct. 35+ can only be traded or LTIR'd. They can not be sent to the minors, bought out, or retired for a sizable cap return.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 05:14 PM
  #129
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,217
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
That isn't why I feel it isn't circumvention. I feel like it isn't circumvention because, for one it isn't, and two...........the Flyers are effectively just trading less yearly salary for more term, which teams do for players all the time.

Granted, the intention was to circumvent the cap. The effect cap-wise is the same as signing a longer contract with a player with the understanding that he would sign at a smaller annual salary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
The problem is, though, that that lowering of the cap hit is circumvention no matter how you put it.
False. With a 35+ contract that option is off the table, it is not possible to circumvent the cap in this manner with a 35+ contract (short of a false LTIR placement).

It is possible to spread the cap hit over more years, and alter the annual cap #, but every dollar that player makes will count on your cap. Simply manipulating contract structures isn't cap circumvention.

The Kovy deal would've been circumvention, because Kovy would've made salary that would've never shown up on New Jersey's cap. That is pretty much the definition of cap circumvention. The Pronger contract doesn't allow us to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
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.
No it won't! It doesn't lessen the total cap hit at all.

If Pronger retires at 40, it has ZERO effect on his contract's cap # for the Flyers. Zero. Got that? Zero. If he was on an under 35 contract, it would work like that. He isn't, so it doesn't.


The principle on which you are objecting to Pronger's contract could be applied to the contract of any player who's annual salary differs from his annual cap hit in a given year. That's a lot of guys.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 05:19 PM
  #130
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Per capgeek:



Capgeek is correct. 35+ can only be traded or LTIR'd. They can not be sent to the minors, bought out, or retired for a sizable cap return.
Thank you.

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 05:52 PM
  #131
ToTheNet
Registered User
 
ToTheNet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Holland, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ToTheNet
I cannot believe people are freaking out about this as much as they are. . .

Have any of you actually done any kind of negotiation . . . EVER?

You see. . . how it works is that both sides try to get 100% of what they want, but that isn't possible, so you use whatever leverage you have and eventually come up with something that both sides can handle.

Chris Pronger obviously wanted some big $s and the Flyers wanted to keep the overall cap hit as low as possible. So Pronger gives his number and wants the majority of his money up front when he has the most to lose. Clearly, the longer he plays in the NHL, the better for him, but if he gets a career ending injury right out of the gate . . . his income is finished.

The Flyers say, that is fine and dandy, you can have your big pay day, but we want some more years out of you and in those years you'll be paid peanuts because at that point in your career you'll be a 3rd pairing/healthy scratch Dman and will not be worth $7M a season anymore.

They both agree and shake hands and sign the papers. . .

Now . . . coming back to the key issue here . . . this cap circumvention that everyone is all up in arms about and has a few pairs of panties all in a bunch. By what the majority of you are saying is that ANY CONTRACT that has payments that either go up or down over the course of a contract is cap circumvention, because clearly anytime the salary for a year goes down, it brings the cap hit down. NO TEAM in their right mind would EVER give a contract out with the same number across all years. It makes ZERO sense and is a terrible investment from a business standpoint. For those of you with knowledge of business we are looking at depreciation of an asset. It is fiscally irresponsible to give a player the same rate every year for multiple years.

Say what you want of the last two years being so much lower, but the fact of the matter is that at that point in his career Pronger WILL NOT be worth even $2million a season. Is $510K too low? possibly, but that is how the negotiations went and he agreed that he believes at that point in his career he'd be worth only $510K. So ***** about circumventing the cap all you want, but it was all about the negotiation and what the two sides felt was fair.

The league has no legs to stand on with this.

ToTheNet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 06:32 PM
  #132
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
pronger's contract is the same as kovalchuck just way shorter and more reasonable. if you tacked on 5 more years at 500k it would just be retarded and obvious like kovalchuck's. their just saying their investigating cause they have to. they will have some limitations from here on in though. i just wish everyone would stop sayin circumvention like they knew what it meant before this, cause you know you didnt.

funghoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 06:36 PM
  #133
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Can the league challenge the Pronger contract on the grounds Pronger's tacked on years will be below vet minimum using current inflation and projected vet minimums?

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 06:39 PM
  #134
ToTheNet
Registered User
 
ToTheNet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Holland, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ToTheNet
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 View Post
Can the league challenge the Pronger contract on the grounds Pronger's tacked on years will be below vet minimum using current inflation and projected vet minimums?
Well technically the cap should be able to go up and down, even though it will always end up going up because of how it is calculated and was a huge waste of time to begin with. So really the you cannot forecast the vet pay because it goes up or down with the cap.

ToTheNet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 06:55 PM
  #135
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by funghoul View Post
pronger's contract is the same as kovalchuck just way shorter and more reasonable. if you tacked on 5 more years at 500k it would just be retarded and obvious like kovalchuck's. their just saying their investigating cause they have to. they will have some limitations from here on in though. i just wish everyone would stop sayin circumvention like they knew what it meant before this, cause you know you didnt.
In theory, tacking on 5 more years to Pronger's contract at league minimum wouldn't change anything. He'd still be under contract for all of those years, but the Flyers would be responsible for:

7.60 + 7.60 + 7.20 + 7.00 + 4.00 + 0.53 + 0.53 + 0.50 + 0.50 + 0.50 + 0.50 + 0.50
TOTAL cap hit: 12 years @ 3.08/year

That's still a monstrous cap hit to limit your books for 12 years even if Pronger was to retire.

Maybe I guess you could throw on an incredible amount of years to a 35+ contract, but the NHL has already made it very clear that if it's beyond the scope of reality they won't approve it from the onset.

Pronger's contract was approved by the NHL originally. Then it was re-examined for possible cap circumvention. Now it's being re-examined again.

If it was that ridiculous, and carried Pronger to the age of 47, it would not have even made it through the first round. To say that Pronger can play until 42 though is not outside the scope of reason, and by that point, a league minimum salary isn't that off base from 40-42. Let's be real for a second; Pronger's good but not even Chelios is that good. It's hard to imagine Pronger being worth $4.92m from 40-42, but I'll happily take him at that age if it means I get to watch him play for us now.

That said, the NHL really needs to look into some of the safeguards they have in place. They have some really smart people working for them, but all it takes is one person to outsmart them before everyone is exploiting them.

The new CBA should cover their ***** against these monster contracts (for lack of anything else to call them). Getting rid of them will help the organizations, the non-superstar players, and the NHL as a whole. Right now though, the temptation is far too high to pencil them together.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 07:35 PM
  #136
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
we should have signed Pronger to a 40 year deal with a 1 million cap hit since in Shafer's mind, that is not circumventing the cap.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 07:40 PM
  #137
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
we should have signed Pronger to a 40 year deal with a 1 million cap hit since in Shafer's mind, that is not circumventing the cap.
Technically it's not, but remember that the NHL has to approve all deals before they go through.

They would've taken a look at Pronger's 40 year deal and come up with something to tell the Flyers to shove it.

I assumed once upon a time that anything over 40 would've gotten immediate dismissal.

I was clearly wrong, but I highly doubt the league wants to push it much further than 42.

You have to make some sort of effort to at least skirt the line of feasibility. 40-44 is gray area, and even beyond 42 is a little out there. Anything beyond that is ridiculous really. The NHL would've put a stop to it much sooner if this hadn't gradually built up to the point it is at now.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 08:48 PM
  #138
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
we should have signed Pronger to a 40 year deal with a 1 million cap hit since in Shafer's mind, that is not circumventing the cap.
Doesn't really matter whether that would or would not be cap circumvention because the league would never allow it to begin with and neither the Flyers or Pronger would ever be insane enough to make such a deal.

Garbage Goal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 08:57 PM
  #139
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Doesn't really matter whether that would or would not be cap circumvention because the league would never allow it to begin with and neither the Flyers or Pronger would ever be insane enough to make such a deal.
Yes, they wouldnt allow it because it would be circumventing the cap. The last 2 years of Pronger's deal are exactly the same on a smaller scale to make it less obvious.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 08:58 PM
  #140
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 94,779
vCash: 200
I dont see how the NHL can go after these contract after the fact

Hell Hossa is already 1 year into his deal and won a cup

If Hossa and Pronger contracts were to be voided the NHL would be laughingstock and lose all credibility

And going after Hossa and Pronger contracts goes after 2 of the most powerful owners in NHL in Rocky Wirtz and Ed Snider along with possibliy damaging 2 of the top franchises in sport

League missed the boat when they didn't challenge the Wings contracts. Hawks and others followed suit

Kovalchuk and Devils pushed it too far thus why there contract was the one that got challenged

Nothing will come of this

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 09:06 PM
  #141
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 5,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
I dont see how the NHL can go after these contract after the fact

Hell Hossa is already 1 year into his deal and won a cup

If Hossa and Pronger contracts were to be voided the NHL would be laughingstock and lose all credibility

And going after Hossa and Pronger contracts goes after 2 of the most powerful owners in NHL in Rocky Wirtz and Ed Snider along with possibliy damaging 2 of the top franchises in sport

League missed the boat when they didn't challenge the Wings contracts. Hawks and others followed suit

Kovalchuk and Devils pushed it too far thus why there contract was the one that got challenged

Nothing will come of this
Pronger's extension hasnt started yet. Neither had Luongo's.

Hossa's started last year.

So technically, the NHL can still void Pronger's deal.

But they shouldnt, because it's not cap circumvention.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 09:06 PM
  #142
BrindamoursNose
Registered User
 
BrindamoursNose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
It depends on how you, and the league, view "circumvention". Yeah, they're paying him the entirety of the contract, but they are "avoiding" a higher cap hit, as is the definition of circumvention, by adding years at the end where the salary is low to lower the cap hit.
That must mean Briere's contract is cap circumvention, too.

He only makes 3 million in the final 2 years, but over 7 million each of the previous 5 years.

Explain how it is different than Pronger's, using your argument of lowering the final few years to lower the entire contract.

Andddddd go.

BrindamoursNose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 09:31 PM
  #143
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,755
vCash: 500
I thought there was a limit in terms of salary differential from one year to the next on any deal. I'm looking at the Pronger deal and to go from 7+ million to 4 million to less than a million indicates that there are some problems with the numbers. Maybe someone can explain that because I was pretty sure that if a player signed a contract, the amount of money they receive from one season to the next couldn't be less than a certain percentage......

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 09:36 PM
  #144
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
Yes, they wouldnt allow it because it would be circumventing the cap. The last 2 years of Pronger's deal are exactly the same on a smaller scale to make it less obvious.
They wouldn't allow it because they would never allow a 20 year contract period, let alone one that would bring a player to over the age of 60.

If the NHL thought Pronger's contract were cap circumvention then they wouldn't have allowed it to go through.


Last edited by Garbage Goal: 08-16-2010 at 02:30 PM.
Garbage Goal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 09:38 PM
  #145
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
I thought there was a limit in terms of salary differential from one year to the next on any deal. I'm looking at the Pronger deal and to go from 7+ million to 4 million to less than a million indicates that there are some problems with the numbers. Maybe someone can explain that because I was pretty sure that if a player signed a contract, the amount of money they receive from one season to the next couldn't be less than a certain percentage......
If there were a problem in the numbers then the NHL wouldn't have allowed the contract.

IIRC, with the exception of the first two years of the contract, the salary amount is allowed to go down by fifty percent after each year or something like that.

Garbage Goal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 09:45 PM
  #146
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
Yes, they wouldnt allow it because it would be circumventing the cap. The last 2 years of Pronger's deal are exactly the same on a smaller scale to make it less obvious.
The 35+ rule would be working in our favor. We'd be exploiting it. It wouldn't technically be cap circumvention though.

I can promise you that the NHL would find some grounds to nix that deal regardless of how they worded it.

It still doesn't make it cap circumvention.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 10:34 PM
  #147
JABEE
Registered User
 
JABEE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,560
vCash: 500
If Hossa's contract was voided that would mean he would have been playing all of last year on an illegal contract and therefore was ineligible? How could they do that?

JABEE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2010, 10:41 PM
  #148
BernieParent
HFB Partner
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 500
The investigators will investigate, a high-profile summary finding will be released, Bill Daly will harrumph about what's best for the league, contract irregularities, spirit of the CBA, etc., and ... nothing will happen. This is posturing for future contracts, plain and simple. They had to take on the Kovalchuk contract because it was so out there, but they don't have a specific legal leg to stand on, therefore voiding the Kovalchuk contract without "investigating" similar, but less egregious, contracts puts them in a bad spot. The Kovalchuk thing isn't over: the NHLPA is crying foul.

Bettman and his flying monkeys are just puffing up their chests to say, "We'll let these other contracts stand even though they are suspect, NHLPA. But we won`t allow the Kovalchuk one, and we`ll be tougher on future numbers games."

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2010, 04:12 AM
  #149
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Just wondering why they are allowed to pass the contract in the first place, but then are allowed to go back and challenge it. Personally i don't believe they should be able to do this. You make a decision there and then. Then you take out the possibility of removing a cup from a team.

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2010, 08:00 AM
  #150
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 11,833
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BringBackStevens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium
Just wondering why they are allowed to pass the contract in the first place, but then are allowed to go back and challenge it. Personally i don't believe they should be able to do this. You make a decision there and then. Then you take out the possibility of removing a cup from a team.
It's making the league look very unprofessional. It's sort of embarassing as a fan of the NHL to be honest with you.

I did read somewhere that the league cannot bring any of these cases in front of the arbitrator once they are approved unless they find new evidence or information that they did not have at the time of approval. If that's true it makes it almost impossible that anything would happen, unless someone bugged Holmgren's office.

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:01 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.