Pronger deal OK'd

Anyone else have a problem with the possible politics and timing of this? Hrmn, Ed Snider (proud member of the Old Boys Club) and Media Giant Comcast and parent company for the Flyers. Seems to me the NHL does not want to upset those two entities.
The timing bothers me because if the reason for this 2-day delay is to work out an agreement between the NHL and the PA regarding future long-term or possible Cap-circumventing contracts, why doesn't the Pronger deal fit into the mix?
Not to mention, it seems the Savard contract (and the Jacobs in Boston) are no longer mentioned in the possible Cap-circumvention deals. Ugh. Sound off!

over 1 year ago Skuba7 14 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

okay

I feel like a tween girl, but “Whatever.”

I’ve said everything I have to say about the situation in other threads.

by Murdoc on Sep 2, 2010 12:59 PM EDT reply actions

Pronger’s seems to be a 35+ deal (at least according to capgeek). So even if Pronger retires, his cap hit would still count. Thus, they’re stuck if he retires, and it’s not really circumvention in that case.

Camp Torturella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf

by George E. Ays on Sep 2, 2010 1:20 PM EDT reply actions

I would love to see him retire next year or something.

by devsfan9 on Sep 2, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions

I would too. He’s coming off an outstanding year and it’d severely weaken the Flyers defense.

Camp Torturella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf

by George E. Ays on Sep 2, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

That being said, to me the attempt was clear by the Flyers before they messed up with the 35+ aspect, so why not punish them?

"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello

by Skuba7 on Sep 3, 2010 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions

So the Devils shouldn’t get any punishment or penalties for the Kovalchuk contract and the Pronger contract should get penalized for some apparent ‘intent’ to circumvent the cap when the actual contract does nothing of the sort in that if Pronger does not play till 42 the Flyers will be stuck with a phantom cap hit??

Simon Gagne may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home, but at the end of the day, he will always be a Philadelphia Flyer.

by PursuitOfLappyness on Sep 3, 2010 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions

i still think they will trade him – we’ll see if the nhl can prove a circumvention if they do. the nhl is probably planning to amend the rule on 35+ to say that if a 35+ player is traded, but does not report to training camp and does not play any professional game in north america, his cap hit still counts for his original team. something like this, anyway.

by Triumph44 on Sep 2, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

What if the cap hit for any player over 35, regardless of age at signing of contract, continued to impact the signing clubs’ cap after retiring early?

Kinda solves the whole, let’s sign this guy till he’s 44 at a $6.5M cap hit thing. That 6.5M for those last 5 years would be really useful if not spent on a guy not playing.

by Murdoc on Sep 2, 2010 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

An interesting idea, but the “unintended consequences” would result in the PA fighting the mere concept tooth-and-nail. You’ll end up with very few players being signed to contracts taking them past their 35th birthday, and a mass exodus of older players in favor of unrpoven prospects (which may then result in a general deflation of contract values).

It also allows teams to circumvent the cap by signing those deals (or trading for them) to eat cap space so a cheapskate owner can pocket the money instead.

In any event, there are enough flaws in the idea that I wouldn’t want to propose it if I were the League. And if I were the PA (and had to deal with a number of veterans whose careers could be killed by this concept), I’d fight it tooth-and-nail.

by acasser on Sep 2, 2010 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions

George is correct

it was a 35+ contract so it is not circumvention.

"Everything is status quo." - Lou Lamoriello
"*Heavy groan*" - The Entirety of Devils Nation

by njdss4 on Sep 3, 2010 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions

If the contract given to Pronger was not deemed a 35+ contract, it could easily be seen as circumvention, right? Wasn’t a large chunk of the fight on what makes a contract ‘circumvention’ in the first place, artificially reducing the Cap hit? This contract certainly does that.

"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello

by Skuba7 on Sep 3, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions

An interesting idea, but the "unintended consequences" would result in the PA fighting the mere concept tooth-and-nail. You’ll end up with very few players being signed to contracts taking them past their 35th birthday, and a mass exodus of older players in favor of unrpoven prospects (which may then result in a general deflation of contract values).

where is this mass exodus going to go? i believe murdoc’s proposed plan affects only players on multi-year deals.

i would want to shade it to 36 or 37 myself, but i don’t see a problem.

It also allows teams to circumvent the cap by signing those deals (or trading for them) to eat cap space so a cheapskate owner can pocket the money instead.

this is already the case for players 35+.

by Triumph44 on Sep 2, 2010 4:09 PM EDT reply actions

bleh this is meant to be a reply to acasser

by Triumph44 on Sep 2, 2010 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Most vets take one or two year deals. Long term 35+ contracts aren’t exactly the norm, although there are enough of them for it to be a concern. Was just thinking outloud, really. Thought it could be a simple solution to a complicated issue. But when you’re talking about millions of dollars, I guess nothing is as easy as it should be.

by Murdoc on Sep 3, 2010 7:19 AM EDT up reply actions