TOMapleLaughs Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 (I posted this on HF, but i expect it to be locked because it questions things. Can't have that.) He is by all accounts retired. But because he's not saying it, the Flyers can put him on LTIR for the duration of the 35+ contract that he signed in 2009. http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/3/7/4076326/chris-pronger-retirement-press-conference-flyers There was a huge elephant in the room at Flyers Skate Zone in Voorhees today as Chris Pronger spoke to the media, but nobody could address it directly. It just stood there, big and grey and overwhelming, without making a sound. Everybody knew this was Chris Pronger's retirement press conference, but the Flyers defenseman and future Hall of Famer just won't say it. At least eight questions today touched on the topic, even the direct "Is this your retirement press conference?" question. But because of the rules of the collective bargaining agreement, Pronger can't (or won't) officially retire. If he does, he'd be sticking the Flyers with a $4.9 million salary cap hit each season until July 2017 thanks to the 35-plus contract Paul Holmgren signed him to in the fall of 2009. So he'll sit there, still technically on the Flyers roster for the next five years and on (very) long-term injured reserve, years after his final game as an NHL player. How can we be so certain that Pronger will never play again? Well, just read some of these quotes : "My eye is still troubling. It's not working properly. I don't have peripheral vision. I don't have a lot of the things I have that have worked well for me in the past. My eyesight is-- I keep having to get stronger and stronger glasses. I just got another new prescription. You work on getting healthy." "I have some vulnerability that [doctors] are worried about. That may or may not go away. No matter how long it takes, I have to get healthy that's my main focus and goal." "At times, I can be disoriented, I can lose my train of thought. My cognitive skills are a little suspect at times. It comes and goes on certain days. I can be sitting here and you might say 'what's wrong with him?' and I'll figure out what I was saying and start going again." "I have glasses and I can drive, yes, but I can't run. Anything where I have to move my body fast. If I ride a bike where my heart rate gets up to high, I get symptoms. Pretty much anything where there's a lot going on. ... I've been on the ice with my kids but I can't say I'm really doing a lot. Pushing pucks around. I've been on the ice and I've gotten symptoms and tried to do some things. It didn't go very well." He can't ride a bike or run or do anything more on the ice than push pucks around with his kids. He's lost most or all of his peripheral vision. He gets stronger glasses all the time and the doctors are worried that his symptoms won't improve. He forgets what he's saying when he's talking. He also can't say that he's retired from hockey, because it will screw over his team for the next half a decade. But even though he inserts the hope into some of the things he says -- "I'm focused on getting better and from there we'll see what happens" -- just look at his condition objectively here. Chris Pronger is retired from hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbox Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Easy answer. So he doesn't take up cap space on Philly. Yes it's wrong but there will always be a loophole in the CBA for things like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 If he retires, then he won't get paid any more either. So even if it wasn't for cap reasons, why not stay on injured reserve and get paid instead of declaring that you're retired and not get paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Philly has done this with numerous players. - Pronger - Laperriere* - Hatcher - Rathje *Won the Bill Masterson Trophy in 2011 even though his career was over from the season before (puck to the face) and he was just LTIR'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 I'd say Holmgren and the Flyers will get what's coming to them for the *nudge nudge wink wink* cap circumvention but I think it already happened. Karma, in this case, came by the name of Ilya Bryzgalov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 If he retires, then he won't get paid any more either. So even if it wasn't for cap reasons, why not stay on injured reserve and get paid instead of declaring that you're retired and not get paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Uh, because he's not officially retired? I mean, we know he's extremely unlikely to ever play again, same with Marc Savard, but until he announces it or the NHL puts a cap on the amount of time a player can spend on LTI over multiple seasons, he's not retired. This way Philly doesn't get screwed on the cap and Pronger still gets paid through players insurance. Of course their circumventing the spirit of the cap, but it's not illegal if there's no rule against it and the NHL doesn't step in to make a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik Kesler Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 After seeing the Pronger interview with Dan Murphy last year, I have a hard time feeling bad for Pronger. Hockey Karma eventually caught up with him for the way he played the game and for the fact he isn't the least bit remorseful over the intentionally injurious plays he made during his career. I know it sucks that he can't play anymore, but the if the NHL is so hell bent on ending cap circumvention via back diving contracts, they should alos cap the amount of consecutive games a player can be on LTIR so that teams can't circumvent the cap by burying players on LTIR for multiple seasons (also Savaard in Boston). Then again the NHLPA would never stand for it so it's probably a non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Because the insurance company is paying his salary. If he retires he doesn't get paid, but it costs his team nothing to let him stay on LTIR. He's not the only one. There's also Marc Savard. He's unlikely to ever play again. (Who in their right mind would suffer for years of post-concussion syndrome and then come back after it finally went away if it ever did?!) But, he's still not officially retired and will likely continue to get paid for the length of his contract by the insurance company. Interestingly, both had 7-year back-diving contracts the NHL didn't like. However, due to the fact that they remain on LTIR rather than simply retiring, neither Philly nor the Bruins will ever have a cap recapture penalty from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Is there something in the water, down in Philly? Losing vision, & one's train of thought, is precisely what happens to Holmgren, when swinging trades and/or signing players. Seems like karma for the broad st bullies' antics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2xtreme Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Uh, because he's not officially retired? I mean, we know he's extremely unlikely to ever play again, same with Marc Savard, but until he announces it or the NHL puts a cap on the amount of time a player can spend on LTI over multiple seasons, he's not retired. This way Philly doesn't get screwed on the cap and Pronger still gets paid through players insurance. Of course their circumventing the spirit of the cap, but it's not illegal if there's no rule against it and the NHL doesn't step in to make a decision. I don't disagree. But the same could be said for those long term, back diving contracts that the league put a rule in after the fact to punish teams that used them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Same reason Savard is still on payroll. So that they can keep earning their salary off insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Uh, because he's not officially retired? I mean, we know he's extremely unlikely to ever play again, same with Marc Savard, but until he announces it or the NHL puts a cap on the amount of time a player can spend on LTI over multiple seasons, he's not retired. This way Philly doesn't get screwed on the cap and Pronger still gets paid through players insurance. Of course their circumventing the spirit of the cap, but it's not illegal if there's no rule against it and the NHL doesn't step in to make a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Same reason Savard is still on payroll. So that they can keep earning their salary off insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 I don't think every player's salary is insured. Often, the team is on the hook for the salary for the duration of the contract. I'll see if I can find something to back that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Just get that nagging feeling if Vancouver had a player in this situation, the league would find fault if they took the same course of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 I think in Prongers case its dubious, but in Savards case he was only 30 years old and probably has two small kids and a young wife to support. The league tends to get a blind eye to guys like Savard and let them 'rehab' for 5 years. Edit: Isnt Mattias Ohlund going through the same thing? Not retired but hasnt played for years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 I think in Prongers case its dubious, but in Savards case he was only 30 years old and probably has two small kids and a young wife to support. The league tends to get a blind eye to guys like Savard and let them 'rehab' for 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 I'm normally fairly skeptical, but in this case I would bet money that Pronger's injury, and inability to play, is legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMillan Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Well if he is still having symptoms then he's still injured. Let's say you work at a mill and have a contract to work at that mill and insurance to cover you if you're injured. Now you lose your leg and cannot go back to work. Should your contract be tossed because you're not "officially" retired yet you'll never work again? What a dumb argument we have here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.