wallstreetamigo Posted October 10, 2014 Author Share Posted October 10, 2014 Pronger can terminate it by retiring. The issue is that Philly would be stuck with ~$5M in dead cap space. The rule is there to stop teams from front-loading veteran player contracts which the Flyers actually did with Chris Pronger deal. They knew the risks when they signed it. Contrast this to the cap recapture "Luongo" rule where teams did not know about penalties (the penalties were added in a new CBA) when contracts were signed. The NHL is brain dead and out of touch with reality. Here is Gary Bettman's quote on the situation (article here): "Chris' case is unique," Bettman said. "There are salary cap reasons why he couldn't officially retire, but ... if in fact we go that route, I'm not sure that presents any problem at all to deal with. He's done playing. He gets paid no matter what from the Flyers. He doesn't owe them anything." Basically Bettman admits that the only reason he has not retired is to help the Flyers cap. I guess because the Flyers' owner is one of Bettman's biggest allies everything is A-OK. Disgusting. So when another player is kept on the LTIR for "salary cap reasons", I guess that will be OK too. When players are old enough, you can find an injury that ends their career. I wish there were some "rogue" owners who would go on record about this crap. The mainstream hockey media is too scared to really press on this because they don't want to get shut out of their insider access. Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2014/10/08/5404502/bettman-ok-with-pronger-getting.html?sp=/99/1313/134/#storylink=cpy lol Bettman is a clown. He may as well just say he will make up the rules as he goes along, thank you very much. Funny how LTIR is a personal piggy bank for teams like Philly and Boston. If Vancouver ever tried to do that they would be slapped with fines, lost draft picks, and a definite cap recapture penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Like hiring a career criminal to head up security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbox Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Pronger can terminate it by retiring. The issue is that Philly would be stuck with ~$5M in dead cap space. The rule is there to stop teams from front-loading veteran player contracts which the Flyers actually did with Chris Pronger deal. They knew the risks when they signed it. Contrast this to the cap recapture "Luongo" rule where teams did not know about penalties (the penalties were added in a new CBA) when contracts were signed. The NHL is brain dead and out of touch with reality. Here is Gary Bettman's quote on the situation (article here): "Chris' case is unique," Bettman said. "There are salary cap reasons why he couldn't officially retire, but ... if in fact we go that route, I'm not sure that presents any problem at all to deal with. He's done playing. He gets paid no matter what from the Flyers. He doesn't owe them anything." Basically Bettman admits that the only reason he has not retired is to help the Flyers cap. I guess because the Flyers' owner is one of Bettman's biggest allies everything is A-OK. Disgusting. So when another player is kept on the LTIR for "salary cap reasons", I guess that will be OK too. When players are old enough, you can find an injury that ends their career. I wish there were some "rogue" owners who would go on record about this crap. The mainstream hockey media is too scared to really press on this because they don't want to get shut out of their insider access. Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2014/10/08/5404502/bettman-ok-with-pronger-getting.html?sp=/99/1313/134/#storylink=cpy Yeah I know that, but it should be an exception where he retires and they don't get the penalty. That rule is meant for 35+ players so GM's don't through multi-years at them to lower the cap hit. I don't think it's fair for Philly to have that hit. He didn't retire for the hell of it or because his salary was drastically dropped (1M in the final years to lower the hit, although I do believe if he didn't get hurt then that was the plan) like many players before him did. He had his career ended by a freak accident, and that should be the exception to the rule. I never thought I'd say this, ever, but I actually agree with GB on this one. Chris Prongers case is definitely a unique one that shouldn't share the same rules as a regular retiree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTaVul5H2Zo "And here you can clearly see at the 17 second mark, Ed Snider (later seen at a bikini disco) taking all my poutine away! I was so upset that I went home and with a headache." (Ed Snider and Gary Bettman are good pals. There is no doubt that Snider, 81, would like to see his team winning a cup before he's out of the picture. This move definitely helps.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 How is this not a conflict of interest? How is the insurance company who is paying Pronger's salary not suing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Glad to see he's well enough to be living more of a normal life, but Philly can't escape his cap hit by allowing him to be hired by the league (and for the NHL to specifically say he's done playing) yet still keep him on IR. This has to be looked at. Now here is the thing. How on earth can anything he does in regards to or against any incident with the Flyers now not be considered a conflict of interest? Shouldn't he be a retired individual to be taking this position? Honestly, I won't be shocked if they hire Savard as disciplinarian now and allow Boston the same freedom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Pronger can terminate it by retiring. The issue is that Philly would be stuck with ~$5M in dead cap space. The rule is there to stop teams from front-loading veteran player contracts which the Flyers actually did with Chris Pronger deal. They knew the risks when they signed it. Contrast this to the cap recapture "Luongo" rule where teams did not know about penalties (the penalties were added in a new CBA) when contracts were signed. The NHL is brain dead and out of touch with reality. Here is Gary Bettman's quote on the situation (article here): "Chris' case is unique," Bettman said. "There are salary cap reasons why he couldn't officially retire, but ... if in fact we go that route, I'm not sure that presents any problem at all to deal with. He's done playing. He gets paid no matter what from the Flyers. He doesn't owe them anything." Basically Bettman admits that the only reason he has not retired is to help the Flyers cap. I guess because the Flyers' owner is one of Bettman's biggest allies everything is A-OK. Disgusting. So when another player is kept on the LTIR for "salary cap reasons", I guess that will be OK too. When players are old enough, you can find an injury that ends their career. I wish there were some "rogue" owners who would go on record about this crap. The mainstream hockey media is too scared to really press on this because they don't want to get shut out of their insider access. Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2014/10/08/5404502/bettman-ok-with-pronger-getting.html?sp=/99/1313/134/#storylink=cpy BOOM Drops mic flips bird walks away I have questioned this for quite some time now, and Bettman has now basically said the same thing I have been saying. How the frag is this NOT circumvention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 A guy still on the payroll of an NHL team should have nothing to do with league operations. How is this allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 A guy still on the payroll of an NHL team should have nothing to do with league operations. How is this allowed? See this is what I don't understand. How could ANY player not immediately fight the league in regards to anything done via any incident with the Flyers? It's the Arizona Bettmans errr the Gary Coyotes all over again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Personally I don't think the so-called 'Luongo Rule' will ever be implemented on the contracts that were signed pre-new-CBA. It was created to stop any more of these circumvention contracts from being signed. There's what, a handful (10-20?) contracts scattered around the league and I think when any of those guys attempt to retire early, a 'special allowance' will waive those penalties, like Kovalchuk's 'retirement'. Remember Bettman is still just working for the owners. Ghostsof1915 has it upthread, this is not cap circumvention, it's insurance fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Now here is the thing. How on earth can anything he does in regards to or against any incident with the Flyers now not be considered a conflict of interest? Shouldn't he be a retired individual to be taking this position? Honestly, I won't be shocked if they hire Savard as disciplinarian now and allow Boston the same freedom I agree, any individual taking a position with the league shouldn't be on the payroll of any team in that league. I think I saw a tweet earlier saying there was a rule to that effect but haven't seen it mentioned again. I didn't agree it was cap circumvention before, but it certainly is now since the NHL has specifically said he won't play again and has taken another job. I doubt we can draw a connection to Savard suddenly getting a position, since Savard can retire at any time and his cap hit just goes away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Personally I don't think the so-called 'Luongo Rule' will ever be implemented on the contracts that were signed pre-new-CBA. It was created to stop any more of these circumvention contracts from being signed. There's what, a handful (10-20?) contracts scattered around the league and I think when any of those guys attempt to retire early, a 'special allowance' will waive those penalties, like Kovalchuk's 'retirement'. Remember Bettman is still just working for the owners. Ghostsof1915 has it upthread, this is not cap circumvention, it's insurance fraud. This is actually a very good way to look at it. I do wonder now if the insurance company involved will approach this via subrogation and attempt to recoup said losses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 I agree, any individual taking a position with the league shouldn't be on the payroll of any team in that league. I think I saw a tweet earlier saying there was a rule to that effect but haven't seen it mentioned again. I didn't agree it was cap circumvention before, but it certainly is now since the NHL has specifically said he won't play again and has taken another job. I doubt we can draw a connection to Savard suddenly getting a position, since Savard can retire at any time and his cap hit just goes away. See I don't know how this is allowed at all. Being stuck in a union for many years I would be charging conflict of interest reports every time said team hit the ice. bettman really opened it up this time. You know Det, Chi and such will be looking in to this via Zetterburg Hossa and such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Yeah I know that, but it should be an exception where he retires and they don't get the penalty. That rule is meant for 35+ players so GM's don't through multi-years at them to lower the cap hit. I don't think it's fair for Philly to have that hit. He didn't retire for the hell of it or because his salary was drastically dropped (1M in the final years to lower the hit, although I do believe if he didn't get hurt then that was the plan) like many players before him did. He had his career ended by a freak accident, and that should be the exception to the rule. I never thought I'd say this, ever, but I actually agree with GB on this one. Chris Prongers case is definitely a unique one that shouldn't share the same rules as a regular retiree. No. He was hurt and that sucks, but he's hardly the first guy to have to retire due to injury. If the NHL thought that was a good enough reason to make an exception for it would have been one in the 35+ rule. It could have even been added at any time since then. It wasn't. The rule was made specifically because 35+ players often retire before they complete these long contracts due to any number of reasons. The likelihood that he would have completed this contract if he hadn't been hurt is next to zero, so why should they not face punishment as any other team would? Why should the rule be applied differently for Philly/Pronger than anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Yeah I do think there's a huge problem re: conflict of interest and generally bad business ethics going on here, I just think it's more insurance 'circumvention' (maybe fraud was too strong a word for now) than cap circumvention, The interesting thing is that should whoever's paying the insurance decide to fight back, now it wouldn't just involve the Flyers organization, it'd involve the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfruits Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 this is such garbage he doesn't get forced to retire which would have him off the Flyers LTIR which would hurt their cap situation how is this not cap circumvention the league the owners the players everyone are pathetic for allowing this to happen call it whatever you want but Pronger and his cap relief should be removed from the Flyers bottom line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 A guy still on the payroll of an NHL team should have nothing to do with league operations. How is this allowed? Because the Flyers season is already dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 It's like putting Michael Vick in charge of the ASPCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 This is ridiculous and hypocritical. The NHL and Pronger should be ashamed. Pronger was one of the dirtiest players of all time. What a sham! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HC20.0 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Not only was Pronger one of the dirtiest of all time, but he's still on Philly's payroll. What the frigging hell Bettman! "It's okay because salary cap reasons." Bull crap. I'm sorry but this not only screams cap circumvention, but it also screams clear bias by our brain dead Commissioner. This is a complete joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.