Flyer "Management" - Paying Not To Play

[King Knut]

When's the last time they weren't bumping up against the cap ceiling?

LTIR (which only applies if you are bumping against the cap ceiling).

[King Knut]

LTIR they get some cap relief. Retired, he counts against the cap fully because he's 35+... at least that's my understanding.

I don't understand why the Flyers are playing the LTIR game with Pronger. The cap "relief" doesn't come until the regular season begins at which point there is really no one left to sign.

[radoran]

I don't understand why the Flyers are playing the LTIR game with Pronger. The cap "relief" doesn't come until the regular season begins at which point there is really no one left to sign.

I read the SI article. It's pretty clear he is not coming back.

So what am I missing? Something about the cap hit if he retires versus LTIR?

LTIR they get some cap relief. Retired, he counts against the cap fully because he's 35+... at least that's my understanding.

With LTIR, if they bump up against the cap ceiling, they get the extra space provided by Pronger's contract.

Without LTIR, the $4.9M applies against the $63.4M cap regardless.

They have no choice but to play this game.

When's the last time they weren't bumping up against the cap ceiling?

True, but, again, it also applies in the offseason and already adversely affected the team.

[Lindbergh31]

Well, there are a couple of salient points here:

1) Flyers' bankroll from Comcast allows them to make these sorts of offers, because if (when) they turn into mistakes, they can buy themselves out of it.

2) Homer decided to keep Pronger's contract even after finding out it was going to be 35+ and would count regardless. He rolled the dice - and crapped out.

3) We just lost half a freaking season because of the "financial problems" of the League and one of the poster children (and, let's face it, they're children) for that lockout is the same guy spending money like it grows on trees - including $20M over the next four years to pay players not to play for him.

Yes, the "paying not to pay" is a different issue between Bryz/Briere and Pronger. Nevertheless, there are other teams for whom making a $9M mistake next year would be a potentially serious financial hit for them.

For the Flyers, it means you take the 3rd worst team in the AHL and the 8th worst team in the NHL and say "heckuva job, Homer."

Don't forget the year freeze on Nashville trading Weber is done July 1st I believe, so it wouldn't surprise me to see Holmgren call Poile to see if he's considering the thought of trading Weber then the Flyers want in on it. It will be interesting to see what Holmgren does at the draft and free agency this summer.

[King Knut]

Also true, but I'd suggest that reeling in Bryz one year and then trying to reel in Parise and Suter adversely affected the team more and neither instance was really a tightening of the purse strings type situation.

No matter what, you're right. They can't buy him out, they can't afford for him to retire and he ain't playing so this is the game they need to play... Buying out Bryz and Briere (as much as I like the latter) makes for far more breathing room to make the moves they need to to be competitive again regardless of the Pronger situation.

I will ask this though:

Are there any other major sports leagues in which a player is protected from losing prospective money by having to retire just because he's older than the rest of the league?

That seems obnoxious. I know it's there to protect the less competitive markets and prevent wealthier teams from circumventing the cap more than to protect the aging player, but come on... YOu get old, you get hurt... I'm sorry. Them's the breaks kid! Part of playing a contact sport for a living.

True, but, again, it also applies in the offseason and already adversely affected the team.

[radoran]

Also true, but I'd suggest that reeling in Bryz one year and then trying to reel in Parise and Suter adversely affected the team more and neither instance was really a tightening of the purse strings type situation.

Agree 100%.

I will ask this though:

Are there any other major sports leagues in which a player is protected from losing prospective money by having to retire just because he's older than the rest of the league?

That seems obnoxious. I know it's there to protect the less competitive markets and prevent wealthier teams from circumventing the cap more than to protect the aging player, but come on... YOu get old, you get hurt... I'm sorry. Them's the breaks kid! Part of playing a contact sport for a living.

Well, the basis for the "Over 35" rule was to avoid, for example, an offer to a player that is $6.6M for five years and then $575K for two to get the average cap hit down to $4.9M while acknowledging that playing competitive hockey at 41 and 42 isn't what that vast majority of players do.

Of course, the league then approved exactly that kind of deal.

And then locked the players out and wiped out half a season of hockey to absolutely, positively make sure that the owners can't make those sorts of offers any more.

Don't forget the year freeze on Nashville trading Weber is done July 1st I believe, so it wouldn't surprise me to see Holmgren call Poile to see if he's considering the thought of trading Weber then the Flyers want in on it. It will be interesting to see what Holmgren does at the draft and free agency this summer.

It's a year from when he signed the deal - forget the date.

Nashville just ponied up $26 MILLION in signing bonuses this season for Weber. What do you think they would want from the team that tendered the offer sheet and forced them to pay him $26M plus salary and make a 14-year commitment?

Because if I'm Nashville, I'm wanting a whole heckuva lot more than I would from just about any other potential trade partner.

[flyercanuck]

@King Knut

When you finish dead last and you go after the big names in FA you're not exactly taking the "slow but steady wins the race " approach. As you said, missing the playoffs isn't something fans will put up with. Funny, Toronto fans said that 9 years ago. And 8. And 7. And 6 etc.etc.etc. Still sold out every game. Never made the playoffs. And also funny is we'll also put up with NOT winning the cup as long as we make the playoffs every year. Me personally, I'm sick of that.

As we watch teams who picked players top 5 for multiple years win cups we refuse to go that route because we can win without bottoming out. Well it's been almost 40 years since we won the cup...I don't think the stategy is working. Maybe it's time to try the draft route?

[King Knut]

Honestly, just paying the contract that we forced them to pony up for Weber is probably too high a price for the guy.

Yes. He is a great player. Not a could be, a might be or a should be. He is a great player... but that's a big contract.

That said, Weber is perhaps the only player in the league I would even consider giving that kind of a contract to at this point. Maybe Stamkos.

Because if I'm Nashville, I'm wanting a whole heckuva lot more than I would from just about any other potential trade partner.

[canoli]

I'm only guessing of course but ...

"Hey Dave! Paul Holmgren is on the phone."

"Paul Holmgren? Seriously? Well you can tell that miserable prick to F-Off and never call here again. Wait I'll tell him myself....I'm going to enjoy this."

Maybe it was "just business" and all is fair...etc. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Poile and Homer to talk trades.

[aziz]

@King Knut

Are there any other major sports leagues in which a player is protected from losing prospective money by having to retire just because he's older than the rest of the league?

I don't believe there is an actual concept of retiring mid contact in the nhl, anyway. The flyers ltir'd Hatcher, rathje, primeau through the end of their deals, too. The only option would be for the player to refuse to report, and the team suspend him. The SPC term is the SPC term.

If you look at players that have "retired", they are always at the end of their current contract, pending FAs.