aziz Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Never mind, it was Ryan Lamberthttp://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/penguins-gm-shero-content-status-quo-better-worse-125155576.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 @aziz...be careful my friend... our friendly Pens posters dont take hearsay lightly. I posted a few times about the possibility of Crosby running the team more than Bylsma and typically getting his way b/c of his love affair relationship with Mario. Although it is nothing but rumor I do believe that Crosby gets special treatment in that locker room and organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Never mind, it was Ryan Lamberthttp://sports.yahoo....-125155576.htmlsounds like Flower and Crosby are just like Richards and Carter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Never mind, it was Ryan Lamberthttp://sports.yahoo....-125155576.htmlLambert seems to be an idiot. Am I appraising him correctly? Kind of a shock jock journalist? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Maybe just me (and slightly off topic) but does anyone else think there should be a mechanism for mutually agreed renegotiation of contracts?When you're "forced" to give guys like Clarkson 7 year contracts, something's clearly wrong.maybe this was addressed later on but who "forced" them to give that contract? Owners will be.... well owners.... Get that check book out!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Lambert seems to be an idiot. Am I appraising him correctly? Kind of a shock jock journalist?he said something bad about the Pens so he HAS to be an idiot, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 he said something bad about the Pens so he HAS to be an idiot, right?I read his article, which seems nothing but venom... and then followed the link to his page with other articles, which all read kind of the same. Very critical of everyone else. Adding that to the way Aziz said "Nevermind it was Ryan Lambert" gave me the impression the guy isn't well thought of. THAT is why... not just because the article he wrote was BS. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Well, Lambert IS an idiot. Still, he makes some good points in that article, but....what I referenced earlier, I thought it came from something more definitive than a blogger's musings. It is totally believable to me, but nothing concrete supports it. So, I retract.You guys really should have moved fleury, though, be it trade or buyout. And letang's contract is insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I read his article, which seems nothing but venom... and then followed the link to his page with other articles, which all read kind of the same. Very critical of everyone else. Adding that to the way Aziz said "Nevermind it was Ryan Lambert" gave me the impression the guy isn't well thought of. THAT is why... not just because the article he wrote was BS. LOLI know and agree.... just bustin' your nards Polaris!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 @Polaris922Yeah, Lambert is trash. Really hate him, and apologize for using him as my source. I'd completely forgotten he was where I'd read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 @Polaris922Yeah, Lambert is trash. Really hate him, and apologize for using him as my source. I'd completely forgotten he was where I'd read it.Well thank you for exposing me to him. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The truth of the matter is that LA could no longer afford to pay him what LA paid him. That's why he's a penguin.His new contract is almost exactly what LA paid him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 @King Knut Well, you find a way to afford one of the best defensemen in the league, especially if we're talking less than $4mil. If that's what he is.From what I understand, though, he wanted to come back east, so they may not have had a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I just don't understand how a situation like ours with Pronger is okay.I'm okay with him being guaranteed the money.... I just don't get why it has to count against the cap until the season starts.It just doesn't make sense to me.Does the NHL really think the Flyers wouldn't rather pay a healthy Chris Pronger (even if he is 38) to play? Why must they get punished more than just having to pay him why should it count against the cap? This way their essentially being forced to commit insurance fraud by pretending like he might come back.I don't get it. You get a note from a doctor saying, "yeah, he really is hurt, he's not just retired and faking being hurt for the paycheck", you force the team to pay him out... but why the hell make it count against the cap? I understand the "protecting the cheap teams" thing, but in the case of a guy like Pronger who is obviously hurt and obviously never playing again, this is just annoying and cruel IMHO.Flyers would have just "walked away" from the injured player. Not a great example, but a valid one (since the Flyers were stupid enough to offer the contract). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The money for his new contract went to Quick last year. And he may be one of the best defensemen in the league, but LA still has a few left I'd wager they think are even better. Well, you find a way to afford one of the best defensemen in the league, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I just don't understand how a situation like ours with Pronger is okay.I'm okay with him being guaranteed the money.... I just don't get why it has to count against the cap until the season starts.It just doesn't make sense to me.Does the NHL really think the Flyers wouldn't rather pay a healthy Chris Pronger (even if he is 38) to play? Why must they get punished more than just having to pay him why should it count against the cap? This way their essentially being forced to commit insurance fraud by pretending like he might come back.I don't get it. You get a note from a doctor saying, "yeah, he really is hurt, he's not just retired and faking being hurt for the paycheck", you force the team to pay him out... but why the hell make it count against the cap? I understand the "protecting the cheap teams" thing, but in the case of a guy like Pronger who is obviously hurt and obviously never playing again, this is just annoying and cruel IMHO.I don't have an answer. It's the rule they made. They put in the 35+ rule. The Flyers were aware of it when they signed the deal. That's why it is like it is.It was designed to stop teams from offering insane length contracts with very low pay at the back end so players could make a lot of money in a few years at a low cap hit and then "retire."So, essentially, it was designed to avoid - and penalize - exactly what the Flyers did.(Flyers had the "out" but chose to stick with the deal - probably because Pronger wouldn't play for less money). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I don't have an answer. It's the rule they made. They put in the 35+ rule. The Flyers were aware of it when they signed the deal. That's why it is like it is.It was designed to stop teams from offering insane length contracts with very low pay at the back end so players could make a lot of money in a few years at a low cap hit and then "retire."So, essentially, it was designed to avoid - and penalize - exactly what the Flyers did.The issue I have with it is the lack of an out for a bona fide injury. The only difference between Pronger and Savard is age. But if Savard wanted to walk away due to his injury, he could, and the Bruins wouldn't be penalized. The only one really geting hurt here is Pronger, since he has to make like he's coming back every year. It's not like the Flyers won't get cap relief by putting him on LTIR. Just let the guy retire and get on with his life. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The issue I have with it is the lack of an out for a bona fide injury. The only difference between Pronger and Savard is age. But if Savard wanted to walk away due to his injury, he could, and the Bruins wouldn't be penalized. The only one really geting hurt here is Pronger, since he has to make like he's coming back every year. It's not like the Flyers won't get cap relief by putting him on LTIR. Just let the guy retire and get on with his life.I don't necessarily have a problem with that - if there weren't so many teams trying anything they could to circumvent even the spirit of the cap that they required be put into place....I think once you have an "out" then there are going to be people lining up to take advantage of that "out" in any way possible.The modifications to the rule to penalize the Kovalchuk situation, for example, are a start. There could be a way around the whole situation - but that's based primarily upon people agreeing to follow the letter - and spirit - of the rules and the NHL's willingness to actually enforce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Have the player undergo an examination by a third party doctor. Doc signs off on the injury, Player is paid on the contract, since he's injured and not retiring by choice, but contract comes off the books. Player formally retires from the NHL with a legal agreement never to return. The only issue would be with him eventually signing in the KHL. I don't see a real way to prevent that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 maybe this was addressed later on but who "forced" them to give that contract? Owners will be.... well owners.... Get that check book out!!!!Yeah, I did address it earlier... It was in quotes to signify that it's their perception that if they don't do it, some other GM will.There was a cool experiment done a while back with rats. They took away the food source and locked up rats in the same cage together. Eventually they began eating each other for food. And of course, they kept having offspring during this whole time. Well, over time, they returned the food source, but the rats - both the offspring and the original surviving rats - were no longer interested in that "other" food, only for cannibalism.That, in a nutshell, is the NHL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Yeah, I did address it earlier... It was in quotes to signify that it's their perception that if they don't do it, some other GM will.There was a cool experiment done a while back with rats. They took away the food source and locked up rats in the same cage together. Eventually they began eating each other for food. And of course, they kept having offspring during this whole time. Well, over time, they returned the food source, but the rats - both the offspring and the original surviving rats - were no longer interested in that "other" food, only for cannibalism.That, in a nutshell, is the NHL Well... that was graphic! True though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Well... that was graphic! True though...Sorry 'bout that! I was channeling my inner ruxpin, haha. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkscrewy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Are you sure because that sounds exactly what Javier Bardem said in Skyfall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Are you sure because that sounds exactly what Javier Bardem said in Skyfall.Really? Haha, maybe that's where I got it.I'll see if I can find a ... um... more scientific source than Javier In the meantime, this is interesting. http://www.mostlyodd.com/death-by-utopia/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 @B21Thanks B. It's been awhile since I was a fan of the NFL and never really got into NBA or MLB.If you were here I'd give you the James Earl Jones speech from Field of Dreams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.