New cap 69 mil

[Polaris922]

Maybe, maybe not, my crystal ball isn't as clear a some people's. That's a hypothetical not related to the reason that he stopped playing hockey. A guy is on LTIR and can't actually retire without blowing up the team's cap. Clearly that state of affairs would not have existed for such a length of time without the injury. Unless you believe he was ready to quit playing hockey that day and the injury was just a coincidence.

Not blaming the league or Bettman or the easter bunny. I just think the rule needs tweaking somehow in the future. That's all.

I don't think I'm getting my point across. When a GM signs a player at that age, they HAVE to consider the ramifications if they get hurt. It's not Holmgren and Pronger specifically, its everyone. Holmgren signed it anyway, so again that's the risk you take. Unfortunately for the Flyers they got snake eyes. So they either LTIR and pay the man or accept the cap hit. A GM HAS to weigh the risk vs cap vs player desires.

[doom88]

I don't think I'm getting my point across. When a GM signs a player at that age, they HAVE to consider the ramifications if they get hurt. It's not Holmgren and Pronger specifically, its everyone. Holmgren signed it anyway, so again that's the risk you take. Unfortunately for the Flyers they got snake eyes. So they either LTIR and pay the man or accept the cap hit. A GM HAS to weigh the risk vs cap vs player desires.

The counter argument is, the fluke injury came from way off the radar. No one can reasonably anticipate or account for that risk. Just like a stroke. For the organization, that's just bad luck. Too bad the NHL doesn't have a provision for injuries like Pronger, because this charade is utterly ridiculous. Retirements due to grave injury should be allowed without penalty. It just makes sense.

[Polaris922]

The counter argument is, the fluke injury came from way off the radar. No one can reasonably anticipate or account for that risk. Just like a stroke. For the organization, that's just bad luck. Too bad the NHL doesn't have a provision for injuries like Pronger, because this charade is utterly ridiculous. Retirements due to grave injury should be allowed without penalty. It just makes sense.

I won't argue that. But I think as the player ages and increased risk if injury comes with it. So the question is was that weighed into the decision to make the rule or not? Understanding that risk went along with it.

[canoli]

and now it has backfired because if his age.

 

hardly. It "backfired" - if you can even call it that - because of a blunt stick to the eye. No other reason Pronger won't be in the lineup this season, because he suffered a career-ending injury.

[canoli]

But I think as the player ages and increased risk if injury comes with it.

 

True - for all the regular abuse an average hockey player takes, multiplied in Pronger's case by his particular style. But "higher injury risk as you get older" has nothing to do with his eye injury. You can see that right? It just doesn't. So no... anticipating Pronger being nearly blinded was not a topic of discussion before they signed him.

[sarsippius]

I don't think I'm getting my point across. When a GM signs a player at that age, they HAVE to consider the ramifications if they get hurt. It's not Holmgren and Pronger specifically, its everyone. Holmgren signed it anyway, so again that's the risk you take. Unfortunately for the Flyers they got snake eyes. So they either LTIR and pay the man or accept the cap hit. A GM HAS to weigh the risk vs cap vs player desires.

I understood the point a couple of years before you ever you tried to get it across to me. And I'm really not going to bother trying again to get my point across. These two points, both valid, are not mutually exclusive.

[radoran]

because yes it ridiculous to LTIR a guy for 5 years because his career was ended by a life altering injury.

 

except that the contract was a deliberate attempt at circumvention of the cap

 

You really can't leave that out, you know. 

 

Salary: $7.6M, $7.6M, $7.2M, $7M, $4M, $575K, $575K 

 

They knew the rules, they were warned about the rules, they signed the contract and blew up a Cup Final team anyway.

 

Karma's a female dog sometimes.

[radoran]

anticipating Pronger being nearly blinded was not a topic of discussion before they signed him.

 

Anticipating a career-ending injury - no matter what kind - was a topic of discussion when they traded for him and when they signed him.

[radoran]

i don't think so.  primeau was 34 when he played his last game, so contract was definitely an under 35...and he stayed on LTIR until that last contract ran out.  that was 2005, so under the capped CBA.

 

Primeau stayed on because that was how he would be paid - and because there was no cap when he signed it and no 35+ rule, either. 

 

Quite frankly, I don't believe that Pronger would have "retired" and just left $21M or so sitting on the table. I just don't. Nor do I believe he would have played for less than the $7M the Flyers were effectively paying him for the first four seasons despite the "$4.9M" cap hit.

 

YMMV.

 

In the $575K years? Sure. He was gone. And everybody knew it.

[radoran]

Not blaming the league or Bettman or the easter bunny. I just think the rule needs tweaking somehow in the future. That's all.

 

The rule was "tweaked' in that you can't sign a guy to four years at $7M plus, another at $4M and then $575K for two years to lower the cap hit. There is a limit to what you can be paid at the top and low end of the contract.

 

That prevents cap circumvention deals like the Pronger deal and stops teams from signing 35+ players to 7 year deals (or longer) with ridiculously low "salary" at the end.

 

Flyers could have bought out Pronger if they wanted to and removed the entire problem.

 

Instead, they decided to buy out two other really really bad #homercoaster™ contracts instead.

[sarsippius]

except that the contract was a deliberate attempt at circumvention of the cap

 

You really can't leave that out, you know. 

 

Salary: $7.6M, $7.6M, $7.2M, $7M, $4M, $575K, $575K 

 

They knew the rules, they were warned about the rules, they signed the contract and blew up a Cup Final team anyway.

 

Karma's a female dog sometimes.

 

I acknowledged that earlier and do not dispute the contract structure.....or Homer's shocking lack of knowledge regarding the rules. However my point was addressing the fact that the Flyers didn't get caught by the age/retirement factor that was the true intent and object of the rule. They got caught by a stick to the eye in the early and still high $ years of the contract. And if not for that we probably wouldn't be discussing it.

[sarsippius]

 

Flyers could have bought out Pronger if they wanted to and removed the entire problem.

 

Instead, they decided to buy out two other really really bad #homercoaster contracts instead.

 

Agreed all around

[radoran]

However my point was addressing the fact that the Flyers didn't get caught by the age/retirement factor that was the true intent and object of the rule. They got caught by a stick to the eye in the early and still high $ years of the contract. And if not for that we probably wouldn't be discussing it.

 

The object of the rule was to discourage exactly what the Flyers did.

 

The Flyers did it anyway and got burnt.

 

They then changed the rule to stop teams from deliberating circumventing the cap in this manner.

 

What you want to "fix" the rule has already happened.

[flyercanuck]

The object of the rule was to discourage exactly what the Flyers did.

 

The Flyers did it anyway and got burnt.

 

They then changed the rule to stop teams from deliberating circumventing the cap in this manner.

 

What you want to "fix" the rule has already happened.

 

 

In the rule itself? Cause the part about NOT signing multi-year deals to over 35 year old defencemen wasn't. Though may very well be now.

[radoran]

In the rule itself? Cause the part about NOT signing multi-year deals to over 35 year old defencemen wasn't. Though may very well be now.

 

Well, that's more of a guideline than a rule.

 

The part where you sign stupid long deals with ridiculously low amounts on the out years has been fixed.

 

The other problem was more, you might say, amputated.

[flyercanuck]

@radoran

 

Hopefully Hextall follows those guidelines. It appears he will.

[B21]

It wasn't age or wear and year it was a catastrophic concussive injury.

The guy would still be playing on the top line now if it hadn't happened and we'd all be talking about him having lost a step. But he's still be playing and I have little doubt he'd have played quite well through the contract even though he'd be well over 40 before it expired.

The contract length wasn't that bad of a gamble.

Catastrophic traumatic injuries like that should exclude players and teams from such contracts. Brats what insurance is for.

Traumatic Brian injuries aren't age specific. It could happen to anyone at any time, not just guys over 35. It's an asinine rule.

 

 

All the injury did was make the inevitable happen sooner.  Pronger at 40+ (now) was not going to be the same Pronger at 35. 

 

I wouldn't call the length of the contract  gamble. I'm sure the Flyers knew they were  "paying" Pronger until he was 42 hoping to get 2-3 good years out of him.

 

Not knowing/getting the 35+ rule was the gaffe.  It's a good, fair rule. Asinine was not knowing it.

[B21]

Well, all things being equal, Lou Lamoreillo is a pretty bright guy, and he trumped what Homer tried to do. Just saying. 

 

Little different. Kovy was under 35 when the deal was signed.  The NHL stepped in and decided that Kovy's deal was basically the straw that broke he camel's back as far as these deals with years added at the end that lowered the cap hit when the player was likely to be retired.

[radoran]

Not knowing/getting the 35+ rule was the gaffe.  It's a good, fair rule. Asinine was not knowing it.

 

Oh, you misunderestimate the extent of the #homercoaster™.

 

The team submitted the contract, was told that it would be treated as a 35+ deal and signed it anyway.

[radoran]

Little different. Kovy was under 35 when the deal was signed.  The NHL stepped in and decided that Kovy's deal was basically the straw that broke he camel's back as far as these deals with years added at the end that lowered the cap hit when the player was likely to be retired.

 

They also took away a first rounder from the Devils (which they gave back when Kovy bolted).

 

It's not like the Devils "got away with it" - and as you note, they changed the way they dealt with such contracts going forward and then imposed the 7/8 year limit on contract length in the next CBA.

[B21]

hardly. It "backfired" - if you can even call it that - because of a blunt stick to the eye. No other reason Pronger won't be in the lineup this season, because he suffered a career-ending injury.

 

Sure about that? He turns 40 in October.  That's the whole point of the rule...at what age does a player start to break down?  The NHL says 35.  And then goes on to say that if you want to sign a guy to a deal that takes effect after he turns 35, do so at your own risk.  And if you want to get cute with the length to lessen the cap hit? Do so even more at your own risk.

 

It's a fair rule.  This retroactive complaining about it (not you) is only because it's hurting the Flyers cap situation now. Nothing more.

[LegionOfDoom]

Reported.

[canoli]

Anticipating a career-ending injury - no matter what kind - was a topic of discussion when they traded for him and when they signed him.

 

Oh come on. Of course it was, as it is to some extent with every player, every trade. But a stick to the eye that nearly blinds him for life? What do you think the odds are they discussed that?

[flyercanuck]

@canoli

 

 Several of us said Pronger, because of the game he's played, is going to start falling apart as that contract goes on. Nobody anticipated a stick in the head ending his career. But there were a few of us who weren't doing cartwheels over the deal. 

 

 Some people look at a deal in the present tense. Those are the ones who loved signing Briere, Pronger, Bryz etc. And if they were short term deals they would have been great. They weren't. Holmgrens record of longterm deals doesn't have too many happy endings.

[radoran]

Oh come on. Of course it was, as it is to some extent with every player, every trade. But a stick to the eye that nearly blinds him for life? What do you think the odds are they discussed that?

 

Well, the risk of concussion is a well known and well discussed topic - as when, for example, Crosby is "one hit away" from retirement.

 

This was hardly Pronger's first recorded concussion, which is certainly related to what @flyercanuck is talking about in terms of his playing style and "falling apart". Did anyone say "a freak stick to the eye" specifically? No. Nor did anyone

 

I think we can at least both agree that the signing came with significant risk when it was executed and that risk ended in the worst of all possible ways for all concerned.