hf101 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Former Philadelphia Flyers captain Chris Pronger was hired on by the NHL Department of Player Safety on Thursday.As TSN Hockey Insider Bob McKenzie reported on Wednesday, the process of getting Pronger into the office required his status as an active NHLer being addressed.Pronger - who has not played an NHL game since the 2011-12 season - remains on Philadelphia's long-term injured reserve. He has not formally retired.Since Pronger was over the age of 35 when he signed his last contract with the Flyers - which is worth an average annual value of $4.9 million through the end of the 2016-17 season - his annual average would go against the Flyers' salary cap obligations. This situation has been avoided over the past two-plus seasons by virtue of the injured reserve.NHLPA spokesperson Jonathan Weatherdon told McKenzie on Wednesday that "the league contacted the NHLPA about this matter yesterday and our discussions with them are ongoing. We are working to get this matter resolved in a timely manner."source I really don't understand why this wasn't addressed during the lockout. Players who's career's have been ended due to injuries on the ice should be allowed to have the contracts paid via insurance and severe the hold on a teams cap. Placing a player on LTIR year after year doesn't favor anyone. Pronger should have been allowed to retire from the NHL years ago. I think this is a great opportunity for Pronger and hopefully the league will end his NHL contract so he can retire and be voted into the Hall of Fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irishjim Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 this is a sticky situation. he can't be still paid by the flyers and work for the NHL..(conflict of interest anyone). also other teams are gonna scream bloody murder if he is simply waived off the flyers cap hit. the insurance part you bring is valid cause i know for every contract offered there is an insurance policy in place to cover in case of injury. he can't still be on the flyers cap hit if the NHL says you need to retire before taking the job...someone is gonna get butthurt and i feel it might be our team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 In all honesty, Pronger should retire if he wants to take the job with the NHL. Part of his responsibility as a player on LTIR is to make a legitimate attempt at returning from injury. We all know that he'll never play again - so let's just end the charade. The league could make an exception for what is a bona fide long term injury. It would be frustrating if the Flyers were saddled with his full cap hit for the next 3 years, but you know what? They're the dummies who gave him that contract in the first place; they were given an out when discovering they didn't understand how the CBA worked, and they chose to keep it. So, these are exactly the consequences of signing a 35+ player to a long-term contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Anyone else find it humorous that Pronger would be hired for player safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toidi Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 It might be the case that Pronger has been receiving more money with the present LTIR arrangement with the Flyers than he would receive from an insurance payout. I don't know how these insurance policies are structured for pro athletes, but for the average Joe, they're usually around the 50% salary level.I agree that he must sever his ties with the team before he can work for the NHL, due to a real conflict of interest vs a perceived COI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKiFit Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Anyone else find it humorous that Pronger would be hired for player safety? FC - that was my first thought that came to mind of when I saw this thread's title Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 In all honesty, Pronger should retire if he wants to take the job with the NHL. Part of his responsibility as a player on LTIR is to make a legitimate attempt at returning from injury. We all know that he'll never play again - so let's just end the charade. The league could make an exception for what is a bona fide long term injury. It would be frustrating if the Flyers were saddled with his full cap hit for the next 3 years, but you know what? They're the dummies who gave him that contract in the first place; they were given an out when discovering they didn't understand how the CBA worked, and they chose to keep it. So, these are exactly the consequences of signing a 35+ player to a long-term contract. Well said. @hf101 makes a good point about the insurance. I really wouldn't care if his salary cam from the Flyers bank account or the insurance company's. But that cap hit should stay. As you said - these are exactly the consequences of signing a 35+ player to a long-term contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Anyone else find it humorous that Pronger would be hired for player safety? Not at all! I can just see his first session. "Gentlemen - I am going to show you some of my career highlights as examples of what not to do. Next week's session is pizza, beer and Matt Cooke". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Anyone else find it humorous that Pronger would be hired for player safety? It's a bit like the NSA busting a hacker and then giving them a job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 It's a bit like the NSA busting a hacker and then giving them a job Hey, they put Leon Stickle in charge of officiating so, you know, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 It would be frustrating if the Flyers were saddled with his full cap hit for the next 3 years, but you know what? They're the dummies who gave him that contract in the first place; they were given an out when discovering they didn't understand how the CBA worked, and they chose to keep it. So, these are exactly the consequences of signing a 35+ player to a long-term contract. i agree to a point, but let's look at the career ending injury for a second. that can happen anytime at any age. I understand the "trying to keep the cheaters from taking advantage angle" but don't understand why then does a younger players contract come off the cap for the same injury ala Marc Savard ? Is it because as 35+ player the CEI is more likely do to games played and games left in a human body ? I would submit that Pronger's injury had it occurred when he was 29 would have had the same result on his career with no penalty to the team... i don't know the rule seems punitive in this case, Pronger would still be playing if he was capable and i would be fine with bitching about how slow he is and holy smokes is his cap hit horrible but that is the consequence of signing a 35+ player to that kind of contract. is it because of the player or the team ? it feels unfair to me, and whether that's because it is hampering my team feels irrelevant, I would think the same way had this happened to Rob Neidermyer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 i don't know the rule seems punitive in this case, The rule is punative. That's the whole point. When teams play shenanigans with the cap and do things like add two $575K years at the end to make a $6.68M contract into a $4.9M contract - that's the purpose of the penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Oh, and I might add that it's punative against the team - not the player. The player is still getting his money regardless. Pronger would get his money even if he retired. He's doing the team a solid by staying on the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Clueless Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 I agree that this whole LTIR thing is ridiculous. I understand the cap implications of retirement to a certain degree (to prevent ludicrous contracts for older players), but Philly really shouldn't need to resort to this cap exploit to keep from being kneecapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Philly really shouldn't need to resort to this cap exploit to keep from being kneecapped. They are penalized for resorting to a cap exploit in the first place. I understand the cap implications of retirement to a certain degree (to prevent ludicrous contracts for older players), How you managed to put the above phrase right before the top phrase is some interesting intellectual gymnastics in the course of one sentence. It's the two seasons at $575K for Pronger at age 41 and 42 that caused the problem - and is 100% why they still have the problem for the next two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Clueless Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 @radoran That's me, stretching the ol' intellect. Don't want to pull a cerebellum, or other smart-sounding misused words of that ilk. It was deep, and you know it. There is a certain degree of logic in attempting to stop teams from signing players to lucrative contracts well past the normal age barrier. However, the Pronger situation right now is an example of how badly this has been implemented. There is a big difference between retirement due to age, and retirement due to serious injury. Although in the NHL's defense, I suppose it could be difficult in writing this particular distinction into the existing rules, at least at the time. It's bound to be exploited if at all possible. Then again, the NHL has shown the precedent for making **** up as they go and penalizing people retroactively, so there is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGreatGazoo Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 this is a sticky situation. he can't be still paid by the flyers and work for the NHL..(conflict of interest anyone) Apparently, that is EXACTLY what is going to happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 When teams play shenanigans with the cap and do things like add two $575K years at the end to make a $6.68M contract into a $4.9M contract - that's the purpose of the penalty oh I get that, i even stated as much in my post.the penalty for playing games with the cap is you have chris pronger pinned into his own zone by forechecking 4th line plumbers at age 41. The guy can't play, it isn't a matter of his desire to play or the team's desire to play him, i'm sure the Flyers would love to have him mentor some of the young guys in game situations. But he cannot because he suffered an injury that prevents him from being in a well lit room, let alone playing the most physical of the 4 major team sports in North America. there isn't a doctor other than Dr Nick that would say he should lace 'em up , so why continue with the games ? After this year why not make an exemption ? that's 3 years no play it covers the cap shenanigans ...I think the situation is crappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 After this year why not make an exemption ? that's 3 years no play it covers the cap shenanigans ...I think the situation is crappy. And how does that address the problem of cap circumvention in the first place? Pronger isn't affected by this at all - he's still getting his money. He would even if he "retired." The Flyers, the ones who actively attempted to circumvent the cap, are the ones with the problem. And that's exactly how it should be. If the Pens or Rags had done the same thing, would we want them to get the benefit of circumventing the cap without the penalty for having done so? I don't think so. It's bound to be exploited if at all possible. You mean teams actively try to circumvent the cap that we have lost a season and a half of hockey to force upon us? Yeah, well, eff them, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Clueless Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 You mean teams actively try to circumvent the cap that we have lost a season and a half of hockey to force upon us? Yeah, well, eff them, eh? Legally circumvent, absolutely! And then get punished retroactively for contracts that were APPROVED BY THE NHL. Or better yet, actually get punished for repeatedly trying to circumvent the rules despite repeated warnings and rejections, and then have that punishment lessened because the NHL felt bad when your star player left. Consistency, thy name is NHL. Really, though, I'm not angry or anything. Really. What were we talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 If the Pens or Rags had done the same thing, would we want them to get the benefit of circumventing the cap without the penalty for having done so? I don't think so. i'm not going to quote myself but i said i would feel similarly if it were another player...i used Rob Niedermeyer , that goes for the team as well. The guy will never play again through no one's fault , why aren't the bruins still paying for marc savard ? i don't see where the cap circumvention deterrence built into the 35+ contract is fair when the player sustains this kind of injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 i don't see where the cap circumvention deterrence built into the 35+ contract is fair when the player sustains this kind of injury. The team effectively got $1.7M in cap relief by the cap shenanigans. That's at least one player, if not three at entry level minimum. Again, it's not about the player it's about the team. The team is getting the penalty because the team reaped the benefit of the circumvention. The Flyers were told that this was a 35+ contract and given the option to not have it take effect under those terms. They rolled the dice and crapped out. They don't give your money back at the craps table for that. They keep it. And the Flyers keep the penalty for their circumvention. According to capgeek, the Bruins still have Savard on LTIR and it is affecting their cap. That's their decision, however, as it was not a 35+ contract. Apparently they hope he can play again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Clueless Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 The team effectively got $1.7M in cap relief by the cap shenanigans. That's at least one player, if not three at entry level minimum. Again, it's not about the player it's about the team. The team is getting the penalty because the team reaped the benefit of the circumvention. The Flyers were told that this was a 35+ contract and given the option to not have it take effect under those terms. They rolled the dice and crapped out. They don't give your money back at the craps table for that. They keep it. And the Flyers keep the penalty for their circumvention. According to capgeek, the Bruins still have Savard on LTIR and it is affecting their cap. That's their decision, however, as it was not a 35+ contract. Apparently they hope he can play again. Entirely correct. They gambled and lost. That said, I'm not sure the stakes were entirely appropriate. The career ending injury Pronger suffered, really, has nothing to do with age or slowing down, or really anything that would apply to the logic behind the 35+ contract rules. Either way, if the NHL is going to punish teams for players suffering career ending injuries, they shouldn't let LTIR be a cop out. Conversely, if they don't want to punish a team for the injury, they should just let him retire without penalty. The state we are currently in just seems ridiculous, doesn't it? That's my opinion at any rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Either way, if the NHL is going to punish teams for players suffering career ending injuries, they shouldn't let LTIR be a cop out. Conversely, if they don't want to punish a team for the injury, they should just let him retire without penalty. The state we are currently in just seems ridiculous, doesn't it? That's my opinion at any rate. I'm not at all saying it's not ridiculous. But it's the sausage that got made in the two lockouts. What was ridiculous was losing a season and a half of hockey to get this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Clueless Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 @radoran Agreed. All that crap, and what did they really accomplish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.