Chris Pronger Hired to the Department of Players Safety

[aziz]

he can't be still paid by the flyers and work for the NHL..(conflict of interest anyone).

 

it smells like that, but if you think about it, i don't know there really is a conflict.  the money the flyers are paying pronger, they HAVE to.  he has no reason to be extra nice to the team, they can't NOT pay him.  a conflict comes up when the player stands to benefit by making the team happy (or suffer by making the team unhappy).  pronger is not in that situation.  he could go on TV tonight and tell everyone that ed snider is the worst person on the planet and berube gets confused by family circus and he'd still get a paycheck every other friday.  similarly, he could rule against the flyers at every opportunity in his new role and still collect that paycheck.

 

it *looks* bad, but the mechanics really aren't very different than a completely retired player.  the biggest risk is pronger has a soft spot for the flyers or anaheim, as a former player...but that is the case with any former player in an official role with the NHL.  the ongoing paychecks don't really change anything.

[fanaticV3.0]

Apparently, that is EXACTLY what is going to happen...

 

This article says he is either going to have to retire or the league and Pronger are simply going to violate the CBA: http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2014/10/9/6954285/chris-pronger-hired-nhl-department-of-player-safety

[brelic]

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.

 

The league isn't punishing the Flyers for anything.The 35+ and the LTIR are two separate issues.

 

 

LTIR is there to help teams adjust their roster when a player has a legitimate long-term injury.

 

35+ is there to prevent teams from attempting to circumvent the cap by giving long contracts to reduce the cap hit and having players retire before the end of it.

 

So we have a situation where the Flyers attempted to circumvent the cap by giving a 35 year old a 7 year contract extension. Less than 2% of NHL players in any given year are over 40 years old. So from the get-go, there was a 98% chance that Pronger would not fulfill his contractual obligations.

 

Whether or not Pronger retires because he's bored or retires because he legitimately cannot play anymore is irrelevant - the 'retirement' is exactly what the 35+ rule attempts to prevent, so the team is saddled with the cap hit for the duration of the contract.

 

If Pronger remains on LTIR, the Flyers get cap relief, but it's a constant juggling act to remain compliant.

 

Anyway you slice it, the Flyers are punished because they gave out a contract that had a 98% chance of not being honored. 

 

Now they're paying the price for trying to do exactly what the rule tries to prevent. In other words, the rule works as intended.

[Commander Clueless]

The league isn't punishing the Flyers for anything.The 35+ and the LTIR are two separate issues.

 

 

LTIR is there to help teams adjust their roster when a player has a legitimate long-term injury.

 

35+ is there to prevent teams from attempting to circumvent the cap by giving long contracts to reduce the cap hit and having players retire before the end of it.

 

So we have a situation where the Flyers attempted to circumvent the cap by giving a 35 year old a 7 year contract extension. Less than 2% of NHL players in any given year are over 40 years old. So from the get-go, there was a 98% chance that Pronger would not fulfill his contractual obligations.

 

Whether or not Pronger retires because he's bored or retires because he legitimately cannot play anymore is irrelevant - the 'retirement' is exactly what the 35+ rule attempts to prevent, so the team is saddled with the cap hit for the duration of the contract.

 

If Pronger remains on LTIR, the Flyers get cap relief, but it's a constant juggling act to remain compliant.

 

Anyway you slice it, the Flyers are punished because they gave out a contract that had a 98% chance of not being honored. 

 

Now they're paying the price for trying to do exactly what the rule tries to prevent. In other words, the rule works as intended.

 

Correct, but in this case, the LTIR is acting as a method for the Flyers to almost (but not quite) entirely avoid their punishment. So, either that should not be allowed, or they should not be punished. 

 

You're right that Pronger's contract had a very high chance of not being fulfilled to it's entirety because of age concerns, and that makes sense. I have no problem with that. However, the issue here is that Pronger suffered a career ending injury that really could have happened regardless of how old he is. Thus, 35+ is not a factor and the punishment no longer makes sense, at least in my mind.

 

Now the Flyers knew the risk going in, so I'm not trying to let them off the hook about it or anything. I just think that it makes zero sense to inflict the 35+ penalty on a team when the cause of the contract not being fulfilled has nothing to do with legitimate 35+ contract concerns.

[radoran]

Now the Flyers knew the risk going in, so I'm not trying to let them off the hook about it or anything. I just think that it makes zero sense to inflict the 35+ penalty on a team when the cause of the contract not being fulfilled has nothing to do with legitimate 35+ contract concerns.

 

But, again, the Flyers did reap the benefits of having a $6.7M player on the books at $4.9M.

 

In 10-11 the Flyers finished with $79K in cap space.

 

In 11-12 the Flyers finished with $0K in cap space.

 

That $1.8M benefitted the Flyers in both situations and allowed them to make player moves that otherwise would not have been available to them.

 

The nature of the injury has no bearing on the situation because the Flyers took benefits from the situation before the injury took place. In 10-11 that $1.8M is the equivalent of James vanRiemsdyk. Or Claude Giroux and Brian Boucher.

 

And, crucially, they knew what the risks were going into the situation and took those risks anyway.

 

As much as my inner Flyer fan would like it to be different, if it was another team I wouldn't want them to be able to get a "get out of cap free card" simply because they screwed up while trying to circumvent the cap.

 

On the whole, I totally agree that the situation is patently ridiculous. Welcome to the NHL.

[Commander Clueless]

@radoran

 

True, they did reap the benefits. So cap recapture might make a little logical sense in this case (for as much sense as it's possible for cap recapture to make). But the 35+ thing serves no real purpose here, as this really has nothing to do with Pronger's age. It could just as easily have happened to a younger player on a long term contract.

 

Thing is, if the NHL was going to punish them and everyone agreed it was fair, the Flyers still have a get out of crap free card in the form of the LTIR. Regardless of whether you think they deserve it or not, it's still kind of bull either way.

 

 

Besides, after the NHL gave the Devils back their pick (I assume because they felt sorry for them), I wouldn't be surprised by any crap the league wants to pull in this situation.

[flyerrod]

Anyone else find it humorous that Pronger would be hired for player safety? 

I don't know about humorous, but the term ironic does come to mind..........

[radoran]

But the 35+ thing serves no real purpose here, as this really has nothing to do with Pronger's age. It could just as easily have happened to a younger player on a long term contract.

 

The 35+ rule is expressly because of shenanigans like adding the 41 & 42 year old years at $575K to make it a $4.9M contract instead of $6.7M.

 

Let's not forget that after losing a season in order to get the salary cap, we lost another half a season so the owners could force the players to force the owners to stop trying to circumvent the cap the owners had locked the players out for a whole season to impose.

 

Essentially, I'm not cutting the owners any slack in this situation.

 

None.

 

Besides, after the NHL gave the Devils back their pick (I assume because they felt sorry for them), I wouldn't be surprised by any crap the league wants to pull in this situation.

 

In fairness, the Devils don't have Kovalchuk any more. If - big if - he comes back to the Devils, I would imagine the NHL would reinstate the penalty.

[Commander Clueless]

The 35+ rule is expressly because of shenanigans like adding the 41 & 42 year old years at $575K to make it a $4.9M contract instead of $6.7M.

 

Let's not forget that after losing a season in order to get the salary cap, we lost another half a season so the owners could force the players to force the owners to stop trying to circumvent the cap the owners had locked the players out for a whole season to impose.

 

Essentially, I'm not cutting the owners any slack in this situation.

 

None.

 

 

 

 

In fairness, the Devils don't have Kovalchuk any more. If - big if - he comes back to the Devils, I would imagine the NHL would reinstate the penalty.

 

True enough. Owners don't get any sympathy for me.

 

Only thing I don't agree with is using the 35+ as a penalty for those shenanigans when the 35+ has nothing to do with the problem. I have no problem with the 35+ rule at all in general, but I do have a problem with the consequences for career ending injuries.

 

I think there needs to be consideration added to the rule in regards to non-age related retirement of this nature, but yes Philly did know what they were getting in to. They aren't innocent here. Also, it's not like Pronger was the pinnacle of health or anything.

 

 

As for Kovalchuk, I feel bad for the Devils for him leaving, but I don't think his departure has anything to do with the penalty. As I recall, the penalty was inflicted because, despite warnings from the NHL, the Devils kept attempting to circumvent the cap with the contract. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the penalty was for the actual contract that was signed, but rather for the repeated attempts at circumvention that were rejected.

 

If I'm recalling that correctly, whether or not Kovalchuk is still on said contract should have had no bearing whatsoever on the punishment.

[brelic]

the LTIR is acting as a method for the Flyers to almost (but not quite) entirely avoid their punishment

 

How do you figure? LTIR is a legitimate option available to all teams who have a player who cannot play due to injury. The Flyers are no different, and it really makes no difference if it's an ELC or 35+ contract - the team loses the player. That sucks either way. It's not like they're illegally stashing Pronger on LTIR because of a hangnail

 

I just think that it makes zero sense to inflict the 35+ penalty on a team when the cause of the contract not being fulfilled has nothing to do with legitimate 35+ contract concerns.

 

If the Flyers had not tried to circumvent the cap, and offered Pronger a sane 2-year contract, there would be no problem. The Red Wings kept giving Lidstrom 1 or 2 year deals towards the end of his career because of the uncertainty that comes with a player over 35 years old. 

 

Instead, the Flyers got a $6M or $6.5M player for $4.9M because they tacked on extra years to circumvent the cap. The league is not inflicting the penalty on the Flyers. It is self-inflicted by the Flyers - they knew full well that this exact scenario was one of many possibilities that would cause them to carry a cap hit for the full 7 years.

[radoran]

Only thing I don't agree with is using the 35+ as a penalty for those shenanigans when the 35+ has nothing to do with the problem.

 

Except that the length of the contract and extending it to age 41 and 42 when (as Brelic noted) only 2% of active players are over 40 is the exact cause of the problem in question. That's the whole point of the 35+ rule - so you don't have 36 year old signing eight year contracts (or 35 year old signing seven year contracts) just to lower the cap hit.

 

Following this situation they changed the rule for length of contracts and the amount a contract can be different over the course of the deal (can't be $7.6M in Y1 and $575K in Y6 & 7).

 

Essentially, they have addressed the problem going forward and what we are seeing is the results of the previous problem.

 

As for Kovalchuk, I feel bad for the Devils for him leaving, but I don't think his departure has anything to do with the penalty. As I recall, the penalty was inflicted because, despite warnings from the NHL, the Devils kept attempting to circumvent the cap with the contract. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the penalty was for the actual contract that was signed, but rather for the repeated attempts at circumvention that were rejected.

If I'm recalling that correctly, whether or not Kovalchuk is still on said contract should have had no bearing whatsoever on the punishment.

 

It's a ridiculous ruling for the NHL, I completely agree. But I believe that was their "rationale" for it.

[radoran]

they knew full well that this exact scenario was one of many possibilities that would cause them to carry a cap hit for the full 7 years.

 

I fully believe they intended from the jump to buy out the last two years on the deal - before it became a "35+" contract.

 

Just as I believed they intended to do with Briere before they got the "compliance buyout" option.

 

The Flyers - and their "hardline" lockout owner Ed Snider - were doing everything they could to circumvent the cap that they lost an entire season in their "hardline" stance to impose. Everything.

 

Cases in point: Danny Briere, Mike Richards, Jeff Crater, Chris Pronger, Ilya Bryzgalov...

[brelic]

I fully believe they intended from the jump to buy out the last two years on the deal - before it became a "35+" contract.

 

No question. That's how they roll - and they've demonstrated a propensity for buying their way out of bad contracts.

 

I wonder why they decided not to amend the contract when they discovered it was a 35+ contract.

 

Stubbornness perhaps?

[Commander Clueless]

How do you figure? LTIR is a legitimate option available to all teams who have a player who cannot play due to injury. The Flyers are no different, and it really makes no difference if it's an ELC or 35+ contract - the team loses the player. That sucks either way. It's not like they're illegally stashing Pronger on LTIR because of a hangnail

 

 

 

 

If the Flyers had not tried to circumvent the cap, and offered Pronger a sane 2-year contract, there would be no problem. The Red Wings kept giving Lidstrom 1 or 2 year deals towards the end of his career because of the uncertainty that comes with a player over 35 years old. 

 

Instead, the Flyers got a $6M or $6.5M player for $4.9M because they tacked on extra years to circumvent the cap. The league is not inflicting the penalty on the Flyers. It is self-inflicted by the Flyers - they knew full well that this exact scenario was one of many possibilities that would cause them to carry a cap hit for the full 7 years.

 

Yes, a legitimate option for everyone to use should they find themselves in the same situation, and yet a way to get out of their punishment. A legal loophole, in a way. I'm fairly certain the LTIR is not intended so that players that will never play again do not count against the cap because of some oddly enforced punishment to begin with.

 

I don't think it's an illegal move. I just think it's stupid it's legal to begin with. Or even necessary, for that matter. If you believe the punishment is warranted, actually punish the Flyers. The way it is now, yes, it is inconvenient, but not much of an actual penalty.

 

 

The reason the 35+ rule exists is/was to stop teams from signing players for cheaper contracts that they never intended to fulfill. Not to punish teams for signing players and then losing them to career ending injuries. I understand 35+ is still under higher risk, but I feel like the penalty in Pronger's case is not in the spirit of the rule. Maybe that's just me.

 

 

However, as rad mentioned, this rule has been rectified and a much better rule is now in place. If they can apply cap penalties retroactively against teams like Vancouver for Luongo, why not cap relief retroactively for Pronger? 

 

I personally don't really care too much about it, since I'm not a Flyers fan and have no real horse in this race, but the whole thing is bizarre. I'm expecting another wishy washy "well, you know, we don't know what we're doing" type resolution.

[DaGreatGazoo]

This is from a Panaccio article.  I've read this 3 times..I still have no idea what it says.  I'm guessing Emperor Bettman is going to make an exception style ruling??

 

CSNPhilly.com quoted a source hours earlier saying the club will not be able to use Pronger’s money on LTIR and won’t incur a cap hit by him leaving the team. The source also said Pronger will get all his money, which Bettman said, as well. However, the source said Pronger would go on IR to remove the possibility of using LTIR money. Bettman did not get into the specifics of that while another league source said the finer details still had to be worked out.

[radoran]

If they can apply cap penalties retroactively against teams like Vancouver for Luongo, why not cap relief retroactively for Pronger?

 

Because that wasn't the rule.

 

 

This is from a Panaccio article.  I've read this 3 times..I still have no idea what it says.  I'm guessing Emperor Bettman is going to make an exception style ruling??

 

CSNPhilly.com quoted a source hours earlier saying the club will not be able to use Pronger’s money on LTIR and won’t incur a cap hit by him leaving the team. The source also said Pronger will get all his money, which Bettman said, as well. However, the source said Pronger would go on IR to remove the possibility of using LTIR money. Bettman did not get into the specifics of that while another league source said the finer details still had to be worked out.

 

Sounds very Bettmanesque - in the sense that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[DaGreatGazoo]

Sounds very Bettmanesque - in the sense that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

Exactly exact...

[Commander Clueless]

Because that wasn't the rule.

 

 

 

Neither were the recapture penalties at the time, were they?

 

I could have sworn that was added in with the year restrictions.

[Commander Clueless]

This is from a Panaccio article.  I've read this 3 times..I still have no idea what it says.  I'm guessing Emperor Bettman is going to make an exception style ruling??

 

CSNPhilly.com quoted a source hours earlier saying the club will not be able to use Pronger’s money on LTIR and won’t incur a cap hit by him leaving the team. The source also said Pronger will get all his money, which Bettman said, as well. However, the source said Pronger would go on IR to remove the possibility of using LTIR money. Bettman did not get into the specifics of that while another league source said the finer details still had to be worked out.

 

Sounds like another wonderful installment in using some wishy washiness to screw with their own rules rather than actually fix them.

 

Shocked. I am shocked.

[aziz]

Neither were the recapture penalties at the time, were they?

 

I could have sworn that was added in with the year restrictions.

 

 

that's true, the loungo-style recapture penalties were just added.  the 35+ retiring player cap hit has been around for as long as the salary cap itself, though.

[radoran]

I really don't understand the "need" to put Pronger i n this position given all the negative publicity it has gotten.

Oh, wait - right.

Bettman.

[briere48]

bettman is a joke, i really wish they would put a rule that players that cant play from a really bad injury recommanded by the doctors is automatic retirement or buy them out.

[brelic]

Has any doctor been able to definitively say that Pronger cannot play hockey ever again? Concussions are fairly common in hockey, and players return from them all the time.

 

I think realistically, we all know Pronger will never play again. But that's not the same as being medically diagnosed as unable to play hockey again. You could say that for a guy who lost a limb. But there is a chance - however remote - that Pronger could be medically cleared to play at some point over the next 3 years. And that's why we're caught up in this ridiculousness.

 

We know he's not really trying to return - so he's not retiring purely because he gets paid and the Flyers get relief. Unlike Savard, who could retire without penalty to the Bruins.

 

The LTIR is what it is. It's the 35+ status of his contract that makes this a crappy situation for the Flyers. 

 

And if the legal interpretation of article 26 in the CBA really is cut and dry that Pronger cannot be both be paid by the league and by an NHL club, then there might be a resolution. The league can't legitimately hire someone without pay - that's called a volunteer and would not make any logical sense. People would see that as the circumvention that it is

 

The appropriate way out is if they hire him, and pay him, which just might let the Flyers off the hook for the cap penalty (as Tim P alluded to in his post) because the league would be violating its own CBA. It gives the Flyers a legal out. It's a win-win-win in that case. The Flyers get rid of a dead cap hit for a guy who suffered a legitimate career-ending injury; Pronger gets to move on with his life; and the league gets to hire the guy they want.

[radoran]

The "appropriate" way is to not be in this totally unnecessary situation to begin with.

[MadDevil]

Come on, everybody knows only the Devils try to "violate the spirit of the CBA" and get punished for it. Everybody else is fine.