flyerrod Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 DOES THE NHL REALIZE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS IS?It is like having a KKK member join the million man march.I have to admit that made me laugh.....Imagine Pronger, all 6ft 6in of him wearing full KKK regalia(pointy hat and all) in the million man march....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 @Polaris922 I just popped in to congratulate you on making 2 posts in a row without mention of Claude Girouxs cop ass grab...a new record! . Come on man... I was down to one in seven posts and ONLY when provoked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Actually, I agree with you. We know that was the intention. But the league disagrees with us because they okayed the contract. That means they accepted it as valid, unlike the first Pronger contract they rejected, and the Kovalchuk example too. There is no doubt that even though they were accepted, the GMs were really pushing the envelope. The fact that some have been rejected under anti-circumvention clauses tells me that in a court of law, Pronger's current contract would not likely be viewed as a circumvention because of precedence the league itself established. Would you agree with that? If so, then the last part of your quote, "The over 35 clause is written to penalize teams for doing that and letting a player retire before the contract is up (see Kovalchuk, Ilya)." still holds because the Flyers are penalized by having to carry Pronger for the full 7 years. If Pronger was on the ice right now and dogging it or playing 3rd pairing minutes, it's too bad - the FLyers are stuck with him. If Pronger was healthy and decided this year "I"m retiring,", the Flyers would be on the hook no matter what for the next 3 years. Actually I agree to a certain extent. The NHL agreed to the contract with the understanding that an over 35 contract terminated early would result in a cap hit penalty due to his over 35 status. They did NOT agree to the circumventing of that very same cap hit by use of the LTIR. That just so happens to be a way the Flyers and Pronger are circumventing it to protect the team from that very cap hit that was designed to be the penalty. it's a loophole that was not intended, but they found in the books thanks to his injury. It's a business move, not about honor or integrity, so if it works they do it. And honestly I don't blame them so much as I blame the league for letting the sham go on. I'm not sure why you think the Flyers deserve punishment long after the contract was signed and accepted. The time to determine whether or not it was an attempt to circumevent was when the contract was forwarded to the league for approval. Not 4 years later, unless they can prove there is some funny business (say in Hossa's case or Kovalchuk's case). Again I would point to the fact that the league approved the contract knowing full well that the Flyers would be stuck with the cap hit should Pronger retire early. And again that the penalty phase wasn't just about willing retirement, it was intended to cover a player grievously injured and unable to return to the game. That Pronger and the Flyers keep up with the false "I'm trying to return" bit is ridiculous, but since it's within the rules, it's the league's fault for not addressing this more thoroughly. It sounds like you believe that Pronger is faking his injury. Is that the case? No I don't believe he's faking the injury, I believe he's faking the attempt to return to hockey for the sake of maintaining the LTIR status and saving the appearance of it. And if the league doesn't do independent medical audits, I would suggest they need to revamp their process! I agree wholeheartedly... and then enforce the "He can never play again so no LTIR for him" concept on Pronger They *are* saddled with the cap hit. You make it sound like the Flyers are in some sort of wonderful situation here. They are deprived of the services of a hall of fame defenseman, one who led them to the Stanley Cup Final in his very first season here. LTIR is not a get out of jail free card - the guy has a debilitating injury. One of the reasons they have not recalled a defenseman from the farm might have to do with cap reasons - it's a constant juggling act. Over the summer, they have less maneuverability because they need to carry the full hit.This is incorrect about "saddled with the cap hit". Please tell me how it hurts the team? The last day of training camp he goes on the LTIR and the team already has players signed to take up that cap hit space. In another thread sometime ago, I posted word for word what the labor agreement says regarding this issue and how it really doesn't hurt the Flyers one bit unless they're stupid enough to leave the cap space the first day of the season without filling it. I haven't seen that happen, so what is the penalty? Paying out the $5 million in salary every year? To them that's like me giving a guy down the road $10 for lunch. Could I use it elsewhere? Sure. Will I miss it? No. As I stated in a previous post, if the doctors gave him medical clearance to play, I would bet my house that he would decline - at that point, he would have to retire and the Flyers could no longer use LTIR. But unless you believe a medical professional, who has taken an oath to conduct himself professionally and ethically, is lying and risking litigation and malpractice suits to give the Flyers a bit of cap space, I'm not sure how this is LTIR fraud. I don't believe the medical professionals are lying. They're not saying he can play and just is choosing not to. But we all know he CAN'T play anymore, and he's admitted it in at least one interview it's not happening, yet they continue to play the league like "Oh concussion cases are so mysterious it could just go away any day". Cam Neely's knee could heal, I could win the lottery, and pigs could someday fly... but when reality sets in... it's a sham. A lie. A deception to avoid retiring him and absorbing the cap hit. Anybody seriously trying to argue otherwise is just defending the franchise against a move meant SOLELY to circumvent the penalty portion of the over 35 contract rules. It is what it is, and it's the NHL's fault for leaving that loophole open. You can't expect a franchise to act in the most honorable way when millions of dollars in revenue and success are on the line. In all honesty it doesn't upset me much. I just think it's silly all the drama some people make about it. If this were a big name Penguins player, some of you guys would be tearing into us Pens fans about how dirty it is, how unethical it is, how it's a shame and our franchise is scum for doing it... etc etc ... not all, but an awful lot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 LTIR includes the term "injured" - it's not a loophole, it is exactly what it is intended for.If Pronger was faking, you woukd have a point.I have found no one who thinks this is all a "sham."He was injured playing hockey. He is unable to peform due to that injury.Absolutely textbook case for LTIR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted October 11, 2014 Author Share Posted October 11, 2014 @billmeltzerHextall said he tried to get CBA amendment so Pronger could retire & come off cap. NHL wasn't having it but what's done won't hurt or help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGreatGazoo Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 The last report I read: Pronger still had headaches, light sensitivity, noise sensitivy and problems when his heart rate stays accelerated. He also had ongoing eye issues/sight problems. Like him or hate him, I'm pretty sure there is zero chance he can ever attempt to come back. Keith Primeau still has issues occasionally. How long he been gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 You guys aren't reading my posts. I never once said Pronger is faking or isn't hurt. I said the LTIR exception to salary cap was never intended to relieve over 35 cap hits for players who's careers were ended by injury. That cap hit was meant to penalize the clubs for signing long term contracts to "old" players to reduce cap hits, and that includes players lost to career ending injuries at that age group. That was supposed to be the risk. That they never expected a team to just park a guy with a career ending injury on LTIR is short sighted on the part of the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 I'm reading you fine. The LTIR exemption is for injured players regatdless of age.Pronger qualifies 1000% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 I'm reading you fine. The LTIR exemption is for injured players regatdless of age.Pronger qualifies 1000%And I repeat.. It was never meant to be a holding pattern for players who will never play again. Hence it's a sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Here's your litmus test... If there were no salary cap hit, would Pronger retire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 And I repeat.. It was never meant to be a holding pattern for players who will never play again. Hence it's a sham.You're not really gonna go with what was "meant" in a document they have been trying to circumvent since they forced its existence, are you?They are well within the rules.Here's your litmus test... If there were no salary cap hit, would Pronger retire?Has little to do with the situation in which it DOES affect the cap.You'll notice I'm championing the whole circumvention argument, but the use of LTIR is among the smallest of possible problems here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 @radoranIt is what it is. Pronger staying on LTIR circumvents the cap hit penalty. It's a loophole in the rule. Yes it's within the rule, which is why it's called a loophole. It's legal but circumvents the intent. And you can avoid the question but it is most definitely relevant. If there were no salary cap hit would Pronger retire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 You guys aren't reading my posts. I never once said Pronger is faking or isn't hurt. I said the LTIR exception to salary cap was never intended to relieve over 35 cap hits for players who's careers were ended by injury. I got your point and will state again: I think the next CBA should contain language that a player on a 35+ contract that is injured and LTIR'd for two continuous full seasons should be forced to retire. Thus, if I am understanding correctly, holding the team accountable for the cap hit on the remaining years of his contract post retirement. The reality is that the Flyers are playing within the rules of the CBA and truthfully, so would I. I would want to do everything in my power to enable my team to win and if that means keeping 4.5m in cap hit off the books so that I can use that money for other player(s) that can contribute to my team, then so-be-it, I am going to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 It's legal but circumvents the intent. I think this is where we're getting tripped up. In my mind, it absolutely does not circumvent the intent. It is to provide teams with a cushion to replace legitimately injured player. Pronger is legitimately injured and unable to play hockey. Find me a medical professional who signs a paper saying there is a 0% chance that Pronger can ever play hockey again, and I'll admit that Pronger is gaming the system by not retiring. It's completely on Pronger, because the Flyers can't force him to retire. But the reality is that there is always a medical chance, however remote, that Pronger could play. So in that sense, the use of LTIR is legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 @radoranIt is what it is. Pronger staying on LTIR circumvents the cap hit penalty. It's a loophole in the rule. Yes it's within the rule, which is why it's called a loophole. It's legal but circumvents the intent. And you can avoid the question but it is most definitely relevant. If there were no salary cap hit would Pronger retire?It's about as relevant as "if pronger wasn't injured would he still be playing?"He's injured. It's a legit injury. It's exactly one of the things LTIR is for.I think this is where we're getting tripped up. In my mind, it absolutely does not circumvent the intent. It is to provide teams with a cushion to replace legitimately injured player. Pronger is legitimately injured and unable to play hockey.This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 @VanflyerAgreed. Though the NHL will probably leave it lie as its not being done by anybody but Pronger. @radoranI've agreed it's legal. I've agreed it's smart business. I just disagree that the LTIR was meant to be a way to dodge the penalty by pretending he can return to the game. Pronger has said he'll never play again then retracted that. His wife has said he'll never play again. Everybody knows he's not coming back. Everybody knows its to help the organization, out of respectable loyalty to the Flyers, that he doesn't retire. If you want to defend the organization by saying "it's within the rules" that's fine. Just don't let me find ya judging the morality of other organizations too strongly. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 @Polaris922 In any case, I think the NHL hiring this guy is dodgy at best, and is a sign of an organization that isn't sure how to do things on the up and up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 If you want to defend the organization by saying "it's within the rules" that's fine. Just don't let me find ya judging the morality of other organizations too strongly. .If you read anything I've said in this thread to be "defending the organization" you're reading it wrong.They have closed many of the loopholes that created this mess and we're just dealing with zombie contracts. Length of contracts, disparity between low and high years, etc.But using a procedure that is still absolutely within the rules is not one of them.If a 36 year old signed a three year deal and went down with a career ending injury in year one that team can, could and should use LTIR the way it was intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 @brelicCompletely agree. Even if Pronger maintained a 100% unbiased opinion, you avoid the appearance of wrongdoing (see Crosby draft). On top of it, one of the dirtiest players in recent times is in player safety?? @radoranThat's the hang up for me. The LTIR was intended to allow teams to replace players who were going to miss ten games or more in a season. It's been said repeatedly it was not meant to be used as is being done with Pronger. It was an oversight in drafting the rule. So you say it's being used as intended, and I say it's not because of the length and obvious benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 It's been said repeatedly it was not meant to be used as is being done with Pronger. It was an oversight in drafting the rule. So you say it's being used as intended, and I say it's not because of the length and obvious benefit.I haven't seen anybodh but you saying it so far. Happy to read more.They "adjusted" everythjng else about the situation. If it was a drafting error before, why didn't they fix it?The shenanigans have been stopped, for the most part. No more two years at league minimum.They fixed. The glitch. And when they could have fixed "a drafting error" they simply didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 "I'll say it, Chris is never going to play again," Holmgren told The Hockey News. "I have no problems saying it."How is that not retirement? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 "I'll say it, Chris is never going to play again," Holmgren told The Hockey News. "I have no problems saying it."How is that not retirement? Lol Yeah, that sounds pretty definitive. But Homer is not a doctor. I'm not naive enough to think that both parties believe that Pronger will play again - I think the entire hockey world knows that he won't. I imagine, however, that there's a medical chance that he's cleared to resume skating at some point in the next 3 years - which would be the first step to playing hockey (or maybe it's as basic as just working out). That's the point I'm saying that Pronger would have to make a decision to retire because he could no longer fake a return to hockey, and he would thus lose his LTIR eligibility. He would be violating the rules of LTIR. At the end of the day, though, this is not the Flyers' decision to make. It's all Pronger's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 @brelicI'm not attacking the Flyers OR Pronger for it. The Bruins/Savard, and Canucks/Malholtra have done the same thing for the same reason. You can't blame a franchise for skirting the intended penalties if the league is going to allow it. It's within the rules, just ethically poor in my opinion. Hopefully they've addressed the CBA enough it's not an issue again, and these things become of the past. My only issue with Pronger taking the job isn't even worries about favoritism or a conflict of interest. It's that he was one of the dirtiest players in recent history and is going to be calling shots on player safety? The NHL is dropping the ball in a few ways on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 It's that he was one of the dirtiest players in recent history and is going to be calling shots on player safety? Lets be clear, Shannahan was no angel either. At least at a minimum, we will not have to listen to the monotone Shanny explain infraction rulings. Pronger can be quite witty and caustic (though I imagine in a profession sense he will maintain a profession decorum). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 I'm not attacking the Flyers OR Pronger for it. The Bruins/Savard, and Canucks/Malholtra have done the same thing for the same reason. You can't blame a franchise for skirting the intended penalties if the league is going to allow it. It's within the rules, just ethically poor in my opinion.Neither Savard nor Malhotra were 35+ contracts.Malhotra is currently under contract to the Habs and signed last June. He is currently playing. ..Savard I full expect to see the Bruins buy out of his $575k years - as they likely intended to all along. Neither of them is "the same" as Pronger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.