The Flyers were very close to dumping Pronger's contract over the summer.

[Irishjim]

Hextall Attempted to Trade Pronger.

 

A new report from Sportnet's Elliotte Friedman reveals that Ron Hextall tried to trade Chris Pronger over the summer to an unknown team. Since the Flyers would be essentially circumventing the CBA and dumping a toxic asset, the price would have been high. Perhaps a high draft pick or promising prospect? Likely a salary floor team, the interested parties aren't simply going to take on dead cap space and an off-season headache for nothing. 

 

read full article here:  http://www.letsgoflyers.net/2014/10/15/hextall-attempted-to-trade-pronger/

[AJgoal]

I wondered if that might happen this coming offseason. Cap floor team, 1.1 million over two years for almost 5 million a year towards the cap floor? Might actually be an attractive deal.

[hf101]

Since when can GM's trade injured players?  The league would not have approved such a trade as Pronger wouldn't pass a physical.  I think this is someone's pipe dream.

[radoran]

I wondered if that might happen this coming offseason. Cap floor team, 1.1 million over two years for almost 5 million a year towards the cap floor? Might actually be an attractive deal.

 

Can Pronger rule on the Flyers at the League offices then?

 

 

Since when can GM's trade injured players?  The league would not have approved such a trade as Pronger wouldn't pass a physical.  I think this is someone's pipe dream.

 

I think it might be OK if all the parties involved are aware of the injury.

 

Sure, it might be technically illegal according to the "NHL Code" - but they're more guidelines than rules anyway...

 

[intheslot]

Arrr the code   . !!!!!

[flyercanuck]

Arrr the code   . !!!!!

 

never knew your occupation was "pirate".

[AJgoal]

Since when can GM's trade injured players?  The league would not have approved such a trade as Pronger wouldn't pass a physical.  I think this is someone's pipe dream.

 

Injured players are absolutely able to be traded (one example: http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2009/03/04/leafs-acquire-olaf-kolzig-jamie-heward-andy-rogers-a-4th/ - Kolzig was unlikely to play at all that season, and was a pending UFA), the CBA does not prohibit it. A physical is for determining if there are no undisclosed injuries. A team doesn't have to turn an injured player back to their old team, the physical just allows them to do so for an undisclosed condition. 

[murraycraven]

here we are talking about Pronger and all I want is to lose McDud, Grossman, Umberger, Schultz, L Schenn... not asking too much right?

[B21]

Am I missing something on the LTIR/35+ rules?

 

The Flyers signed Pronger to an extension that kicked in after he turned 35 meaning if he retires, the cap hit remains although it also means he forfeits any remaining salary.  So far so good?  So even if the 35+ rule does not apply - why would he retire? Why not keep the "maybe I can play again" thing going if for no other reason than to keep getting paid?  Isn't that exactly what the LTIR "under 35" crowd is doing?

[AJgoal]

I'm not sure what you're asking B21, the question isn't about Pronger retiring, but about trading him.

 

If you're wondering why bother trading him as opposed to him just staying on LTIR, it's fairly simple: cap flexibility (as opposed to space, which LTIR accomplishes). Every year the Flyers have to juggle their opening day lineup to be as close to the cap as humanly possible with Pronger's number added on top (so for this year, 73.9 millionish - They were able to come in at just 5k below this number). They lose whatever LTIR exemption they don't use. The second thing is that every team under the cap "banks" the amount they are under the cap on a daily basis, as a team's cap number is calculated daily. So a team that is under the cap by 2 million in a season that is hypothetically 100 days long would get 20k in banked cap space per day. This is useful when it comes to acquiring players. However, if you are into an LTIR allowance, you don't get this bonus cap space, as technically you are over the cap.

[Vanflyer]

read full article here:

 

"One has to believe this gets addressed at the GM meetings or the next CBA negotiation as multiple teams are dealing with long term cap hits from players in de facto retirement. Punishing teams for unavoidable freak injuries isn't the correct way to police the salary cap or contract negotiations."

 

Exactly!!!

 

Where is @Polaris922 when you need him to hammer this point home!

[B21]

I'm not sure what you're asking B21, the question isn't about Pronger retiring, but about trading him.

 

If you're wondering why bother trading him as opposed to him just staying on LTIR, it's fairly simple: cap flexibility (as opposed to space, which LTIR accomplishes). Every year the Flyers have to juggle their opening day lineup to be as close to the cap as humanly possible with Pronger's number added on top (so for this year, 73.9 millionish - They were able to come in at just 5k below this number). They lose whatever LTIR exemption they don't use. The second thing is that every team under the cap "banks" the amount they are under the cap on a daily basis, as a team's cap number is calculated daily. So a team that is under the cap by 2 million in a season that is hypothetically 100 days long would get 20k in banked cap space per day. This is useful when it comes to acquiring players. However, if you are into an LTIR allowance, you don't get this bonus cap space, as technically you are over the cap.

 

I guess what I am asking is....wouldn't the Flyers be in this mess even if there was no 35+ rule?  Why would Pronger retire so long as the paycheck is guaranteed?

[AJgoal]

He could absolutely retire and collect his full salary following the injury. From the CBA:

 

23.4 A Player under an SPC who is disabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockey

Player by reason of an injury sustained during the course of his employment as a hockey Player,

including travel with his team or on business requested by his Club, shall be entitled to receive

his remaining Paragraph 1 Salary and Signing Bonuses due in accordance with the terms of his

SPC for the remaining stated term of his SPC as long as the said disability and inability to

perform continue but in no event beyond the expiration date of the fixed term of his SPC.

[Polaris922]

@Vanflyer

I've beaten this horse to death...repeatedly. Lol. I'm done!

[radoran]

"One has to believe this gets addressed at the GM meetings or the next CBA negotiation as multiple teams are dealing with long term cap hits from players in de facto retirement. Punishing teams for unavoidable freak injuries isn't the correct way to police the salary cap or contract negotiations."

Exactly!!!

Where is @Polaris922 when you need him to hammer this point home!

Let's address it, then.

What IS the "best way" to address the salary cap shenanigans teams engaged in before it was made illegal?

Slap on the wrist? Stern letter? Get out of cap hell free card?

It's beyond simple to say "following the rules as written isn't the right way" - but harder to say what IS the right way...

[B21]

He could absolutely retire and collect his full salary following the injury. From the CBA:

 

23.4 A Player under an SPC who is disabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockey

Player by reason of an injury sustained during the course of his employment as a hockey Player,

including travel with his team or on business requested by his Club, shall be entitled to receive

his remaining Paragraph 1 Salary and Signing Bonuses due in accordance with the terms of his

SPC for the remaining stated term of his SPC as long as the said disability and inability to

perform continue but in no event beyond the expiration date of the fixed term of his SPC.

 

Ahhhh - that is what I was missing. Not a cap genius.

[aziz]

He could absolutely retire and collect his full salary following the injury. From the CBA:

23.4 A Player under an SPC who is disabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockey

Player by reason of an injury sustained during the course of his employment as a hockey Player,

including travel with his team or on business requested by his Club, shall be entitled to receive

his remaining Paragraph 1 Salary and Signing Bonuses due in accordance with the terms of his

SPC for the remaining stated term of his SPC as long as the said disability and inability to

perform continue but in no event beyond the expiration date of the fixed term of his SPC.

That doesn't say anything about retiring, just that the contract is not considered null and void if the player becomes unable to fulfill his obligations due to injury. I. E., teams can't say, "hey, now you're broken and can't hold up your side of this agreement anymore, bye now." That clause is the basis for permanent LTIR, but I think actual retirement is a different thing. If you retire, you walk away from your contact, there functionally is no longer an SPC that needs to be paid.

[AJgoal]

Possibly, you would think that with the possibility of career-ending injuries (at any age) that might be something they would want to make crystal clear in the CBA.

 

Maybe they just figure it would fall under workman's comp.

[radoran]

Possibly, you would think that with the possibility of career-ending injuries (at any age) that might be something they would want to make crystal clear in the CBA.

 

They *did* make it crystal clear. The rules are pretty obvious and have been carried out as intended. Sign a player to a 35+ deal and their cap hit remains on your cap until the end of the deal. Period. End of sentence.

 

They also have changed the rules to eliminate many of the previous abuses. You can't add $575K years onto a deal to lower the cap hit and they've lowered the maximum years on deals as well.

 

As far as I can tell, the only people really "concerned" about the whole Pronger situation are Flyers fans upset that the team screwed itself on the deal and has had cap problems because of it.

 

And Polaris.

[B21]

That doesn't say anything about retiring, just that the contract is not considered null and void if the player becomes unable to fulfill his obligations due to injury. I. E., teams can't say, "hey, now you're broken and can't hold up your side of this agreement anymore, bye now." That clause is the basis for permanent LTIR, but I think actual retirement is a different thing. If you retire, you walk away from your contact, there functionally is no longer an SPC that needs to be paid.

 

So I may be correct then that 35+ or not it is possible that Pronger is not "retiring" so that he can continue to collect a paycheck which - as the original article points out - several players whose contracts are not subject to the 35+ rule are doing.

[aziz]

So I may be correct then that 35+ or not it is possible that Pronger is not "retiring" so that he can continue to collect a paycheck which - as the original article points out - several players whose contracts are not subject to the 35+ rule are doing.

That is my understanding, yes.

[aziz]

As far as I can tell, the only people really "concerned" about the whole Pronger situation are Flyers fans upset that the team screwed itself on the deal and has had cap problems because of it.

And Polaris.

As @B21 points out, though, the Flyers haven't been screwed, at least not by the 35+ nature of the SPC. They'd only be in trouble if Pronger decided to walk away from the couple million left on his contract. They may make it through this with the 35+ thing remaining a non-issue. Now, the fact the contact was 162 years long, yeah, that is biting them. The age part, not so much. Or, not yet, anyway.

[radoran]

As @B21 points out, though, the Flyers haven't been screwed, at least not by the 35+ nature of the SPC. They'd only be in trouble if Pronger decided to walk away from the couple million left on his contract. They may make it through this with the 35+ thing remaining a non-issue. Now, the fact the contact was 162 years long, yeah, that is biting them. The age part, not so much. Or, not yet, anyway.

 

Well, if, for example, their cap problems prevented them from playing Morin for nine games and they wanted to then it might have been an issue that affected the roster and the development of a player.

 

And, has been pointed out many times on numerous threads, the Flyers don't "get" $4.9M in cap space - it is a much more complex formula based upon how close they are to the cap when the LTIR is declared.

 

If it was a "non-issue" then Hextall wouldn't have tried to trade the contract and the NHL wouldn't have gotten the black eye it got when hiring a player under contract to a position in the league offices.

 

It's not the end of the world by any evaluation, but it's not a complete "non-issue" either.

[aziz]

@radoran right, but those are all due to the length of the contract, not that it was signed when Pronger was over 35. The over 35 thing would only get in the way if he retired, which would require he leave a large stack (to us, anyway) of bills on the table.

Screwed themselves by offering a stupidly long contract, yes. Screwed themselves by offering a 35+ contact, not yet.

[radoran]

@radoran right, but those are all due to the length of the contract, not that it was signed when Pronger was over 35. The over 35 thing would only get in the way if he retired, which would require he leave a large stack (to us, anyway) of bills on the table.

Screwed themselves by offering a stupidly long contract, yes. Screwed themselves by offering a 35+ contact, not yet.

 

I firmly believe the original intent - like the Briere deal - was to buy out the final few years on the deal and take a small cap hit (before the rules about "recapture" were changed). That would have changed how it all played out long term. Obviously, they got out of Briere's contract with the "compliance" buyouts.

 

Then when it was ruled "over 35" they kept it to 1) spite the league for making the ruling and 2) avoid any "appearance of circumvention." Again IMO.

 

If Pronger retires after this season he "only" leaves $1.15M on the table. Flyers are still stuck with the full cap hit.