Pronger Interviews with Dept. Of Player Safety

[Idoit40fans]

Didnt like him much as a player but i feel pretty bad for him at this point. Glad he can stay pretty integrated in the league. He obviously loves it.

[MRandall25]

I'm going to be annoyed if the Flyers get out of that contract.

[Dickie Dunn]

A rostered player being a paid employee of the NHL is a complete embarrassment, but why should we expect anything else from this league.

[Lt. Dish]

I'm going to be annoyed if the Flyers get out of that contract.

I'll be more than annoyed, although I'm prepared for it to happen. It's not enough that they've been circumventing the cap with the LTIRement. I realize that an argument exists that the LTIR cap exception is a safety net for teams in the event of a fluky career-ending injury to a player, but I don't agree with it. It's a loophole that, imo, needs to be closed. Being stuck with the cap hit regardless of what compels the player to stop playing, or become unable to play for you, is the chance you take for signing anyone--even a superstar--to an over-35 contract. And the fact that Holmgren didn't understand the rule? Tough. You blew that aspect of your job. Deal with it.

Weasels.

[Idoit40fans]

I have no problem with the flyers being off the hook with prongers contract. No circumvention is happening there whatsoever.

[columbia]

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
1) Interesting note on Pronger: he will be eligible to stay on LTIR, but sounds like PHI may (per @tpanotchCSN) put him on non-roster IR.
2) The basic difference is it means his salary would count against the cap. (Same as Rich Peverley in DAL). We'll find out tomorrow.

Tomorrow meaning today.

[offsides]

A rostered player being a paid employee of the NHL is a complete embarrassment, but why should we expect anything else from this league.

Also breaks a rule in the CBA.

Elliotte Friedman ✔ @FriedgeHNIC
Pronger: issue is in Article 26 of CBA. No one being paid by a team can be paid by the league

[MRandall25]

I have no problem with the flyers being off the hook with prongers contract. No circumvention is happening there whatsoever.

If Pronger wants to take a job with the league, he can't be paid by the Flyers, which means he has to retire from hockey.

If he retires, his cap hit should count, because he was signed to a 35+ contract.

There should be no reason the Flyers should get away with that cap hit.

[Idoit40fans]

I disagree. He should either be allowed to do this job as a member of their organization or just be released from the contract with no penalty. A functional league would just dissolve the contract because that would be the right thing to do.

[Jim]

I disagree. He should either be allowed to do this job as a member of their organization or just be released from the contract with no penalty. A functional league would just dissolve the contract because that would be the right thing to do.

In no way is that true.

[Idoit40fans]

No its entirely true. Im entitled to my opinion about how something that doesnt violate the spirit of the rules should be enforced just as you have the right to crusade relentlessly against players that you dont like.

[columbia]

Jim is, in this case, quite correct.

[MRandall25]

... or I'm saying that no other team in the league would be able to get out of the cap hit that comes from a 35+ contract player retiring early. The Flyers should be no different.

[Idoit40fans]

I guess we will see what happens. The flyers arent trying to get away with anything.

[dodint]

Did you type that with a straight face?

[viva la ben]

2010-11 7.6 million
2011-12 7.6 million
2011-13 7.2 million
2013-14 7 million
2014-15 4 million
2015-16 .575 million
2016-17 .575 million
AAV 4.9 million

You really think the Flyers didn't try to get away with something?

[Idoit40fans]

Do you believe if he didnt have a concussion they wouldnt want him playing right now? I dont. Not even a bit. They want him on the ice. Try looking at it without your "i hate the flyers" glasses on.

[columbia]

If he wants to retire (because he wants to work for the NHL) that's his prerogative, but the Flyers need to be - per the CBA - stuck with that cap hit for two more after this year.

It's a clearly unambiguous situation.

[Jim]

No its entirely true. Im entitled to my opinion about how something that doesnt violate the spirit of the rules should be enforced just as you have the right to crusade relentlessly against players that you dont like.

But it does violate the spirit of the rules. That is the point.

The spirit of the rules are to not sign an old guy to an unrealistically long term contract with BS low out years to lower the average cap hit. That is the spirit of the rules. That is what Philly did; $7.6M to start, $575K the last two years. Had his salary been $5M a year across the board as opposed to getting around the cap hit... then fine. No one tried to violate the spirit of the rules. However, they signed this lopsided contract, and they should be held to it. Forgiving the contract would violate both the spirit of the cap hit side and violate the spirit of the 35+ contract.

The difference in your analogy is that my negative opinions on certain players have grounds.

[Jim]

Do you believe if he didnt have a concussion they wouldnt want him playing right now? I dont. Not even a bit. They want him on the ice. Try looking at it without your "i hate the flyers" glasses on.

They signed him until he would be 43. There was no way that his body would hold up under his physical style until he was 43.

[Beveridge]

Flyers signed him under old rules that allowed such nonsense to reduce the cap hit. In those same rules were what happens if a player signing a 35+ contract retires. Flyers didn't do anything outside the rules when they "circumvented" the cap same for Canucks, Devils, even the Pens with Crosby in a sense, but they should have to live with the consequences of the other part of the rule that involves this contract.

Flyers would rather have him on the ice than "getting away" with the cap now. However, if he must be removed from their roster, then the same rules that allowed this in the first place should be the same rules that apply when it ends early.

[slappybrown]

If he wants to retire (because he wants to work for the NHL) that's his prerogative, but the Flyers need to be - per the CBA - stuck with that cap hit for two more after this year.

It's a clearly unambiguous situation.

[Juice]

#justI40things

[shmenguin]

a 25 year old pronger is less likely to have to retire during his contract than a 35 year old pronger. the flyers took a risk when they signed an old player to a long deal, and they lost. if he's employed by the NHL, the flyers need to eat that cap hit - despite the fact that they'd rather he be playing right now.

[Idoit40fans]

a 25 year old pronger is less likely to have to retire during his contract than a 35 year old pronger. the flyers took a risk when they signed an old player to a long deal, and they lost. if he's employed by the NHL, the flyers need to eat that cap hit - despite the fact that they'd rather he be playing right now.

The NHL disagrees with you.