pronger contract

[indyflyr]

Bloch Ruling Cites Pronger's Deal; Flyers Disagree

i know this is far fetched, but: WHAT IF the nhl voids the contract? the flyers could walk away from pronger, they could try to resign him at 6.5 per season (which is what the league is basically saying they should have done).

if they walk away we have 5 mill to play with...

if they resign him we are over the cap...

thoughts?

---to be honest my very first thought was, "god i'm glad holmer stocked up on defensemen!" i'm not saying he knew this was going to happen. but if it does, we couldn't be better prepared for it.

 

[awaz]

i dont think they'll void his contract.. it'd be outrageous of them to go back on something they already approved..

i think they 'have' to look back into these since they voided k-chuk's contract.. it looks bad that they allowed these contracts and not k-chuks, it would look even worse if they just brushed the others off when people said they were 'targetting' the devils

but i agree.. it is comforting to have a surplus of NHL-caliber d-men.. just in case..

 

[indyflyr]

i don't think they are going to reverse it either. partly because it was already approved. but also because they only used 2 years to water down the avg yearly hit and not 5 or so that the devils used. but...

CBA, Section 26.10 (d): (d) There shall be no limitation of time barring the investigation of a Circumvention by the Commissioner.

the door is open to review it in the wake of the kovy reversal. and it's a approaching the labor agreement... so bettman would be trying to set the table for negotiations as aggresively as possible. so i wouldn't say it's completely out of the question. it would be weird for sure.

 

[awaz]

i don't think they are going to reverse it either. partly because it was already approved. but also because they only used 2 years to water down the avg yearly hit and not 5 or so that the devils used. but...

CBA, Section 26.10 (d): (d) There shall be no limitation of time barring the investigation of a Circumvention by the Commissioner.

the door is open to review it in the wake of the kovy reversal. and it's a approaching the labor agreement... so bettman would be trying to set the table for negotiations as aggresively as possible. so i wouldn't say it's completely out of the question. it would be weird for sure.

thats a good quote.. theres nothing (contract start date, prior-approval, a holiday, an alaskan air raid, and/or flying elephants) that can limit the time frame of investigating.. at least thats what i get from 'no limitation of time'.. you could at least argue it that way.. and if they do choose to argue it that way, i'd say they have a legitimate point as far as legality goes.. they'd look retarded, for approving, then un-approving, but i'd say itd be legal..

plus i think it would help them that prongers contract doesn't go into effect until this season.. which would make the 'start date' Oct. 1..

if you tread carefully i think the league does have an argument, makes them look dumb, but they do have an argument, for disallowing some of these contracts..

however, i still think its just a front so they cover themselves a little from the k-chuck denial, and they'll do nothing and just hope it blows over

legal stuff sucks.. just manipulating words to mean something they weren't intended to mean

 

[indyflyr]

agreed.

what this all really nets the nhl offices would be a possible tool in the next labor agreement to be more aggressive in approving contracts. it is posturing for negotiations. i don't think they care about the pronger or anyone else at this point. they smell blood in the water and are going to push the advantage.

 

[ProppRules]

Indy, they could easily re-sign him to the same contract in length, dollars, and cap hit. ALl they need to do is spread his money out more evenly in actual payments. In Pronger's case I don't see that as a problem. One, the team has money. Two, they have to budget for his full contract anyway. SInce he is an over-35 contract, it won't come off the books.

 

[chy1127]

I believe that from a legal standpoint the Flyers are in a good position. The Flyers relied upon the approval when making additional moves over the last year. The actual term is detrimental reliance. Another legal application includes waiver. By approving the contract, the league has waived it's right to challenge it. I have not read the CBA, but I am 99% certain that general contract law applies.

I am not supprised that the league is still investigating some of these contracts, but I really don't think they are going anywhere at this point in time. My understanding is that the League had 5 days to object to the original contract. They can say whatever they want about those 4 now, but I don't think they would be successful in challenging them.

That being said they can always try. If they demand arbitration, I believe the arbitrator would have to at least hear the arguments. Bottom line is that I think the Flyers are on solid legal ground. JMHO

 

[flyersfan4706]

Doesnt the fact that he is over 35 say that even if he retire before the contract is up we are still paying him?

 

[awaz]

Doesnt the fact that he is over 35 say that even if he retire before the contract is up we are still paying him?

yep.. cap hit stays with the team for the duration of the contract.. if he retired tomorrow we'd be on the hook til it was over (7 years, i think?)

 

[indyflyr]

which is why simply adding more years evenly paid doesn't help the problem propprules. it might solve this years issue, but it creates massive problems when your paying a 43 year old 5 mill a year....

i don't expect them to be able to legally revoke the contract. but they might fine the flyers money, or worse, draft picks.... however, if the fine isn't factored into the cap, i guess for the flyers it wouldn't be a big issue. but if they said you tried to skirt the cap by 1.5 mill a year, so we are adding it to your cap for each year. that's a problem.

 

[indyflyr]

sorry propprules, i didn't read your post correctly. you didn't say you would add more years. you said same contract length. my bad.

the only problem there being that the flyers don't want to pay him that much because they figure he'll be too old my the final 2 years to be worth that much.

 

[banditshcky11]

the only problem there being that the flyers don't want to pay him that much because they figure he'll be too old my the final 2 years to be worth that much.

I'm relatively sure that the Flyers wouldn't care if they were paying a 42 year old Chris Pronger 10 mill a year in salary as long as his cap hit was a great deal smaller. So even if the NHL says that the Flyers have to evenly disperse the money evenly over the 7 years. I mean it wouldn't hur the Flyers to have to pay him what they're on the line for(cap hit wise), it does hurt Pronger who has to actually stay in the league that long.

Also not 100% sure of this but the Flyers could negate the cap hit of Pronger in his later years if he was put on long term IR(as long as he had a legitimate condition preventing him from playing)? or does the 35+ contract negate that as well in the latest CBA?

 

[Vadered]

If he gets put on LTIR, we would still get the extra cap space. He just can't retire.

 

[indyflyr]

2010 7.6 mil
2011 7.6 mil
2012 7.2 mil
2013 7.0 mil
2014 4.0 mil
2015 .525 k
2016 .525 k

the flyers pay him those numbers in payroll, and only take a cap hit of 4.92 mil per year, because that is the average. so if they trade him in 2015, the cap hit is still 4.92, right? i mean either the flyers or the new team have to be on the hook for the cap number, right? if so, that makes him pretty much untradeable at 42.

is that the right logic?

 

[banditshcky11]

2010 7.6 mil
2011 7.6 mil
2012 7.2 mil
2013 7.0 mil
2014 4.0 mil
2015 .525 k
2016 .525 k

the flyers pay him those numbers in payroll, and only take a cap hit of 4.92 mil per year, because that is the average. so if they trade him in 2015, the cap hit is still 4.92, right? i mean either the flyers or the new team have to be on the hook for the cap number, right? if so, that makes him pretty much untradeable at 42.

is that the right logic?

I would imagine the cap hit is the same if he was traded, It's not like he would be getting a new contract. I now see a bigger problem with his contract. Let's say he was traded to a team who's under the minimum cap, but because of his hit not only gets' over it but is still not spending the minimum cap in salary.

 

[awaz]

2010 7.6 mil
2011 7.6 mil
2012 7.2 mil
2013 7.0 mil
2014 4.0 mil
2015 .525 k
2016 .525 k

the flyers pay him those numbers in payroll, and only take a cap hit of 4.92 mil per year, because that is the average. so if they trade him in 2015, the cap hit is still 4.92, right? i mean either the flyers or the new team have to be on the hook for the cap number, right? if so, that makes him pretty much untradeable at 42.

is that the right logic?

ya.. cap hit stays constant through the whole length of the contract.. in 2016, chris prongers cap hit will be 4.92, regardless of what team he plays for, or doesn't play for, for that matter.. so if he retires in 2015, in 2016 the flyers will have a cap hit of 4.92, for nobody..

(this is my understanding, not sure if its right) the only time the cap hit changes is during the season.. i believe it gets pro-rated, i'm not sure about this though.. so if you traded players at the deadline, the cap hits would be different.. ie you the flyers could acquire a 5 mil cap hit that will only give them a 2 mil cap hit for the rest of the season (it would be restored to 5 mil the following season tho, if they had years remaining on their contract)

another thing i haven't had a chance to check, is buying him out.. you can buy players out of their contracts, but you still take a cap hit, and depending on the length of the contract left, you take a certain cap hit for a few years.. ie you could buy someone out that has a 5 mil cap hit for 4 more years, and still have a cap hit of 2 mil for 3 years (numbers are just guesses).. however, for some reason i have in my head that buy outs might have more to do with the money remaining on the contract, than the cap hit.. if thats the case, the flyers could buy pronger out for a relatively cheap hit if he retires.. but i'm thinking thats not the case, because waiving a retired player only reduces his cap hit by 100k (which is obviously a change from the norm, where it all comes off the cap), and the first step to buying someone out is waiving them..

 

[scottflyers88]

i do not know why the league is investigating this. we have his cap hit even if he retires. also, even if he made as much as his cap hit last year all we have to do it get rid of walker.

 

[ProppRules]

I think you take a cap hit of 2/3 of the remaining cap hit money owed in one lump hit in a buyout.

 

[ProppRules]

I agree that restructuring the contract for the money to be spread out isn't ideal. But the FLyers would be able to do that without hurting their cap situation. All the other contracts under investigation are structured to give cap relief by adding no money years to spread out the hit. The FLyers get the hit either way, and/or they have to pay him. So it is better this way, but doable. The other contracts won't be so easy.
Also, according to an NHLPA attorney, the league has the right to review a contract at any time, even after the player has begun playing under it.

 

[flyersfan4706]

Homer has few contracts fucking backloaded. What the hell?

nhlnumbers.com Team Overview

Briere: Goes from 8mil to 3mil
Kimmo: 7-3
Hartnell: 4.2-3.2
Pronger: 7.6-.525