Question about Pronger's contract

[banditshcky11]

I was talking to a buddy last night about what will happen if Pronger doesn't play again. He has 35+ contract with a NMC, which means we're on the hook for his contract even if he retires & he can't be waived.

Now this is what we were confused on. If Pronger retires his cap hit still stays on the books, but do we have to continue to pay his salary? If we don't have to pay his salary are we able to trade his contract to a team who is under the cap floor to make them cap compliant, but they ould not have to spend anymore money? I know that sounds like cap circumvention, but I'm not sure if it's possible or even legal.

Does anyone have any idea on how this all works now?

 

[raptorlife4]

From what I understand
If Pronger "retires" then we get no cap relief
If Pronger goes on LTIR then we get the cap relief

So I dont see Pronger retiring anytime soon

 

[awaz]

hm.. never thought about that bandit.. i have no idea.. i'm thinking they'd still have to pay his salary even if he retired.. hockey is different from other sports (notably football, i dont have real good experience with the others) in that a players contract is fully guaranteed.. i would think that would be the same if retirement came in to play, especially considering the main idea behind guaranteed contracts is so that the players is compensated if he is forced to miss out because of injury (which would be pronger's case).. thats just a guess though

this may all be moot next year though.. with all the players that are being shunned to the minors (even when they're still talented) because of bad cap hits, i think the new CBA will include an amnesty buyout period where they will be able to buyout contracts they don't like without taking the penalty for it.. i would think the NHL would do this to get some of the talented, but underachieving, guys in the minors - back in the NHL.. guys like walker who would be a fine 5/6 guy on a weaker team, if it weren't for his 1.7 mil hit.. or redden, who i cant speak with too much experience on, but i would guess he'd be a fine 5/6 or maybe even 4 guy, but at a 5 or 6 mil cap hit, he's not worth it

if that doesn't come in with the new CBA, i think the flyers could be in trouble.. i dont think LTIR-ing him for the rest of his career is going to be as easy as it was with rathje or lappy.. pronger is a big cap hit, that was a questionable contract when it was signed.. even if he 'tries to come back' or 'refuses to retire'.. i worry that bettman will take out his vengence on 'retirement contracts' on the pronger deal.. if that happens, the flyers are going to be in trouble.. this is a VERY bad contract

 

[SLY]

I'd expect contracts to not be guaranteed anymore with players being mandated to stay out with concussions.

 

[awaz]

I'd expect contracts to not be guaranteed anymore with players being mandated to stay out with concussions.

you think? i know that's what the owners are going to push for.. but i just think it sends mixed messages when you're the front runner in concussion safety compared to other sports.. and trying to 'take care of your own' in a way that makes the hockey community more tight nit than any.. only to turn around and take away a guys paycheck when he gets hurt

i dont really know which side i agree w/.. its tough when owners of small market teams get crushed by a big contract guy going down, but i think it'd be hard to un-gaurantee all contracts.. just doesn't send the right message to me

 

[SLY]

I guess we'll see. I guess you're right if it is the LEAGUE mandating players stay out for a possible concussion.

 

[awaz]

I guess we'll see. I guess you're right if it is the LEAGUE mandating players stay out for a possible concussion.

i think it'd be hard for the league to mandate that.. at least right now.. nobody can pinpoint a time when concussion symptoms will definitely show up, you could wait almost a month before anything shows up (like pronger).. i just think you'd end up having guys sit out any time they got hit even remotely close to the head.. i worry that it would be far too frequent that the game would be missing its best players for what ended up being no reason

i agree lots of care needs to be taken when it comes to concussions cause they're a terrible injury.. but i guess i'd have to see how you would mandate sitting out before i could get behind it..

 

[ProppRules]

Almost positive he gets paid regardless. It becomes an issue of insurance paying part of it at some point.

 

[dspice07]

I agree with the NHL justifying the 35+ contracts. That being said, there has to be some sort of clause written in to the new CBA that if a player suffers a career ending injury that they will not be on the hook for the cap hit for the remainder of the contract.

Prior to the last year or so, Pronger has been relatively healthy his entire career. Homer was wrong in giving the contract but at the same time you cant point to a specific time that Pronger has been out for extended times with injuries. Who would have thought the guy was going to get sliced open by a stick blade and then start suffering phantom concussion symptoms (i believe the eye injury is the cause of these latter problems....dr. spice). Either way it is not fair for a team to have to suffer this way because of a bad injury.

 

[banditshcky11]

I have to think the owners will definitely push to have injury related retirements taken out of any form of guaranteed contracts. I definitely see their point especially when they both have to pay the contract and deal with the cap hit for a player who can no longer play.

I personally think that if a player is forced to leave the game due to injury the team should not be penalized by having a cap hit stay on the books. The player however should not have to forfeit what is owed to them. I'm not entirely sure what the right way to handle the situation is, but I'd like to see it go the route of insurance taking over fulfilling the monetary value of the remaining contract years.

I know a window for buyout was offered, but buy-outs come with a remaining cap hit so I can't see that being an answer. I also know the NHL has talked about making strict limits on length of contracts which may provide some very minor relief if players over 35 were only allowed to sign 2-3 year deals. I believe that 35+ contracts were originally put in place to stop teams from abusing offering front loaded deals which let the player retire after a few seasons while being paid the majority of the contracts value. Possibly even mandating that no contract can contain a NMC would be something the owners are willing to look at, but again that promotes over spending during FA for aging players who can then be waived and retire from the minors with little to no consequence(I believe).



This whole situate illustrates the stupidity of signing Pronger to this contract in the first place. I mean not only did we give up 2 promising young players and 2 first round picks, but we then signed him for an insane term to a big hit all while knowing of his injury history. I just don't see how moves like this pay off and no we're holding the bag not knowing if he will ever be able to get back on the ice(much less if he can play any length of the season). I'm not blaming Pronger for the concussion or his foot/hand injuries last year, but he came with a bad back and knees. I just never understood this move from the start and now it looks like it may bites us in the ass.

 

[awaz]

I have to think the owners will definitely push to have injury related retirements taken out of any form of guaranteed contracts. I definitely see their point especially when they both have to pay the contract and deal with the cap hit for a player who can no longer play.

I personally think that if a player is forced to leave the game due to injury the team should not be penalized by having a cap hit stay on the books. The player however should not have to forfeit what is owed to them. I'm not entirely sure what the right way to handle the situation is, but I'd like to see it go the route of insurance taking over fulfilling the monetary value of the remaining contract years.

I know a window for buyout was offered, but buy-outs come with a remaining cap hit so I can't see that being an answer. I also know the NHL has talked about making strict limits on length of contracts which may provide some very minor relief if players over 35 were only allowed to sign 2-3 year deals. I believe that 35+ contracts were originally put in place to stop teams from abusing offering front loaded deals which let the player retire after a few seasons while being paid the majority of the contracts value. Possibly even mandating that no contract can contain a NMC would be something the owners are willing to look at, but again that promotes over spending during FA for aging players who can then be waived and retire from the minors with little to no consequence(I believe).



This whole situate illustrates the stupidity of signing Pronger to this contract in the first place. I mean not only did we give up 2 promising young players and 2 first round picks, but we then signed him for an insane term to a big hit all while knowing of his injury history. I just don't see how moves like this pay off and no we're holding the bag not knowing if he will ever be able to get back on the ice(much less if he can play any length of the season). I'm not blaming Pronger for the concussion or his foot/hand injuries last year, but he came with a bad back and knees. I just never understood this move from the start and now it looks like it may bites us in the ass.

i take all that frustration out by hating pronger

 

[banditshcky11]

i take all that frustration out by hating pronger

Oh I do, but I'm also starting to see way too many similarities between Homer and Clarke & they're not the good kind....

 

[BigBadDup]

It's an easy answer, he simply doesn't officially announce retirement. Marc Savard will never play again but he's not officially retired, therefore that cap hit rule doesn't take effect. It's the same thing, nothing to worry about on the salary cap side of things to be honest. This loophole will probably be tinkered with in the next CBA.

 

[banditshcky11]

It's an easy answer, he simply doesn't officially announce retirement. Marc Savard will never play again but he's not officially retired, therefore that cap hit rule doesn't take effect. It's the same thing, nothing to worry about on the salary cap side of things to be honest. This loophole will probably be tinkered with in the next CBA.

The problem with that is that Pronger's contest was under a ton of scrutiny when it was signed so this may be the NHL's chance to make a point. That is my fear at least, and what's to say Pronger won't decide on his own to announce retirement if his slaray is in fact guaranteed.

 

[BigBadDup]

Sure, he could do that I guess.... but the Bruins and Marc Savard are doing exactly this and all during the current CBA.

 

[ProppRules]

I dont know why anyone thinks the NHL would want to make a point with Pronger's situation. Injured reserve is for a team to place an injured player there. It is a team's right to pay a player while they are injured. The union would not allow a healthy player to sit there to circumvent the cap for numerous reasons. THere is nothing shady about LTIR'ing an injured player, and the Flyers are not the only team doing it.

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

I was talking to a buddy last night about what will happen if Pronger doesn't play again. He has 35+ contract with a NMC, which means we're on the hook for his contract even if he retires & he can't be waived.

Now this is what we were confused on. If Pronger retires his cap hit still stays on the books, but do we have to continue to pay his salary? If we don't have to pay his salary are we able to trade his contract to a team who is under the cap floor to make them cap compliant, but they ould not have to spend anymore money? I know that sounds like cap circumvention, but I'm not sure if it's possible or even legal.

Does anyone have any idea on how this all works now?

That sounds extremely illegal but way to think outside the box haha

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

This whole situate illustrates the stupidity of signing Pronger to this contract in the first place. I mean not only did we give up 2 promising young players and 2 first round picks, but we then signed him for an insane term to a big hit all while knowing of his injury history. I just don't see how moves like this pay off and no we're holding the bag not knowing if he will ever be able to get back on the ice(much less if he can play any length of the season). I'm not blaming Pronger for the concussion or his foot/hand injuries last year, but he came with a bad back and knees. I just never understood this move from the start and now it looks like it may bites us in the ass.

I think it's more the stupidity of the GM of an NHL team having no regards for and not understanding the CBA. The 35+ should have been the first thing on his mind but it was blatantly obvious that they pretty much were unaware of the ramifications of a 35+ contract, especially if a player hangs them up.

I thought the trade was great and the cap hit was great, but the amount of years for his age was just insane. I WANT to think there were some closed curtain agreements made where Homer basically said we will offer you this deal if you agree to not retire if it gets to that point and just go on the LTIR.

That scenario is less likely the more I think about Homer and his disregard of the CBA. I love the moves he makes for the most part, but a GM HAS to know the CBA through and through. It's big, it's a lot of words, but it's important.

 

[ProppRules]

PHaithful, why do you think he has no knowledge or regard of the CBA? WIth the one exception of having to use David SLoane, the FLyers manage to spend every possible dollar without hurting the on-ice product. Teams like the Devils and Stars have had to dress less players at times to stay compliant. THe Devils even went an entire pre-season without a backup goalie to stay compliant. THe PRonger situation hasn't hurt the team one bit yet. And the way it sits now, I don't see how it would. It is one thing to argue that he overpays players, but I think he understands the CBA more than most.

 

[banditshcky11]

Pronger's contract length & amount hurt us a lot at this point, especially with his current injury being so up in the air. He's basically untraceable now, so any move we do make at this point has to be made with the understanding that next season he could be cleared and totally fuck our roster. I mean how could we expect to field a team if we did get Weber. Then we've have Pronger, Timonen & Briere's contracts as well even with a conservative estimate of Weber getting 7m a year that's 24m for 4 players. Pronger will more then likely never play a full season again, in fact I'd be surprised if he can even get 50 games in form here on out.

I agree with some of what Philly said being that Homer has no regard for 35+ contracts & NTC's for that fact. I get they the NHL let's teams and players get away with the LTIR retirement prevention, but at what point do they get fed up. Pronger's contract was already scrutinized for the length given at his age with hims having back and knee problems. If a player is told they can never play again and then sits on the LTIR for years to me that is cap circumvention, it may be given a pass due to the player being injured at some points, but most players don't still have 5 years left on their contract.

My solution is simple, no more multi-year 35+ contracts(2 years max for a guy like Jagr) and only give full NTC's to the very best players & never give any player a NMC unless they are your franchise player(Giroux). We may lose out on some big name money hungry FA's but let's be honest do we really want those types of selfish players in Philadelphia? I think this years team illustrates that a team that plays for the logo on the front of the jersey and not the name on the back can not only compete but continually overcome adversity. I'd also stop giving up so much for players who are arguably past their prime, Clarke was notorious for it(see Adam Oates). Lastly and this is the most important one. Homer needs to stop freaking out when a hole is exposed, Pronger was an impulse trade imo. We needed a stud d-man and instead of taking his time Homer seemingly took ANA's first offer, without investigating other possibilities. Bryz is an example of a good trade for a player, he didn't overpay and he got the guy he really wanted(whether it will pay off or not is yet to be seen).

I'm sure there is way more that goes on behind the scenes then any of us can even begin to imagine, so some of this may be unrealistic. I'm just saying from the outside looking in it is easy to see where over paying and over compensating players in terms(NTC/NMC's) it hurts your team in the long run.