Around the league (signings, RFAs injuries)

[SKYO]

Well besides the Flyers circumventing the cap/getting away with it while paying Chris Pronger millions to basically work for the league in NHL discipline...

I think Pronger is the perfect fit for that role, as it's like a hacker reformed to work for--instead of against--the government, they know all the tricks of the trade to stop the bad guys.

[dbr]

The NHL has hired former defenceman Chris Pronger to work in the Department of Player Safety, Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman confirmed Thursday.

Pronger, 39, is still being paid by the Philadelphia Flyers even though he hasn’t played in the NHL since the 2011-12 season. He has not officially retired.

“Chris’ case is unique,” NHL commissioner Gary Bettman told reporters Wednesday. “There are salary cap reasons why he couldn’t officially retire. I’m not sure that presents any problem at all to deal with. He’s done playing. He gets paid no matter what from the Flyers. He doesn’t owe them anything.”

This season, Pronger carries a salary cap hit of $4.9 million for the Flyers. The club signed him to a seven-year extension after acquiring him in a trade with the Anaheim Ducks in 2009.

The defenceman was suspended eight times in his NHL career for a total of 22 games.

Seriously? Isn't Bettman admitting the Flyers are circumventing the CBA/cap? ...why would Pronger care about "salary cap reasons"? He wouldn't, thus proving this whole LTIR situation was cooked up for the Flyers' books. This move once again hi-lights the arrogance.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/pron ... er-safety/

Pronger could probably qualify for career ending disability, get a smallish (by NHL standards) pay out and continue to collect his Paragraph 1 salary through the end of his contract.

That said, he would monumentally fuck his current/former employer over doing so, and indirectly his brethren when one of the league's big spenders shaves $5m or so off the amount being spent on player contracts over the next few years.

As a guy who basically voluntarily played through concussions to the point where he could no longer function, I'm sure Pronger has a strong instinct to just be a good soldier and keep everyone happy in this situation.

And frankly, I don't see why scenarios like this are a bad thing. Dead cap space is a bad thing for the league, particularly when it's attached to a player who retired due to injury (makes it tough to say the team signed an awful contract and must sleep in the bed they've made). Unless one believes passionately that a super restrictive salary cap is better for the league, that is.

The conflict of interest is a separate and totally valid concern, although scarcely even notable in the long list of problematic decisions the league has made on this front.

[Hockey Widow]

Change the CBA then. The league did consult with the NHLPA, and we don't know what they said, but the NHL apparently did not need PA approval.

I don't care if Pronger has the NHL job. The issues to me are simple.

1) he is still under contract, being paid by, or in proxy the insurance company, the Flyers. The optics of a conflict are huge. Quite different from hiring an ex-player, or father or brother, who no longer have a direct link to a team. This has nothing to do with whether he will be good or not in the job. The NHL should always be looking to avoid the perception of impropriety.

2) yes Peonger is being paid by an insurer but his cap is the issue, not his salary. As long as he stays un-retired the Flyers get 5 million in cap relief. Bettman himself said directly that there are cap issues as to why he can't retire. In other words Pronger wants the NHL job but either Pronger doesn't want to screw the Flyers or the Flyers won't give permission for a player under contract to join the NHL unless they still get the cap relief. And why would they. Pronger is still under contract. They would be crazy to let him off the hook and then have to absorb the cap hit. The same team that made a mistake with his contract because they thought the age thing came into play at the time he signed, he was under 35, not at the time the contract took effect, by which time he was over 35. So they felt they got screwed once already. This is the NHL saying Pronger and only Pronger could fit this job so let's bend the rules to get him and let's help the Flyers out. Will they be so kind to Vancouver should Luongo retire early?

Bettman's hallmark has been the cap. His mission to go after cheaters. Here he becomes one.

[SKYO]

According to Jeff Herman...

As a lawyer, let me address the issue of whether the hiring violates the most recent CBA. IT DOES NOT. I repeat, THERE IS NO CBA VIOLATION.

Article 26.2 only applies when “Clubs” and “Players” enter into “undisclosed” contracts. Here’s the problem: the NHL is not a “Club” in this instance (because it is not acting on behalf of one of the 30 teams), and Chris Pronger is not a “Player” in this instance (because a Player is only someone who signed a “Standard Players Contract” under the terms of the CBA itself, and Pronger’s contract predates the CBA by a couple of years).

The provision was designed to prevent SECRET contracts between players and teams to get around the limitations in the CBA. Neither Article 26.2’s terms nor its purpose are implicated here. Pronger and the NHL are fine.

[Island Nucklehead]

Nice that it's "technically legal", it's still bullshit.

This is a league that was determined to go after anyone that may be trying to find loopholes in the CBA. Teams like Vancouver are going to get punished for a "technically legal" contract that they signed with players like Luongo. New Jersey must be apopleptic that the Flyers, who knew the risks signing an aging player like Pronger to a long-term deal, have had their scheme officially sanctioned by the league.

Talk about undermining credibility and effectiveness of the 35+ rule.

If this flies, what's stopping Vancouver from re-acquiring Luongo prior to his retirement, have a doctor comment on the wear and tear on his knees after 15 seasons, and rather than retiring just put him on LTIR for the last 3-4 years of his deal? Lou gets paid, the Canucks can go over the cap by his contract value, and no penalties to lower our cap number. It's all bullshit, but the Pronger experience tells us there's "technically" nothing wrong with it.

[SKYO]

Nice that it's "technically legal", it's still bullshit.

This is a league that was determined to go after anyone that may be trying to find loopholes in the CBA. Teams like Vancouver are going to get punished for a "technically legal" contract that they signed with players like Luongo. New Jersey must be apopleptic that the Flyers, who knew the risks signing an aging player like Pronger to a long-term deal, have had their scheme officially sanctioned by the league.

Talk about undermining credibility and effectiveness of the 35+ rule.

If this flies, what's stopping Vancouver from re-acquiring Luongo prior to his retirement, have a doctor comment on the wear and tear on his knees after 15 seasons, and rather than retiring just put him on LTIR for the last 3-4 years of his deal? Lou gets paid, the Canucks can go over the cap by his contract value, and no penalties to lower our cap number. It's all bullshit, but the Pronger experience tells us there's "technically" nothing wrong with it.

hmmm good call, with how Burke screwed us over with the Lu rule, I bet this scenario could actually happen, then the Canucks will just use Philly and use that example to get around this.

Unless Luongo plays as long as Brodeur till 41 and retires after that, then we'd only have to worry about one year of that cap.

Hell Brodeur at 42 is still trying to play longer haha.

[Hockey Widow]

According to Jeff Herman...

As a lawyer, let me address the issue of whether the hiring violates the most recent CBA. IT DOES NOT. I repeat, THERE IS NO CBA VIOLATION.

Article 26.2 only applies when “Clubs” and “Players” enter into “undisclosed” contracts. Here’s the problem: the NHL is not a “Club” in this instance (because it is not acting on behalf of one of the 30 teams), and Chris Pronger is not a “Player” in this instance (because a Player is only someone who signed a “Standard Players Contract” under the terms of the CBA itself, and Pronger’s contract predates the CBA by a couple of years).

The provision was designed to prevent SECRET contracts between players and teams to get around the limitations in the CBA. Neither Article 26.2’s terms nor its purpose are implicated here. Pronger and the NHL are fine.

I'm not talking about the legality of his signing a contract with the NHL. I'm talking about him not having to retire to do so, only to prevent the Flyers from being on the hook for his cap. That's what stinks. That and he is still a Flyer and now is in a conflict.

The NHL can spin this all they want.

"because a Player is only someone who signed a “Standard Players Contract” under the terms of the CBA itself, and Pronger’s contract predates the CBA by a couple of years)."

Will this reasonng apply to Luongo, that is his contract predates the CBA therefore the cap recapture won't apply to him? Has that precedent now been set?

[Jovocop]

Don't be upset people! It is the NHL after all. If you are inside the "circle", the NHL will find ways to get around the problems. If you are outside, you are toast.

[Meds]

According to Jeff Herman...

As a lawyer, let me address the issue of whether the hiring violates the most recent CBA. IT DOES NOT. I repeat, THERE IS NO CBA VIOLATION.

Article 26.2 only applies when “Clubs” and “Players” enter into “undisclosed” contracts. Here’s the problem: the NHL is not a “Club” in this instance (because it is not acting on behalf of one of the 30 teams), and Chris Pronger is not a “Player” in this instance (because a Player is only someone who signed a “Standard Players Contract” under the terms of the CBA itself, and Pronger’s contract predates the CBA by a couple of years).

The provision was designed to prevent SECRET contracts between players and teams to get around the limitations in the CBA. Neither Article 26.2’s terms nor its purpose are implicated here. Pronger and the NHL are fine.

I'm not talking about the legality of his signing a contract with the NHL. I'm talking about him not having to retire to do so, only to prevent the Flyers from being on the hook for his cap. That's what stinks. That and he is still a Flyer and now is in a conflict.

The NHL can spin this all they want.

"because a Player is only someone who signed a “Standard Players Contract” under the terms of the CBA itself, and Pronger’s contract predates the CBA by a couple of years)."

Will this reasonng apply to Luongo, that is his contract predates the CBA therefore the cap recapture won't apply to him? Has that precedent now been set?

I have no problem with Pronger taking this position so far as the contract and cap hit stuff goes. Were he not concussed, it is conceivable that he would play this season and next season still. At that point, if he retired, he would only have one year left on his contract and Philly would have to deal with it.

The guy is legitimately injured. Philly should not have to worry about cap-recapture penalties when the player is forced to retire early due to an injury.

[Hockey Widow]

According to Jeff Herman...

As a lawyer, let me address the issue of whether the hiring violates the most recent CBA. IT DOES NOT. I repeat, THERE IS NO CBA VIOLATION.

Article 26.2 only applies when “Clubs” and “Players” enter into “undisclosed” contracts. Here’s the problem: the NHL is not a “Club” in this instance (because it is not acting on behalf of one of the 30 teams), and Chris Pronger is not a “Player” in this instance (because a Player is only someone who signed a “Standard Players Contract” under the terms of the CBA itself, and Pronger’s contract predates the CBA by a couple of years).

The provision was designed to prevent SECRET contracts between players and teams to get around the limitations in the CBA. Neither Article 26.2’s terms nor its purpose are implicated here. Pronger and the NHL are fine.

I'm not talking about the legality of his signing a contract with the NHL. I'm talking about him not having to retire to do so, only to prevent the Flyers from being on the hook for his cap. That's what stinks. That and he is still a Flyer and now is in a conflict.

The NHL can spin this all they want.

"because a Player is only someone who signed a “Standard Players Contract” under the terms of the CBA itself, and Pronger’s contract predates the CBA by a couple of years)."

Will this reasonng apply to Luongo, that is his contract predates the CBA therefore the cap recapture won't apply to him? Has that precedent now been set?

I have no problem with Pronger taking this position so far as the contract and cap hit stuff goes. Were he not concussed, it is conceivable that he would play this season and next season still. At that point, if he retired, he would only have one year left on his contract and Philly would have to deal with it.

The guy is legitimately injured. Philly should not have to worry about cap-recapture penalties when the player is forced to retire early due to an injury.

I agree, so change the CBA. It still stinks.

[ClamRussel]

According to Jeff Herman...

As a lawyer, let me address the issue of whether the hiring violates the most recent CBA. IT DOES NOT. I repeat, THERE IS NO CBA VIOLATION.

Article 26.2 only applies when “Clubs” and “Players” enter into “undisclosed” contracts. Here’s the problem: the NHL is not a “Club” in this instance (because it is not acting on behalf of one of the 30 teams), and Chris Pronger is not a “Player” in this instance (because a Player is only someone who signed a “Standard Players Contract” under the terms of the CBA itself, and Pronger’s contract predates the CBA by a couple of years).

The provision was designed to prevent SECRET contracts between players and teams to get around the limitations in the CBA. Neither Article 26.2’s terms nor its purpose are implicated here. Pronger and the NHL are fine.

I'm not talking about the legality of his signing a contract with the NHL. I'm talking about him not having to retire to do so, only to prevent the Flyers from being on the hook for his cap. That's what stinks. That and he is still a Flyer and now is in a conflict.

The NHL can spin this all they want.

"because a Player is only someone who signed a “Standard Players Contract” under the terms of the CBA itself, and Pronger’s contract predates the CBA by a couple of years)."

Will this reasonng apply to Luongo, that is his contract predates the CBA therefore the cap recapture won't apply to him? Has that precedent now been set?

I have no problem with Pronger taking this position so far as the contract and cap hit stuff goes. Were he not concussed, it is conceivable that he would play this season and next season still. At that point, if he retired, he would only have one year left on his contract and Philly would have to deal with it.

The guy is legitimately injured. Philly should not have to worry about cap-recapture penalties when the player is forced to retire early due to an injury.

You have no problem w/ a guy still under contract to an NHL team & possibly being in charge of suspensions? You do see the bad optics here?

[ClamRussel]

According to Jeff Herman...

As a lawyer, let me address the issue of whether the hiring violates the most recent CBA. IT DOES NOT. I repeat, THERE IS NO CBA VIOLATION.

Article 26.2 only applies when “Clubs” and “Players” enter into “undisclosed” contracts. Here’s the problem: the NHL is not a “Club” in this instance (because it is not acting on behalf of one of the 30 teams), and Chris Pronger is not a “Player” in this instance (because a Player is only someone who signed a “Standard Players Contract” under the terms of the CBA itself, and Pronger’s contract predates the CBA by a couple of years).

The provision was designed to prevent SECRET contracts between players and teams to get around the limitations in the CBA. Neither Article 26.2’s terms nor its purpose are implicated here. Pronger and the NHL are fine.

Lu's contract predates the CBA as well, so why are the Canucks potentially on the hook for cap recapture penalties? The Canucks should argue Lu is not a "player" either. Some fans may concur.

[Island Nucklehead]

I have no problem with Pronger taking this position so far as the contract and cap hit stuff goes. Were he not concussed, it is conceivable that he would play this season and next season still. At that point, if he retired, he would only have one year left on his contract and Philly would have to deal with it.

The guy is legitimately injured. Philly should not have to worry about cap-recapture penalties when the player is forced to retire early due to an injury.

Put it this way... if Pronger was 30 years old, do you not think he would've retired by now? Because he's a 35+ contract, and because the Flyers would get screwed by the cap, he hasn't retired. That's the only reason. If he can't play any longer, he should retire. Age has nothing to do with it. The Salary cap has a 35+ retirement clause for this exact reason. Surely a majority of these players who retire when nearing their 40's have a host of physical ailments that have pushed them in that direction?

The optics are terrible. If Pronger wants an NHL job, he should not be an "active" player. By not having filed his retirement papers, what exactly is stopping Pronger from "feeling better" come playoff time and suiting up for the Flyers, potentially after advising Player Safety to suspend some of his opponents? The fact that this would be possible puts the NHL in a very tough spot, and I can't figure out why they'd put themselves in this position.

Again, what would be stopping a team like Vancouver giving Iginla a 7 year deal after he's done with Colorado? What is "technically" stopping Iginla from playing until he's 47? But then around 43 his knees start to go. "Well, shit" the Canucks say "he can't play anymore due to injury, we shouldn't be stuck with his cap, so he's not going to retire, we'll just keep paying him and use LTIR to go over the cap. Oh, and by the way, Jerome just took a job as a goal-review judge in Toronto." Pretty ridiculous, and it's exactly what the Flyers and Pronger are doing.

[Vader]

[

Put it this way... if Pronger was 30 years old, do you not think he would've retired by now? Because he's a 35+ contract, and because the Flyers would get screwed by the cap, he hasn't retired. That's the only reason. If he can't play any longer, he should retire. Age has nothing to do with it.

Not this again.

For the millionth time...

If Pronger retired he would forfeit the $5+ million dollars in salary he's entitled to...that's why he hasn't retired; he doesn't give a shit about Philly's cap situation, he's not the owner, GM or anything other than an injured player. They guy's legitimately unable to play. No doctor would ever clear him to play again

[Island Nucklehead]

If Pronger retired he would forfeit the $5+ million dollars in salary he's entitled to...that's why he hasn't retired; he doesn't give a shit about Philly's cap situation, he's not the owner, GM or anything other than an injured player. They guy's legitimately unable to play. No doctor would ever clear him to play again

Pronger (and Savard in Boston) are just doing what they're entitled to under 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.

The question remains: Why is the NHL hiring an "injured player" (your words), who is still listed on an NHL roster, to do a job that calls for him to impose discipline on other NHL players?

Basically, it's a massive can of worms the NHL has needlessly opened that really has no "upside" for them. Even if Pronger becomes twice the discipline dink Shanahan was, there is no way for them to escape from claims of bias and conflicting interests.