CanucksCorner.com Forums

This move can't even remotely be justified. Is Pronger just *that* much more qualified to do this job that it's worth the poor optics? It's opening the league up to unnecessary controversy. In pro sports there's already the threat of bias all the way to influencing outcomes. They don't need this. Why not wait until he's retired? Even then, hiring one of the dirtiest Dmen in the modern era to hand out/consult on suspensions is hypocritical at best. Hiring a player for a discipline position who is still under contract to an insider team just proves what a 3-ring circus act the league really is if you care to peak beyond the curtains.

This is almost like hiring Kissinger to head up the 9/11 Commission Report. Pronger, owner of 1,590 career PIMs, currently on the Flyers roster hired by the league to consult on the handing out suspensions. You can't write this stuff.

ClamRussel wrote: hiring one of the dirtiest Dmen in the modern era to hand out/consult on suspensions

Pronger, owner of 1,590 career PIMs, currently on the Flyers roster hired by the league to consult on the handing out suspensions. You can't write this stuff.

Just when you thought Player Safety & Discipline couldn't get any funnier....

Elliotte Friedman says not so fast:

A Club (directly or indirectly through a "Club Actor," i.e., any owner, shareholder, Club Affiliated Entity, the NHL or third party acting at the behest of a Club) and a Player (directly or indirectly through a "Player Actor," i.e., his Certified Agent or any other individual, any entity, or the NHLPA, acting on behalf of the Player) may not, at any time, enter into undisclosed agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind involving consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available or guaranteed to the Player, or Player Actor, by the Club or Club Actor either prior to, during, or after the term of the Player's SPC.

-Article 26 of CBA

"No player being paid by a team can be paid by the league."

https://mobile.twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC? ... tweetembed

Strangelove wrote:

Island Nucklehead wrote:

Hockey Widow wrote: Given Pronger is still under contract with the Flyers they would have to consent to this job with the NHL. No way they do so unless they are guaranteed no cap hit. That's collusion.

Pretty much. The precedent was set Savard, who's still being paid by Boston.

Yeahno, that's not "collusion".

The Flyers will remain in the exact same situation they were already in regarding "cap hit".

Unless the NHL implied beforehand that Pronger could take the job (and the money) without retiring and the Flyers okay'd in on the basis he won't be returning. In which case there could be an argument made that the NHL and the Flyers have made a deal, which could make some other owners rather cheesed. I'm not so concerned about the collusion aspect, I just can't figure out how someone who's contract was investigated when it was signed (NHL knew it was BS but couldn't prove it), can still be getting paid by an NHL team (when not officially retired but really retired), and on their NHL roster, while being paid by the NHL to make decisions that affect players and other rosters.

The fact that the NHL had to clarify that this didn't run amok of CBA Section 26 (being paid by another agent in excess of the SPC) really is flabbergasting. Why open yourself up to these criticism and ridiculous press?

Pretty sure that $5m "loss of brain functions" has to be about 100 Xs more severe than these 2 injuries.

Pronger would need to be in a near vegetative state to collect lol.

Well I'm not a lawyer, I just play one online. So I'm not sure what the threshold for retardation would have to be...I just took it from the CBA.



Maybe he's in line for the eyesight payout...

ClamRussel wrote:Elliotte Friedman says not so fast:

A Club (directly or indirectly through a "Club Actor," i.e., any owner, shareholder, Club Affiliated Entity, the NHL or third party acting at the behest of a Club) and a Player (directly or indirectly through a "Player Actor," i.e., his Certified Agent or any other individual, any entity, or the NHLPA, acting on behalf of the Player) may not, at any time, enter into undisclosed agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind involving consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available or guaranteed to the Player, or Player Actor, by the Club or Club Actor either prior to, during, or after the term of the Player's SPC.

-Article 26 of CBA

"No player being paid by a team can be paid by the league."

https://mobile.twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC? ... tweetembed

I think the key thing here is "undisclosed". So when they disclose that, yes, this member of the Philadelphia Flyers will now be involved in suspending members of the New York Rangers and Pittsburgh Penguins, it became legal.

Island Nucklehead wrote:

ClamRussel wrote:Elliotte Friedman says not so fast:

A Club (directly or indirectly through a "Club Actor," i.e., any owner, shareholder, Club Affiliated Entity, the NHL or third party acting at the behest of a Club) and a Player (directly or indirectly through a "Player Actor," i.e., his Certified Agent or any other individual, any entity, or the NHLPA, acting on behalf of the Player) may not, at any time, enter into undisclosed agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind involving consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available or guaranteed to the Player, or Player Actor, by the Club or Club Actor either prior to, during, or after the term of the Player's SPC.

-Article 26 of CBA

"No player being paid by a team can be paid by the league."

https://mobile.twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC? ... tweetembed

I think the key thing here is "undisclosed". So when they disclose that, yes, this member of the Philadelphia Flyers will now be involved in suspending members of the New York Rangers and Pittsburgh Penguins, it became legal.

The NHL makes one step closer to the NFL then 5 steps back towards the CFL.

Island Nucklehead wrote:

Strangelove wrote: Yeahno, that's not "collusion".

The Flyers will remain in the exact same situation they were already in regarding "cap hit".

Unless the NHL implied beforehand that Pronger could take the job (and the money) without retiring and the Flyers okay'd in on the basis he won't be returning.

Ummm why would Pronger have to "retire" before taking this deal?

Pretty simple to include a clause like...

"If at any point CP is fit for active NHL duty, this contract is immediately terminated".

Right?

Island Nucklehead wrote: I just can't figure out how someone who's contract was investigated when it was signed (NHL knew it was BS but couldn't prove it)

The NHL neglected to foresee the LTIR forever thing? (dunno)

(Flyers do lose some off-season 10%-over-the-cap wiggle room, not a huge thing, I know)

This being a 35+ contract, I guess they figured the Flyers were stuck with it (it counts til the bitter end)

I dunno... thinking out loud... what could the NHL have argued at the time of the signing?

"You Flyboys know Pronger will get seriously injured down the road and are therefore circumventing the cap"??

Yeahno, an arbitrator wouldn't buy that.

EDIT: THIS CONTRACT CAN'T POSSIBLY "CIRCUMVENT THE CAP"... AND IT DOESN'T! (think)

What you probably should be asking is 'Why didn't they adjust +35 contract rules in the new CBA'

Island Nucklehead wrote: , can still be getting paid by an NHL team (when not officially retired but really retired)

Retired or not, he can technically be paid by an NHL team and and whomever else (commercials, movies, NHL)

Island Nucklehead wrote: , and on their NHL roster, while being paid by the NHL to make decisions that affect players and other rosters.

Again, technically legal, but it looks really really really ridiculously bad.

It seems as stupid a move to me as it does to you!

(almost makes me wonder if Pronger hasn't gone completely whacko and they're trying to appease him)

(contract with the league would include a "can't ever sue" clause?)

(all just slightly intoxicated speculation on my part)

But yeah on the surface it seems completely crazy.

I'm just arguing with you because you seem to be saying it's illegal somehow.

(also I'm slightly intoxicated).

Strangelove wrote:
Ummm why would Pronger have to "retire" before taking this deal?

Well if the NHL decided that (like Clam posted) that CBA clause didn't emphasize "undisclosed", or they decided it applied to undisclosed AND disclosed contracts, then they would have to tell Pronger if you want this job you need to retire, and then you get into the "but I'm injured and the Flyers cap etc etc" type discussion. I'm just speculating, but in such a scenario, circumvention and/or collusion could be brought up. The fact that Gary Bettman had to clarify that this wasn't an issue tells you how much a sideshow this hiring of a "depth executive" has been.

As it is, the NHL decided their interpretation of their own CBA allowed them to hire a guy they wanted. Of course the players are in, if Pronger retires there's $4.9M coming off the Flyers payroll for the next couple years. Convenient, no?

Drunk Rant :lol: wrote: Retired or not, he can technically be paid by an NHL team and and whomever else (commercials, movies, NHL)

But he wouldn't on the roster of an NHL team. I don't care if Mark Messier is selling Lays and deciding suspensions, or if Pronger is on LTIR and working for SNet. Do you not see the conflict of interest (admitted, by the NHL) in having this guy in a position where he has impact on NHL games at the league level while still being paid by an NHL club?

Yeah. Big difference.

Drunk Rant :lol: wrote:
And it seems as stupid a move to me as it does to you.

But yeah on the surface it seems completely crazy.

I'm just arguing with you because you seem to be saying it's illegal somehow.

(also I'm slightly intoxicated).

... only slightly?

I think we agree on this one, bud. I understand the contract isn't illegal. I'm saying it SHOULD be. But the NHL has said it's not illegal so it's not illegal. It's simply incredibly moronic and yet another example of this tin-pot banana republic of a sports league.

Island Nucklehead wrote:I think we agree on this one, bud. I understand the contract isn't illegal. I'm saying it SHOULD be. But the NHL has said it's not illegal so it's not illegal. It's simply incredibly moronic and yet another example of this tin-pot banana republic of a sports league.

Exactly. This is something only a raging capitalist Rand idolizing sociopath cannot understand. Just because something isn't technically illegal doesn't mean you should do it. The fact Bettman had to explain the details (and they pre-cooked up this diatribe) just proves they know damn well this is a hornet's nest. So why bother? Perhaps Pronger's bored-to-death camp threatened legal action over his condition so they placated him w/ this position. ...and why now & not the middle of the off-season?

Strangelove wrote:

ClamRussel wrote: hiring one of the dirtiest Dmen in the modern era to hand out/consult on suspensions

Pronger, owner of 1,590 career PIMs, currently on the Flyers roster hired by the league to consult on the handing out suspensions. You can't write this stuff.

Just when you thought Player Safety & Discipline couldn't get any funnier....

At least we know that attempting to main a downed opponent by stomping on his leg with your skate blade will only result in an 8 game suspension.

Island Nucklehead wrote:

Vader wrote: Maybe the CBA should be tweaked to have wording to handle this specific situation but there is no cap circumvention here.

Nonsense! Why would the league want clear guidelines that can't be ignored unilaterally at it's own convenience?

No, not nonsense. They could write a clause in to the CBA that allows for players who are deemed by a doctor unfit to ever play again to mutually agree to have their contracts paid out and thus retire. The players would agree to this clause and I'm sure the owners wouldn't care either.

I guess when Pronger is in the hall of fame four years after his last game you'll be screaming he hasn't been retired for four years

Island Nucklehead wrote:

Vader wrote: Quit arguing semantics. No doctor will ever clear him to play. There is no chance of that.

Can you prove this?

No I can't prove that. Can you prove Vladamir Konstantinov won't be making a comeback as well?

Semantics

Vader wrote:

Island Nucklehead wrote:

Vader wrote: Quit arguing semantics. No doctor will ever clear him to play. There is no chance of that.

Can you prove this?

No I can't prove that. Can you prove Vladamir Konstantinov won't be making a comeback as well?

I didn't think so, especially when Pronger won't admit as much.

As for Konstantinov:

Yeah, that guy's totally going to pass a medical to sign an SPC under the terms of the current CBA. Pronger wouldn't be a comeback, he's got a current, valid SPC which says he's still a member of the Flyers. See any difference?

Vader wrote: I guess when Pronger is in the hall of fame four years after his last game you'll be screaming he hasn't been retired for four years

It's not the fact that Pronger and the Flyers are using the LTIR exception (like Ohlund and Savard), it's the fact the NHL decided to hire a current member of an NHL team to work in a department that could impact his team and their opponents.

Anyways, I'm done with this chat. Bettman's statement that ""Chris' case is unique there are salary cap reasons why he couldn't officially retire" is a telling admission that, despite playing hardball and locking out the players over back-diving deals and foisting punishment on teams they felt violated the CBA, they're perfectly capable of playing the wink-wink game when it suits them.

Island Nucklehead wrote: Anyways, I'm done with this chat.

I'm done with this chat as well

They definitely need to put more funding into special needs education in this province

Vader wrote:

Island Nucklehead wrote: Anyways, I'm done with this chat.

I'm done with this chat as well

They definitely need to put more funding into special needs education in this province

I'm sorry to hear of your struggles, and I really wish I could help. But, since I don't live in BC, my tax dollars go elsewhere. Best of luck getting the funding you require.

We are all Canucks.