CanucksCorner.com Forums

Back to the topic at hand:

Minny signs D Jonas Brodin to a 6-year extension worth $25M.

Through 126 games, the 6-foot-1, 194-pound Brodin has 10 goals, 21 assists and a plus-8 rating. He has played mostly with Ryan Suter on the team’s first blue-line pairing. Brodin’s new contract will run through 2021

Minny doing away with the bridge-deal and going right for a long-term extension.

Island Nucklehead wrote:

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.

The fact that Gary Bettman clarified this issue tells me two things.

1). Pronger does not need to "retire" before taking this deal.

2). This hiring has created a major "sideshow"....

Island Nucklehead wrote:

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.

Holy fuck dude, did you not see the word "technically" there?

I agreed from the get-go that the potential for future "conflict of interest" is there.

And that on the surface it's a really really really ridiculously stupid hiring.

But technically (legally) the NHL/Pronger can do this.

Of course there will be clauses in place to minimize Pronger being involved in Flyers-related issues, etc...

Don't forget that the potential for conflict of interest is there in almost every hiring the league makes

(small hockey world - most who are qualified for the position have been with an NHL team or two).

Retired or not, the league, as it says, can legally hire Chris Pronger for this position.

The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

Island Nucklehead wrote:

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.

Well thanks for clearing that up.

Are you also saying Pronger SHOULD legally have to retire before taking this job?

... even though, as it stands, he legally does not have to retire before taking this job.

ClamRussel wrote:

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.

For the record, it seems to me that you and IN have been suggesting this hiring is illegal somehow.

For the record, in response to the suggestions of you two gentlemen...

I have been trying to explain the difference between illegal and "something the NHL shouldn't do".

Yeah, I agreed from the get-go they shouldn't do it bro (unless they're trying to be hilarious).

ClamRussel wrote: So why bother? Perhaps Pronger's bored-to-death camp threatened legal action over his condition so they placated him w/ this position.

I suggested this last night but I was slightly intoxicated.

What's your excuse?

Island Nucklehead wrote: 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?

What other "interpretation" his there?

Why do you keep insisting Pronger is retiring?

Seriously, maybe I'm missing something here, throw me a link.

And not sure how you figure as far as the players sentiments...

Island Nucklehead wrote:
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.

Island Nucklehead wrote:

The Pronger deal is one of the most ridiculous things in professional sports. The man himself admits he'll never play again, yet refuses to "officially" retire. If I was Shea Weber I'd be looking for a concussion to milk...

Yeah, he should retire and forfeit millions of dollars...special needs my ass

Strangelove wrote:

ClamRussel wrote:

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.

For the record, it seems to me that you and IN have been suggesting this hiring is illegal somehow.

For the record, in response to the suggestions of you two gentlemen...

I have been trying to explain the difference between illegal and "something the NHL shouldn't do".

Yeah, I agreed from the get-go they shouldn't do it bro (unless they're trying to be hilarious).

Drunk again, bro?

Vader wrote:

Island Nucklehead wrote:
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.

Island Nucklehead wrote:

The Pronger deal is one of the most ridiculous things in professional sports. The man himself admits he'll never play again, yet refuses to "officially" retire. If I was Shea Weber I'd be looking for a concussion to milk...

Yeah, he should retire and forfeit millions of dollars...special needs my ass

No, he shouldn't take a job that is a conflict of interest.

All conflicts of interest and joke LTIR aside, just the idea of having a dirty player like Pronger in the department of "player safety" is a joke.

"Yeah - sure he stomped on the guy's ankle, but it isn't 'that' broken - no suspension".

Cornuck wrote:All conflicts of interest and joke LTIR aside, just the idea of having a dirty player like Pronger in the department of "player safety" is a joke.

Hire a thief to catch a thief....

Having a guy who knows when a player is being sneaky dirty, vs when it's a hockey play gone bad is probably a good thing to have in the dept of safety.

Having a saint like Martin St.Louis working in the dept of safety would be worse, IMO

Cornuck wrote:All conflicts of interest and joke LTIR aside, just the idea of having a dirty player like Pronger in the department of "player safety" is a joke.

"Yeah - sure he stomped on the guy's ankle, but it isn't 'that' broken - no suspension".

There's always that.

"Well I only got 2 games for that one...."

I don't see how you can advocate prioritizing clean hockey when you hire one of the most egregious violators of the rules to enforce them.

"Bernie Madoff hired to head SEC investigations"
"Geroge Bush to advise on Human Rights"
"Willie Pickton to testify on new prostitution laws"

Cornuck wrote:All conflicts of interest and joke LTIR aside, just the idea of having a dirty player like Pronger in the department of "player safety" is a joke.

"Yeah - sure he stomped on the guy's ankle, but it isn't 'that' broken - no suspension".

Agree. This move smacks of nepotism. I don't know Pronger from a hole in the ground but I don't exactly hear glowing things about Pronger's character. In fact, quite the opposite. Which falls into line with the character of our commish. There's no doubt in my mind that Bettman's an incredible businessman, but here's also no doubt in my mind that Bettman is slimy as fuck.

And what Cornuck said... the department of player safety is there to protect the players and to be an advocate for safety. And putting fucking Chris Pronger in charge of it?? Sheeeeeeet nigga.... that's like putting Phat Kessel in charge of the 7/11.

Come on man!!

Pronger has had his playing career ended by a hit to the head. With the increased concern and litigation involving concussions, he is precisely the type of ex-player to consult.

ClamRussel wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

ClamRussel wrote: 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.

For the record, it seems to me that you and IN have been suggesting this hiring is illegal somehow.

For the record, in response to the suggestions of you two gentlemen...

I have been trying to explain the difference between illegal and "something the NHL shouldn't do".

Yeah, I agreed from the get-go they shouldn't do it bro (unless they're trying to be hilarious).

Drunk again, bro?

Sober as a judge.

You (and IN) were clearly stating earlier that it may be illegal for the NHL to hire Pronger in this capacity.

I disagreed and argued otherwise.

Now you're saying well it SHOULD be illegal.

I win.

I may have been slightly intoxicated the other night, but I was right...

Strangelove wrote: Sober as a judge.

You (and IN) were clearly stating earlier that it may be illegal for the NHL to hire Pronger in this capacity.

I disagreed and argued otherwise.

Now you're saying well it SHOULD be illegal.

I win.

I may have been slightly intoxicated the other night, but I was right...

We weren't the only ones. People like Friedman were asking the same questions and making the same criticisms.

The NHL came out, clarified their own rules, deemed it legal, and we moved on.