Injury Report: Chris Pronger (Hired to work for NHL Player Safety, Oct. 9, 2014)

DrinkFightFlyers

THE TORTURE NEVER STOPS
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2009
23,511
4,490
NJ
I don't see how he could be both on the NHL roster, albeit on IR, and the director of player safety. Any time a Penguin or Ranger or whomever got suspended, people would lose their minds.
 

Jack de la Hoya

Registered User
Jun 30, 2011
15,793
39
Texas
I don't think the NHL will want to screw around with the LTIR precedent. It seems much more likely that, following from Bettman's statement, the league would simply declare that there was no conflict of interest, or somehow install Pronger in a capacity in which he was involved in player safety but formally insulated from discipline (don't ask me what that would look like).
 

ILoveStephanieBrown

Registered User
Nov 6, 2012
6,056
3
I don't see how he could be both on the NHL roster, albeit on IR, and the director of player safety. Any time a Penguin or Ranger or whomever got suspended, people would lose their minds.

I would love to see that. I read somewhere that he wouldn't be able to rule on Flyers' suspensions though.
 

Jack de la Hoya

Registered User
Jun 30, 2011
15,793
39
Texas
I would love to see that. I read somewhere that he wouldn't be able to rule on Flyers' suspensions though.

He's basically have to be insulated from the whole Eastern Conference though, right? Not to mention anyone that the Flyers play during the term of a possible suspension.

Heck, you could even extend that one step further. Hypothetically, the Flyers are fighting with Columbus down the stretch. They've got a game scheduled against, say, Nashville. A week before the game, Weber destroys someone. He's going to get one game or two, and Columbus is the second game.

World implodes.

I don't see how Pronger will be able to have a formal role in disciplinary action while in the employ of the Flyers, and, as above, I don't see the NHL voiding the contract or changing the rule midseason (if you are the Bruins, is that fair? With Savard off the books, you probably don't deal Boychuck).
 

ILoveStephanieBrown

Registered User
Nov 6, 2012
6,056
3
He's basically have to be insulated from the whole Eastern Conference though, right? Not to mention anyone that the Flyers play during the term of a possible suspension.

Heck, you could even extend that one step further. Hypothetically, the Flyers are fighting with Columbus down the stretch. They've got a game scheduled against, say, Nashville. A week before the game, Weber destroys someone. He's going to get one game or two, and Columbus is the second game.

World implodes.

I don't see how Pronger will be able to have a formal role in disciplinary action while in the employ of the Flyers, and, as above, I don't see the NHL voiding the contract or changing the rule midseason (if you are the Bruins, is that fair? With Savard off the books, you probably don't deal Boychuck).

Me neither. I just hope he chills out for the rest of this season. If he ends up retiring to take the job after the season, at least the Flyers only get stuck with a 575,000 cap hit as opposed to the 4 mill they'd get stuck with if he did it now. I mean, it would still suck to have dead space, but...
 

Jack de la Hoya

Registered User
Jun 30, 2011
15,793
39
Texas
Me neither. I just hope he chills out for the rest of this season. If he ends up retiring to take the job after the season, at least the Flyers only get stuck with a 575,000 cap hit as opposed to the 4 mill they'd get stuck with if he did it now. I mean, it would still suck to have dead space, but...

Don't they get stuck with the full cap hit (rather than the salary)?
 

Random Forest

Registered User
May 12, 2010
14,452
994
If he retires (to work for the NHL), I have a hard time believing the NHL doesn't step in and revise the ruling as it regards to bonafide career ending injuries.

All reasonable people understand that the 35+ rule was created to eliminate long-term contracts for near-retirement players. Not to make teams feel the pain if an old player gets injured.
 

DrinkFightFlyers

THE TORTURE NEVER STOPS
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2009
23,511
4,490
NJ
This will be interesting to see how it plays out. If he retires the Flyers are screwed. It would seem a bit untoward to have the NHL "lure" him in retiring and nail the Flyers with the cap penalty. At the same time, it wouldn't really make sense to allow him to continue to be "on the roster" for the Flyers and be making these decisions. There appear to be four options:

1) He retires, takes DOPS job, Flyers screwed by cap penalty
2) He retires, takes DOPS job, Flyers strike a deal to avoid cap penalty
3) He doesn't retire, takes DOPS job, people lose their mind on a regular basis
4) He doesn't retire, doesn't take DOPS job
 

Jack de la Hoya

Registered User
Jun 30, 2011
15,793
39
Texas
Then I think this waits until next offseason.

I can't imagine the NHL making a change to the LTIR rule at this point. Creating an exception makes a great deal of sense, but you can't do that mid-season. I think Boston would have held on to Boychuck for the year if they had had the option to remove Savard's cap hit from the equation. I suspect they'd (rightly) balk at such a move being made now.
 

Random Forest

Registered User
May 12, 2010
14,452
994
Then I think this waits until next offseason.

I can't imagine the NHL making a change to the LTIR rule at this point. Creating an exception makes a great deal of sense, but you can't do that mid-season. I think Boston would have held on to Boychuck for the year if they had had the option to remove Savard's cap hit from the equation. I suspect they'd (rightly) balk at such a move being made now.

I don't think removing Savard's contract would have allowed them to keep Boychuk. He's on LTIR (obviously). Losing him wouldn't have magically given them 4m of free cap space that they didn't have before.
 

Jack de la Hoya

Registered User
Jun 30, 2011
15,793
39
Texas
I don't think removing Savard's contract would have allowed them to keep Boychuk. He's on LTIR (obviously). Losing him wouldn't have magically given them 4m of free cap space that they didn't have before.

I was under the impression that it was an option 1/option 2 issue, but a quick look suggests that you are right. That seems odd, since you'd have thought at the Bruins would have dealt Boychuk earlier in the offseason if it was inevitable anyway.

Regardless, I still don't imagine that the NHL is going to want to change it in season, but we'll see.
 

Random Forest

Registered User
May 12, 2010
14,452
994
I was under the impression that it was an option 1/option 2 issue, but a quick look suggests that you are right. That seems odd, since you'd have thought at the Bruins would have dealt Boychuk earlier in the offseason if it was inevitable anyway.

Regardless, I still don't imagine that the NHL is going to want to change it in season, but we'll see.
It definitely was a puzzling move. You're absolutely right that it's one that seems like it would have made much more sense to make sooner (at the draft), so they could at least plan accordingly. Not sure what the rationale was for waiting this long.
 

LegionOfDoom91

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
82,005
139,874
Philadelphia, PA
It definitely was a puzzling move. You're absolutely right that it's one that seems like it would have made much more sense to make sooner (at the draft), so they could at least plan accordingly. Not sure what the rationale was for waiting this long.

Krug didn't re-sign until just recently, they might not have wanted to potentially go into the year missing both.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad