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

Anthems

Registered User
Aug 23, 2011
531
0
Vancouver
This is ridiculous in my opinion. LTIR or not, he is still an EMPLOYEE of the Philadelphia Flyers.

Taking this job should mean that his contract gets officially terminated from our payroll.

Knowing our luck though, the league will not give a **** and we'll continue to be on the hook.
 

StandingCow

Registered User
May 15, 2010
3,813
6
I hope this is the catalyst for altering the 35+ rule. Teams should not be punished for career ending injuries to players no matter the age (35+ or not).

As the rule is...all it makes teams do is use the obvious loophole of LTIR and having the player never officially retire.
 

Classic Devil

Spirit of 1988
Dec 23, 2003
39,327
3,997
Columbus, Ohio
This is ridiculous in my opinion. LTIR or not, he is still an EMPLOYEE of the Philadelphia Flyers.

Taking this job should mean that his contract gets officially terminated from our payroll.

Knowing our luck though, the league will not give a **** and we'll continue to be on the hook.
You do not want his contract terminated. Under the CBA, there's no way around the 35+ rule. The Flyers would be stuck with the cap hit for the remainder of the contract.

I don't know what the League is thinking here. It's literally illegal under the CBA for them to hire Pronger while he's under contract, and if they force him to retire to make it legal they necessarily stick a team with a serious cap penalty.
 

Sawdalite

SelectLouNolan4PFHoF
Apr 5, 2009
8,579
818
Frost-Bite Fails Minnesota
Burnside's take...

I don't believe Burnside even touched on the possible hardship the Flyers would have the next three Seasons or so having Dead Cap Space that cannot be relieved through a LTIR situation... I believe all he touched upon was the possible cries of Pronger wrongdoing towards other NHL Organizations... or the suspicions thereof.

Figures [/paranoia]
 

Cyborg LeClair

Thank You Mr. Snider
Nov 18, 2011
3,935
113
Jurassic Park
I'm all for a mulligan on the Pronger contract if the league really wants to hire him.

Otherwise, the league can suck it, cause I'm sure Pronger and the Flyers organization would rather pay him his money for 3 more years
 

Prongo

Beer
Jun 5, 2008
22,567
8,212
philadelphia
It only makes sense that the Flyers and the League are working together towards some kind of agreement where they can have him but we need to be free of his space. Maybe they agree to only have what he was to be paid in salary as a cap penalty for the last two seasons and he is no longer "employed" by us. There has to be something in the works here though, it doesn't make any sense.
 

Broad Street Elite

Registered User
Nov 9, 2011
4,159
4
Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC · 21m21 minutes ago
1) Interesting note on Pronger: he will be eligible to stay on LTIR, but sounds like PHI may (per @tpanotchCSN) put him on non-roster IR.

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC · 21m21 minutes ago
2) The basic difference is it means his salary would count against the cap. (Same as Rich Peverley in DAL). We'll find out tomorrow.

Bad. Real Bad.
 

MiamiScreamingEagles

Global Moderator
Jan 17, 2004
71,248
48,224
Extracting Bettman's quote from this article, it seems a bit impulsive to state definitively as in that manner. It almost strangulates the matter at hand. If this is ongoing, it seems that a more plausible tacit would to have the situation finalized before making such claims.

"There are salary-cap reasons why he couldn't officially retire, but . . . if in fact we go that route [and hire him], I'm not so sure that presents any problem at all to deal with," Bettman said. "He's done playing. He gets paid no matter what from the Flyers. He doesn't owe them anything."
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/sports...estions_on_conflicts.html#rwXPx9a4C7YiA1jI.99
 

The Rage Kage

Registered User
Apr 21, 2014
6,245
5,083
So dumb. Any player that suffers a career ending injury should have their contract removed from the cap hit. They should still be paid, but a team shouldnt have to suffer because of an injury (More than they already are).
 

Don Nachbaur 26

Registered User
Jun 23, 2008
2,331
1,609
Mount Joy, PA
So dumb. Any player that suffers a career ending injury should have their contract removed from the cap hit. They should still be paid, but a team shouldnt have to suffer because of an injury (More than they already are).

I've been saying this for a while. Put into the next CBA something that says if a player suffers a career ending injury (like Pronger and Savard), there won't be any repercussions to the team as long as the player stays retired. If he comes out of retirement 2-3 years later, the team gets a fine. I don't know, I'm no lawyer...
 

flyershockey

Registered User
Oct 10, 2006
13,463
6,561
The NHL has never given a damn about potential conflicts of interest. This is the same league that owned a team during an actual season.

The Bettman quote makes it seem like he couldn't care less that the Flyers might be stuck with the cap hit.
 

Appleyard

Registered User
Mar 5, 2010
31,769
41,188
Copenhagen
twitter.com
Can they hire Savard and Ohlund as well...

The timing also is bizarre, season already started, and in the last year that really ****s the Flyers if he has to retire or not be on LTIR.
 

bennysflyers16

Registered User
Jan 26, 2004
84,682
62,733
So sounds like we don't have to pay him but are going to be stuck with his cap hit ? Maybe will force us to trade some d men and bring up cheap kids

I wonder how much it pays for Pronger to walk away from so much $$$
 

BernieParent

In misery of redwings of suckage for a long time
Mar 13, 2009
24,652
44,237
Chasm of Sar (north of Montreal, Qc)
This can be either very good or very bad for the Flyers. In the former, wiping out all or a considerable portion of Pronger's cap hit now and in future seasons goes a long way to relieving the cap crunch that Hextall is facing.

In the latter, it would be inconceivable that the NHL head office would find it acceptable to hire an individual under contract with one of their franchises and knowingly create a cap burden, particularly (though this shouldn't be a deciding factor) a team with whom they know such a move would produce cap noncompliance. Would they then turn around and penalize the Flyers by taking away draft picks?

In either case, though particularly in the latter, the timing of this announcement is especially curious. Here we are 2 games into a new season, when any necessary player moves would arguably be the most difficult to make to return to cap compliance. Pronger has been on the shelf for years; why wait all this time and particularly through the off-season before making this move? It could be that Pronger has been mulling over the offer, in which case it's on him to have stuck the knife in Hextall's back.

"He doesn't owe them anything." Sure he doesn't, Gary. But you and the NHL do, as the Flyers are not just one of 30 teams that make this league what it is, but one that has remained competitive and active financially towards your league's bottom line. If Pronger's new position resulted in a cap hit, the team would HAVE to file a grievance.
 

Philadelphia Ducks

Win it for Ed
May 8, 2011
7,401
1,064
Ontario, Canada
I still think it's more likely that he just stays on LTIR.

I'm fairly sure this will be the overcome aswell. It'd open a whole can of worms if they tried to stick Philly with the cap hit and I don't think Bettman would want to piss off Snider, it would surely go to a grievance hearing and who knows what would happen there.
 

ILoveStephanieBrown

Registered User
Nov 6, 2012
6,056
3
why would the Flyers elect to absorb Pronger's cap hit rather than gain relief from his LTIR status? A $5M blow to our salary cap would be crippling, not to mention it'd take Criss Angel to hide a good chunk of salary.
 

flyershockey

Registered User
Oct 10, 2006
13,463
6,561
why would the Flyers elect to absorb Pronger's cap hit rather than gain relief from his LTIR status? A $5M blow to our salary cap would be crippling, not to mention it'd take Criss Angel to hide a good chunk of salary.

The Flyers would never elect to take on Pronger's cap hit. They would be forced to do so if Pronger were to retire and the league elects not to change the dumb 35+ rule.

The is whole fiasco has been nothing but bad logic on the part of the league. Why the hell should teams be punished because an older player's career was ended by a freak injury? It's not like Pronger had a reccuring injury that eventually forced him into retirement. His eye was gouged by an errant stick and then he suffered another concussion. Let the man retire and move on without the Flyers being punished. It's really that simple.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad