- funmaster18

Those 1-0 shootout losses are detrimental to our team's fragile psyches.

Nice read as always Bill, even with the Brian Dobbin mention. The first thing to comes to mind about Dobbin was he was the first player to wear #7 after Barber retired. I thought that was wrong, and happy they finally fixed it.

2012-13 Flyers Slogan: "Overcoming Bryzasters"

Not as catchy as "Vengeance" or "Hungry for More," but it'll work.
- Flyskippy

just nice to catch some puck on a Wed. morning.

But isnt it that way now....i mean look at pronger the guy is finished due to injury and we have to go through this game of doctor every year with him. There should be some exceptions like in the case of injury.
- Philly1980

Depends on how this all gets worded. Pronger counts $4.9 million toward the cap, but the Flyers can replace most of it via LTIR [depending on how close to the cap they are when LTIR is filed]. There are some who would do away with that ability and say Pronger should count $4.9 million with no ability to use LTIR.

Myself, I'm in favor of letting the Flyers use LTIR for a guy like Pronger who's injured and may [will] never play again. If he just started sucking one year and the Flyers wanted to ship him across the street, I would not be in favor of letting them duck the full cap hit - but I'm also not in favor of forcing them to incur the full cap hit if they ship him over, either.

That's exactly what the league wants.

It's no secret that they want to get rid of guaranteed contracts, but know that PA will never agree to that. So they're composing rules that will have players taking shorter-term deals = less guaranteed money floating around.
- bradleyc4

In theory. In reality, short-term deals = higher salaries. [You always hear about players getting offered deals of the "2/10 or 4/16" variety; you never hear "we'll give you 2/10 or 3/21 or 5/55" because they know the players would grab the biggest offer every single time.] The bolded statement is only true if we're talking about total dollars outstanding at some point in time. The entire reason teams were offering long-term deals was to decrease the amount spent over time; players are trading higher salaries for for long-term security.

Besides, teams have always had the ability to restrict themselves to 5-6 year deals right now. Most of them simply lack the willpower to do it. If that's a problem, that's not the fault of the players - that's squarely on the owners. I'm by and large not in favor of measures designed to save the owners from their own stupidity.

Depends on how this all gets worded. Pronger counts $4.9 million toward the cap, but the Flyers can replace most of it via LTIR
- Irish Blues[depending on how close to the cap they are when LTIR is filed]. There are some who would do away with that ability and say Pronger should count $4.9 million with no ability to use LTIR.

Myself, I'm in favor of letting the Flyers use LTIR for a guy like Pronger who's injured and may [will] never play again. If he just started sucking one year and the Flyers wanted to ship him across the street, I would not be in favor of letting them duck the full cap hit - but I'm also not in favor of forcing them to incur the full cap hit if they ship him over, either.


In theory. In reality, short-term deals = higher salaries. [You always hear about players getting offered deals of the "2/10 or 4/16" variety; you never hear "we'll give you 2/10 or 3/21 or 5/55" because they know the players would grab the biggest offer every single time.] The bolded statement is only true if we're talking about total dollars outstanding at some point in time. The entire reason teams were offering long-term deals was to decrease the amount spent over time; players are trading higher salaries for for long-term security.

Besides, teams have always had the ability to restrict themselves to 5-6 year deals right now. Most of them simply lack the willpower to do it. If that's a problem, that's not the fault of the players - that's squarely on the owners. I'm by and large not in favor of measures designed to save the owners from their own stupidity.

I agree about burying in the minors that should be done away with.

I agree about burying in the minors that should be done away with.
- Philly1980

I disagree, I have no problem with teams being able to put guys on 1-way contracts in the minors. However, I think players should have the ability to void the contract and walk away as UFA's if that happens. Either way, the team should have to incur whatever cap penalty is necessary to ensure that "$ paid while in the NHL" = "$ incurred against the cap."

I disagree, I have no problem with teams being able to put guys on 1-way contracts in the minors. However, I think players should have the ability to void the contract and walk away as UFA's if that happens. Either way, the team should have to incur whatever cap penalty is necessary to ensure that "$ paid while in the NHL" = "$ incurred against the cap."
- Irish Blues

That could be a good way to do it also

I'm at work. Anyone have time to pour over how they're going to make all the contracts whole and meet the new cap obligations? Wanna sum it up for the time constrained?

I'm at work. Anyone have time to pour over how they're going to make all the contracts whole and meet the new cap obligations? Wanna sum it up for the time constrained?
- mayorofangrytown

"Transition" cap for this season

Free agents next year screwed.

"Transition" cap for this season

Free agents next year screwed.
- bradleyc4

Why am I hearing that they're going to move money to the end of the contract and that the NHLPA think the league will pay it out of the players escrow?

5. Cap Accounting:

• Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.

• All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

This is EFFING scary.

Why am I hearing that they're going to move money to the end of the contract and that the NHLPA think the league will pay it out of the players escrow?
- mayorofangrytown

Here's a quick run-down from James Mirtle:

http://www.theglobeandmai...lvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Here's a quick run-down from James Mirtle:

http://www.theglobeandmai...lvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
- bradleyc4

Thanks Brad. That's exactly what I needed cleared up.

5. Cap Accounting:

• Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.

• All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

This is EFFING scary.
- MBFlyerfan

It's also EFFING stupid. It's also quite likely to be gamed by high-revenue teams and low-revenue teams alike to ensure that it never happens [the former to avoid the chargeback, the latter to help ensure they can hit the cap floor when it inevitably rises above what they can afford - because that part still hasn't been fixed in the NHL's proposal].

5. Cap Accounting:

• Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.

• All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

This is EFFING scary.
- MBFlyerfan

Do not like

I don't think the Fehrs will let it die, either. My point is that is an actual start, but not nearly the end point yet.
- bmeltzer

They shouldn't let it die, but they should use this in any counter they make to the league.

Do not like
- BulliesPhan87

I wonder if a stipulation like this shows that the owners are not nearly as united as we think and are in fact at each others throats. Because I cant see any team being really happy about this, especially teams like the Rangers, Flyers, Canucks, Penguins, etc.

There has to be something Im missing here.

Still da mother truckin man

Still da mother truckin man
- Daman

Well then why don't you get them to sign a mother truckin CBA, man....

Well then why don't you get them to sign a mother truckin CBA, man....
- Giroux_Is_God

You should know by now by following these boards - those less intelligent do not acknowledge their intellectual superiors.