No it's stupid and it's about as complex as they could possibly make it.
- mayorofangrytown

I can see how in theory it would seal off one potential loop hole, but in practice it's pretty farcical. If they're worried about abuse, it would be simple enough to have independent medical people determine that a players career is indeed over, and then shift the salary from the LTIR column over to retired-but-still-paid column.

No it's stupid and it's about as complex as they could possibly make it.
- mayorofangrytown

There's nothing stupid about it. I've read the CBA and studied it's mechanisms in depth. It's all like that for a reason and makes perfect sense.

I can see how in theory it would seal off one potential loop hole, but in practice it's pretty farcical. If they're worried about abuse, it would be simple enough to have independent medical people determine that a players career is indeed over, and then shift the salary from the LTIR column over to retired-but-still-paid column.
- Tomahawk

It's not about what column the money is in. It's about limiting how much is spent on players, and making sure it's all accounted for properly.

if the Upper Limit is 71.1M, how would that money be accounted for each team out of that amount? What would your proposal do to a team's upper limit?

I'm not sure how exactly how much escrow is taking out of the players salary is calculated. But we're talking about millions of dollars here. Pronger's salary is 7M. The escrow amount would have ot be increased. Players won't go for that. Players want to be paid, not pay for other players. Escrow is players money. Not owners money.
- MJL

If they are already paying Prongers salary inside the cap today, if he retires tomorrow and they continue paying his salary and account for it on the cap without the Flyers having to LTIR him why would they need to increase escrow when the same number of dollars are still counting against the cap?

Seriously?

OK: Yes. You are correct: Chris Pronger can retire at anytime. Nothing's stopping Chris Pronger from actually retiring.

But. In reality.

Chris Pronger can't retire. Because he won't collect his full salary that is due him. And you already know this, so why even make me say it?
- AllInForFlyers

Yes seriously! If he retires, he doesn't get paid.

There's nothing stupid about it. I've read the CBA and studied it's mechanisms in depth. It's all like that for a reason and makes perfect sense.
- MJL

Yeah, it doesn't.

The problem here is the part of it being stupid. It's really not. It makes perfect sense why it's done that way. There is no nonsense invoilved. It's actully pretty simple.
- MJL

It is stupid. why does it make perfect sense for a player to pretend he wants to return each season so he can come back and be medically declared unfit to play? everyone knows pronger will NEVER play again. everyone knows the ONLY reason Pronger has not retired is because if he does he will not get paid.

I look to the Gomez and Redden CBOs. In this case the league eventually realized how stupid the rules were when Gomez and Redden were told they couldn't pick up a hockey stick until they were bought out. At least, in this instance, the league wised up and fixed the situation for both players.

They should do the same for Pronger.

The league isn't going to change anything to help us with Pronger's three remaining years.

Now if Letang can't play again and the Pens face the prospect of carrying him on their cap for eight more years that's when I think they might do something.

It's not about what column the money is in. It's about limiting how much is spent on players, and making sure it's all accounted for properly.
- MJL

Yes, but technically LTIR spending already breaks the 50/50 spending limit... by definition, it allows teams to spend above the max. The extra is just absorbed by escrow.

Whether Pronger is on LTIR or in some other category, overall yearly spending on players won't change at all. His salary is already being replaced.

If they are already paying Prongers salary inside the cap today, if he retires tomorrow and they continue paying his salary and account for it on the cap without the Flyers having to LTIR him why would they need to increase escrow when the same number of dollars are still counting against the cap?
- mayorofangrytown

To ensure the 50/50 split. LTIR is how the account for the money on the Cap. What you're essentially saying here is enacting the 35+ rule. In this case the Flyers would not get the exemption to spend over the Cap, as they do with placing the player on LTIR. There will be no exemption to replace a retired player. And the FLyers would be screwed. And then they truly will be punished.

Yes, but technically LTIR spending already breaks the 50/50 spending limit... by definition, it allows teams to spend above the max. The extra is just absorbed by escrow.

Whether Pronger is on LTIR or in some other category, overall yearly spending on players won't change at all. His salary is already being replaced.
- Tomahawk

If you were my wife I'd love you and rent a redbox movie. We could make some popcorn.

- PLindbergh31

Yes, but technically LTIR spending already breaks the 50/50 spending limit... by definition, it allows teams to spend above the max. The extra is just absorbed by escrow.

Whether Pronger is on LTIR or in some other category, overall yearly spending on players won't change at all. His salary is already being replaced.
- Tomahawk

No it doesn't. Because a lot of teams don't spend to the upper limit. The upper limit is determined by the previous seasons HRR.

If you were my wife I'd love you and rent a redbox movie. We could make some popcorn.


- mayorofangrytown

Why stop there?

No it doesn't. Because a lot of teams don't spend to the upper limit. The upper limit is determined by the previous seasons HRR.
- MJL

But they 'could', right?

It is stupid. why does it make perfect sense for a player to pretend he wants to return each season so he can come back and be medically declared unfit to play? everyone knows pronger will NEVER play again. everyone knows the ONLY reason Pronger has not retired is because if he does he will not get paid.

I look to the Gomez and Redden CBOs. In this case the league eventually realized how stupid the rules were when Gomez and Redden were told they couldn't pick up a hockey stick until they were bought out. At least, in this instance, the league wised up and fixed the situation for both players.

They should do the same for Pronger.
- moylander

No player has to pretend that he wants to return each season. Nothing of the sort exists in the CBA. That is a myth that somehow made it's way around some of the fanbase.

The League did that to appease the players. And all the money paid to those players is outside the system. The League isn't going to give more on that front.

But they 'could', right?
- moylander

Yes, they could. And that's why there is escrow.

No it doesn't. Because a lot of teams don't spend to the upper limit. The upper limit is determined by the previous seasons HRR.
- MJL

Have players ever gotten all their escrow back + extra money because their share dipped below 50%?

The league isn't going to change anything to help us with Pronger's three remaining years.

Now if Letang can't play again and the Pens face the prospect of carrying him on their cap for eight more years that's when I think they might do something.
- Feanor

They can't change that. Already a Collective bargaining agreement in place.

Sarah Baicker ‏@sbaickerCSN 7m
So ... Giroux and Simmonds will suit up for the World All-Stars and take on the Harlem Globetrotters Sunday at 5 p.m. at the @WellsFargoCtr.

what?

Have players ever gotten all their escrow back + extra money because their share dipped below 50%?
- Tomahawk

I think they've gotten their escrow back most years if I'm not mistaken.

To ensure the 50/50 split. LTIR is how the account for the money on the Cap. What you're essentially saying here is enacting the 35+ rule. In this case the Flyers would not get the exemption to spend over the Cap, as they do with placing the player on LTIR. There will be no exemption to replace a retired player. And the FLyers would be screwed. And then they truly will be punished.
- MJL

That made truly zero sense. It's bureaucratic speak and it meant absolutely nothing toward what I posted.

I sure you're making logical sense in your head but you're doing just what the CBA is doing: taking something simple and complicating it with onerous non sense.

The Flyers aren't truly being punished now. Allowing Pronger to retire and eliminating the stupid LTIR for him while accounting for it on the cap would not than penalize the Flyers when it's not happening now. It'd just eliminate the mechanism that everyone knows is a facade.

That made truly zero sense. It's bureaucratic speak and it meant absolutely nothing toward what I posted.

I sure you're making logical sense in your head but you're doing just what the CBA is doing: taking something simple and complicating it with onerous non sense.

The Flyers aren't truly being punished now. Allowing Pronger to retire and eliminating the stupid LTIR for him while accounting for it on the cap would not than penalize the Flyers when it's not happening now. It'd just eliminate the mechanism that everyone knows is a facade.
- mayorofangrytown

DING DING DING DING

That made truly zero sense. It's bureaucratic speak and it meant absolutely nothing toward what I posted.

I sure you're making logical sense in your head but you're doing just what the CBA is doing: taking something simple and complicating it with onerous non sense.

The Flyers aren't truly being punished now. Allowing Pronger to retire and eliminating the stupid LTIR for him while accounting for it on the cap would not than penalize the Flyers when it's not happening now. It'd just eliminate the mechanism that everyone knows is a facade.
- mayorofangrytown

Everyone does not include those that understand the cap in my opinion. The mechanism is in place so that the team is not punished because a player suffered a career ending injury. That is the entire point of LTIR. There is no facade involved. Nor is it complicated. It's actually very simple. And my reply made perfect sense.