I hope this doesn't come of the wrong way. But if the Cap is understood and why these rules are in place, it's not idiotic at all.
- MJL

Chris Pronger is never going to play again.

Neither is Marc Savard.

The illusion that they are not "retired" is a farce and a waste of time for all involved.

Get them paid, fine.

But the idea of trotting these guys into town for a physical every year (that EVERYONE knows they are going to fail) to put up the charade that they will be coming back is kind silly.

I know it's what the CBA says to do. What I'm saying is the CBA should have been amended otherwise.

Can't happen that way. Then teams would be paying and signing players to contracts that would pay them boatloads of money outside of the system. And skewing the players share. It's what the salary cap is all about and why there was a lockout.
- MJL

I'm talking about a specific case, not a Hossa/Kovy/Luongo deal. I'm talking about a player who will clearly never play again but is forced to not retire unless the team gets severely punished.

Can't happen that way. Then teams would be paying and signing players to contracts that would pay them boatloads of money outside of the system. And skewing the players share. It's what the salary cap is all about and why there was a lockout.
- MJL

Realistically they can recapture that money by adding it on the back end and taking it out of the escrow without hurting the individual teams on the hook for those contracts.

They've decided to make it a penalty to the team that has the misfortune of having a player disabled while under contract. It doesn't have to be that way.

For what?
- MJL

It just seems a little stupid to have a guy be put on LTIR every year even though he can't play because of a freak injury.

This isn't like a wear a tear situation where his knees went.

There should be different rules for concussions. They can occur to any player at any time. MAB is still young and he may never play again.

I'm talking about a specific case, not a Hossa/Kovy/Luongo deal. I'm talking about a player who will clearly never play again but is forced to not retire unless the team gets severely punished.
- jmatchett383

And the thing is....I don't care about the real dollars these guys get paid. Pay'em what they are owed.

It's the charade involved with it all.

And the thing is....I don't care about the real dollars these guys get paid. Pay'em what they are owed.

It's the charade involved with it all.
- johndewar

The problem is it allows the wealthier teams to draw up longer contracts. Ed Snider won't mind paying Weber $700k after he retires, but other teams may not be able to do that.

Insurance is very likely paying Savard (and other injured players) anyway.
- johndewar

Then why hasn't he retired and given the Bruins an extra $4m in cap space? They could definitely use it now and in the next three seasons.

The problem is it allows the wealthier teams to draw up longer contracts. Ed Snider won't mind paying Weber $700k after he retires, but other teams may not be able to do that.
- PhillySportsGuy

Stupid socialist NHL.

Stupid socialist NHL.
- jmatchett383

I like the rule and understand the rule. It was ridiculous for teams to draw up contracts and have the player finish his career at age 45.

I just don't understand why they can't amend it to exclude catastrophic injuries such as concussions or a career ending injury like possibly Pitkanen's or Wellwoods.

Could just get rid of the salary cap all together. That way players don't get screwed as often as they do and it gives the GM's the ability to pay whatever they want to pay to get the players they want.

When you mess with that by making new rules, you're going to have ways around the rules. So you'll have to make more rules to stop people from doing that. It's endless. Every new rule hurts the players and helps the GM's.

The poor teams still don't spend as much as the rich teams. You can't make rules and even the playing field between the rich teams and the poor teams. It doesn't work. Never has, never will.

Then why hasn't he retired and given the Bruins an extra $4m in cap space? They could definitely use it now and in the next three seasons.
- Feanor

They should trade him to the Isles. They'll need to get to the floor next season.

I hope this doesn't come of the wrong way. But if the Cap is understood and why these rules are in place, it's not idiotic at all.
- MJL

this game Pronger, the flyers, and the league are playing with LTIR is idiotic imo and I do understand why the rules are in place. I don't really care too much because the flyers are just going to use the ltir space during the season anyways. I think its fair to say however the pronger situation in particular is more of an outlier to why these rules are in place and from what I understand more of an error on the flyers part for issuing the 35+ contract.

With NJ getting a break I think its fair for the Flyers to push for one as well. I think the leugue was stupid for making an exception... once they do that they open up pandora's box to all kinds of other exceptions. They should have just said the rules are the rules - suck it up buttercup.

Why do I feel like were about to get a long response from MJL?

this game Pronger, the flyers, and the league are playing with LTIR is idiotic imo and I do understand why the rules are in place. I don't really care too much because the flyers are just going to use the ltir space during the season anyways. I think its fair to say however the pronger situation in particular is more of an outlier to why these rules are in place and from what I understand more of an error on the flyers part for issuing the 35+ contract.

With NJ getting a break I think its fair for the Flyers to push for one as well. I think the leugue was stupid for making an exception... once they do that they open up pandora's box to all kinds of other exceptions. They should have just said the rules are the rules - suck it up buttercup.
- moylander

Team's should be able to buyout a contract without the insane penalty the league imposes on them.

Why do I feel like were about to get a long response from MJL?
- PhillySportsGuy

Will be a page long and it will agree with everything and disagree with everything all at the same time. All so that he can choose which side to argue later on.

Could just get rid of the salary cap all together. That way players don't get screwed as often as they do and it gives the GM's the ability to pay whatever they want to pay to get the players they want.

When you mess with that by making new rules, you're going to have ways around the rules. So you'll have to make more rules to stop people from doing that. It's endless. Every new rule hurts the players and helps the GM's.

The poor teams still don't spend as much as the rich teams. You can't make rules and even the playing field between the rich teams and the poor teams. It doesn't work. Never has, never will.
- Flyersgod

I think the cap floor has had more to do with the success of the weaker teams than putting a cap ceiling. It forces them to spend money.

I think the cap has worked to a certain extent. I just don't understand how raising it 5-6M every year, helps the weaker teams. Almost every team will have cap space this summer.

Could just get rid of the salary cap all together. That way players don't get screwed as often as they do and it gives the GM's the ability to pay whatever they want to pay to get the players they want.

When you mess with that by making new rules, you're going to have ways around the rules. So you'll have to make more rules to stop people from doing that. It's endless. Every new rule hurts the players and helps the GM's.

The poor teams still don't spend as much as the rich teams. You can't make rules and even the playing field between the rich teams and the poor teams. It doesn't work. Never has, never will.
- Flyersgod

There shouldn't an salary cap. I actually like the idea of a luxury tax in baseball, but even that's a bit much.

To me, if you don't have as much $$ as another team, then come up with ways to improve it. It's not the richer team's fault that you're not making enough money.

Also, the idea of a salary cap being instituted for "parity" is retarded, since the teams that spent the most money annually (like Philly, Toronto, NYR) had gone 10+ years without winning, while a team like NJ had won 3 in 11 years and TB had won one. I can't speak to the spending of Detroit, Colorado, or Dallas. Just seems to me that a team's ability to win the Cup had little to do with $$ spent.

I think the cap floor has had more to do with the success of the weaker teams than putting a cap ceiling. It forces them to spend money.

I think the cap has worked to a certain extent. I just don't understand how raising it 5-6M every year, helps the weaker teams. Almost every team will have cap space this summer.
- PhillySportsGuy

The poor teams spend more, but it's not their money. They're still losing money as a franchise.

Why should teams in good markets suffer for those in bad markets where their owner's refuse to close up shop. If a business is losing money and gets some help from the outside... but never changes the way they run the business, they're still losing money.

Makes more sense to have every franchise finish the year in the black.

There shouldn't an salary cap. I actually like the idea of a luxury tax in baseball, but even that's a bit much.

To me, if you don't have as much $$ as another team, then come up with ways to improve it. It's not the richer team's fault that you're not making enough money.

Also, the idea of a salary cap being instituted for "parity" is retarded, since the teams that spent the most money annually (like Philly, Toronto, NYR) had gone 10+ years without winning, while a team like NJ had won 3 in 11 years and TB had won one. I can't speak to the spending of Detroit, Colorado, or Dallas. Just seems to me that a team's ability to win the Cup had little to do with $$ spent.
- jmatchett383

I'd like a clap emote for this.

The Salary Cap was designed by the owners, for the owners.

The poor teams spend more, but it's not their money. They're still losing money as a franchise.

Why should teams in good markets suffer for those in bad markets where their owner's refuse to close up shop. If a business is losing money and gets some help from the outside... but never changes the way they run the business, they're still losing money.

Makes more sense to have every franchise finish the year in the black.
- Flyersgod

Ultimately, its more profitable for the NHL to have as many teams as possible. They should really only have 24 teams. That would be a nice round number. 4 divisions of 6 teams each.

No one would ever vote for that though. Less jobs for everyone.

The Salary Cap was designed by the owners, for the owners.
- Flyersgod

Cost certainty.

The Salary Cap was designed by the owners, for the owners.
- Flyersgod

FOBO

Ultimately, its more profitable for the NHL to have as many teams as possible. They should really only have 24 teams. That would be a nice round number. 4 divisions of 6 teams each.

No one would ever vote for that though. Less jobs for everyone.
- PhillySportsGuy

The Player's union would riot if the league contracted. As one would expect......

Ultimately, its more profitable for the NHL to have as many teams as possible. They should really only have 24 teams. That would be a nice round number. 4 divisions of 6 teams each.

No one would ever vote for that though. Less jobs for everyone.
- PhillySportsGuy

The PA would have more of an issue with that than the owners. Also, it may be more profitable for the NHL to have as many teams, but that's not true for all teams. I'm sure the Flyers would much rather only have profitable teams in the league that they did not have to allocate their money towards.