If he retires due to injury, insurance would kick in and pay most of his salary and the team would be responsible for the difference. However, the cap hit comes off the books as he would not be on an over 35 deal.

Pronger would be retired already and would still have gotten his money, but because he's on an over 35 deal, he is forced to stay active or he would hurt the Flyers cap situation.
- BiggE

NHL teams are only required to have insurance on their top 5 contracts. Every contract is not insured.

Sarah McLellan ‏@azc_mclellan 1m

France has just beaten Dave Tippett's Team Canada 3-2 in a shootout in Game 1 of the World Championship.

Sarah McLellan ‏@azc_mclellan 1m

France has just beaten Dave Tippett's Team Canada 3-2 in a shootout in Game 1 of the World Championship.
- wilsonecho91

Team Canada must be stacked!

No issue with sticking with the same starting goalie. Just don't expect similar stat lines from year-to-year.
- bradleyc4

you know i'm just trolling you

They could clearly pay the backup 3M if they chose to. Would that be a wise move? Maybe afford was the wrong term, but that's just arguing semantics. The Flyers have bigger priorities, where they need to spend their available cap assets. Is that a better terminology?
- MJL

There is a difference between wildly overspending on a backup vs spending a bit more than the low end to insure quality.

Obviously if Emery says, I want 2 million per, 2 years minimum, you let him walk. However if it comes to a choice between:
Goalie A: veteran journeyman, cost is 1 year for 750k
or
Goalie B: solid backup, cost is 1 year at 1.25 million or 2 years at 2.2 million

Well, I would go with Goalie B for 2 years and not worry much about another 350k on the cap. To me, the slight increase is worth it to get a decent backup.

NHL teams are only required to have insurance on their top 5 contracts. Every contract is not insured.
- MJL

Fair enough, but, and please correct me if I am wrong, I believe if a player is forced to retire due to injury, the club must pay all or some of the remaining money on the contract.

http://www.nydailynews.co...-game-5-article-1.1785426

They could clearly pay the backup 3M if they chose to. Would that be a wise move? Maybe afford was the wrong term, but that's just arguing semantics. The Flyers have bigger priorities, where they need to spend their available cap assets. Is that a better terminology?
- MJL

That $600K or so they could save isn't going to make or break next season -- if they don't do a single thing, they can already ice a full roster. By definition, if they want to add someone else of significance, they're likely going to have to move a roster player who makes some actual salary.

There is a difference between wildly overspending on a backup vs spending a bit more than the low end to insure quality.

Obviously if Emery says, I want 2 million per, 2 years minimum, you let him walk. However if it comes to a choice between:
Goalie A: veteran journeyman, cost is 1 year for 750k
or
Goalie B: solid backup, cost is 1 year at 1.25 million or 2 years at 2.2 million

Well, I would go with Goalie B for 2 years and not worry much about another 350k on the cap. To me, the slight increase is worth it to get a decent backup.
- BiggE

My point is not about arguing the merits that if you spend more on the backup position, that it can get you a better player. My point is that the Flyers need to allocate their cap resources to more important areas of need, then the backup goalie. I think at the most, they should spend 1M on the backup, and preferably less.

That $600K or so they could save isn't going to make or break next season -- if they don't do a single thing, they can already ice a full roster. By definition, if they want to add someone else of significance, they're likely going to have to move a roster player who makes some actual salary.
- AllInForFlyers

That 600K could absolutely come into play, in terms of being able to bring in the right players to upgrade areas of need.

My point is not about arguing the merits that if you spend more on the backup position, that it can get you a better player. My point is that the Flyers need to allocate their cap resources to more important areas of need, then the backup goalie. I think at the most, they should spend 1M on the backup, and preferably less.
- MJL

For the most part I agree, however if they really feel that one guy is clearly better than another and the difference is 900k vs 1.1 million, I don't think 200k in the long run would matter much.

Fair enough, but, and please correct me if I am wrong, I believe if a player is forced to retire due to injury, the club must pay all or some of the remaining money on the contract.
- BiggE

An injured player wouldn't retire.

An injured player wouldn't retire.
- MJL

but, and again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, aren't the rules governing LTIR different for players not on over 35 deals?

For the most part I agree, however if they really feel that one guy is clearly better than another and the difference is 900k vs 1.1 million, I don't think 200k in the long run would matter much.
- BiggE

Really depends on the circumstances. Every penny counts. If they can fill other needs, upgrade the areas that need to be upgraded, then I'm all for spending more on the backup. But to me it's about priorities. And the backup is on the bottom of the list.

but, and again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, aren't the rules governing LTIR different for players not on over 35 deals?
- BiggE

The over 35 rule has nothing to do with LTIR.

Bill Meltzer ‏@billmeltzer 3m

Brayden Schenn has been dominating today for Team Canada, even apart from his goal.

Just sayin'. Maybe giving the guy two wingers is kinda what the Flyers REALLY need to be doing.
- AllInForFlyers

Now if every game were France and the panthers we'd really be in business!

For the most part I agree, however if they really feel that one guy is clearly better than another and the difference is 900k vs 1.1 million, I don't think 200k in the long run would matter much.
- BiggE

There's multiple teams that got top-level backup goaltending out of sub $700k cap hits this year. Flyers got near All-Star worthy starting goaltending for $1.5M, for pete's sake.

It's a buyer's market for goalies for a reason... a lot of supply, very few job openings. You don't need to spend more to get more, you just have to be patient (or opportunistic).

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/blueshirts-thin-ice-entering-game-5-article-1.1785426


- -davies-

Wow, so sorry to hear that. Condolences to MSL.

Now if every game were France and the panthers we'd really be in business!
- Just5

they still lost

Really depends on the circumstances. Every penny counts. If they can fill other needs, upgrade the areas that need to be upgraded, then I'm all for spending more on the backup. But to me it's about priorities. And the backup is on the bottom of the list.
- MJL

Fair enough, I just think that, unless you have a freak like Martin Brodeur in his prime that is going to start 75-78 of the 82 games, you need a decent backup.

The over 35 rule has nothing to do with LTIR.
- MJL

Ok, then I'm wrong. My wife enjoys pointing that out to me often!

There's multiple teams that got top-level backup goaltending out of sub $700k cap hits this year. Flyers got near All-Star worthy starting goaltending for $1.5M, for pete's sake.

It's a buyer's market for goalies for a reason... a lot of supply, very few job openings. You don't need to spend more to get more, you just have to be patient (or opportunistic).
- Tomahawk

And understand the marketplace.

Fair enough, I just think that, unless you have a freak like Martin Brodeur in his prime that is going to start 75-78 of the 82 games, you need a decent backup.
- BiggE

You do need a decent backup. But you don't have to spend 1.65M to get one. Especially when you have other needs.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/blueshirts-thin-ice-entering-game-5-article-1.1785426


- -davies-

Saw that earlier. Sad. Not that they stood much of a chance anyway, but this could really be a problem.

And understand the marketplace.
- bradleyc4

Kinda goes back to what somebody said yesterday... if you took the "bottom" 20 or so goaltenders from the NHL and swapped them with the "top" 20 goaltenders from the AHL/SHL/Liiga/KHL, I don't think anybody would notice a difference at all.