If you retire from your job, is your job still going to pay you?

So what you're saying is that Pronger should be allowed to retire, while still being paid, while the Flyers or any other team shouldn't be held accountable for anything, including that it's possible that a player can recover from an injury, and after time, be declared cleared to play?
- MJL

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, because the player has been ruled to have sustained a career-ending injury. And if the player attempts to play again, as Bryan Berard once did, then he can seek permission from the league, insurer(s) and parent club to attempt a comeback.

By creating an exception for a player like Pronger, you are changing the rules.
- MJL

I guess I still don't get why the Kovalchuk scenario is not considered "creating an exception for a player"

Mogilny's injury happened before the lockout, which is why the NHL made that exception.



What's been explained is just what some fans want, because they can't grasp that the LTIR rule works perfectly, and there is no reason to change it.
- MJL

I think that fans grasp that the LTIR rule works, what you don't get is that people were discussing a hypothetical situation that came out of a rumor that Pronger was possibly being considered for a league job, and what considerations could come from him collecting a paycheck from a NHL team and being involved in the discipline process at the same time. There's definite potential for conflict of interest in that hypothetical scenario.

As far as Mogilny, regardless of why the exemption came about, the fact remains, he was granted one. That means another one could be granted in the future. Are you saying that the NHL and NHLPA can't negotiate a change to the CBA? Because it's happened before, for a few different reasons.

So yes, hypothetically, the NHL and NHLPA could negotiate an exception that would allow Pronger, Savard and Ohlund to retire without causing cap penalties to their teams, given the nature of their injuries and unlikelihood of being able to resume their careers. Will they? Probably not. However, that was not a consideration in the discussion of the hypothetical.

See, the whole thing about a hypothetical is, it might not happen or even be likely to happen. I keep repeating hypothetical because you repeatedly have said you don't discuss hypotheticals, yet you've made numerous posts about this one. Seems strange.

Are you sure? You're entirely certain that he can retire at any time?

How about 12:14.54 a.m. on July 7, 2015? How about then?

Can he retire during a lunar eclipse? Can he retire in the middle of the woods? If he does, will it make a sound?

Because I'm not totally clear on this whole "Chris Pronger can retire at any time" thing.
- AllInForFlyers

You really needed to go Dr Seuss there.

Really.

Happy Hockey Season, everybody!

I think the solution is to create a "bonafide career-ending injury" exemption to the salary cap rules for over-35 contracts that a) still counts against the upper limit (so it's still accounted for leaguewide, ala the compliance buyouts) and b) eliminates the annual cap-related LTIR charade for a player like Pronger.
- bmeltzer

There simply isn't a reason to do that. LTIR is the rule that covers injured players on over 35 contracts.

The only reason the CBO's were offered were as transition rules so teams could comply with the artificially lowered Cap to 64.3M.

Just as there were buyouts before when the cap came into place in 2005.

*nods approvingly*
- mcefalu

You really needed to go Dr Seuss there.

Really.
- mayorofangrytown

I was hoping for that as well

I guess I still don't get why the Kovalchuk scenario is not considered "creating an exception for a player"
- mcefalu

All the League did there was rescind part of punishment they levied against the Devils for following the rules and taking advantage of loopholes in the CBA. They did it to make an example out of them unfairly, in my view. That is really a completely different situation then any Cap related issue.

I was hoping for that as well
- mcefalu

I'm sorry, folks -- I'm not that witty, and I'm old enough where I can't remember Dr. Seuss well enough.

There simply isn't a reason to do that. LTIR is the rule that covers injured players on over 35 contracts.

The only reason the CBO's were offered were as transition rules so teams could comply with the artificially lowered Cap to 64.3M.

Just as there were buyouts before when the cap came into place in 2005.
- MJL

The reason would be to eliminate this annual tap-dance that teams like the Flyers and Bruins have to do.

Like when FDR put Joe Kennedy in charge of the SEC, back in the 1930's...who better to catch thieves than a thief?
- Jsaquella

Bootlegger sir totally different

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, because the player has been ruled to have sustained a career-ending injury. And if the player attempts to play again, as Bryan Berard once did, then he can seek permission from the league, insurer(s) and parent club to attempt a comeback.
- AllInForFlyers

Misses the point. The contract has now been wiped out, and the team that signed the player, got off from it. Has nothing to do with not allowing the player to play again. A player can retire, and un-retire to my knowledge.

Bootlegger sir totally different
- JoeRussomanno

Nah, he was a thief as well as a bootlegger

All the League did there was rescind part of punishment they levied against the Devils for following the rules and taking advantage of loopholes in the CBA. They did it to make an example out of them unfairly, in my view. That is really a completely different situation then any Cap related issue.
- MJL

The fact that they imposed those penalties in the first place is solid proof that the NHL is totally fine with creating new rules about the cap out of thin air when they feel like it.

I'm sorry, folks -- I'm not that witty, and I'm old enough where I can't remember Dr. Seuss well enough.

- AllInForFlyers

Hey there's still time. We're all fans of your traditional work!

yet another list of 10!
10 crazy things that I hope happens during this season!!

1. Gary Bettman is captured by flying monkeys and returned to Munchkinland in the land of Oz.

2. Pierre McGuire finally admits his love for Crosby to the world at large, they move to San Francisco and we all get invited to the wedding.

3. James Neal and Matt Cooke are involved in a mid ice collision and both are forced to retire from the injuries that they sustain.

4. Satan rises up from hell and admits that he is the true owner of the NY Rangers.

5. Craig Berube snaps at a post game press conference and knocks Panaccio out cold.

6. The Toronto Maple Leafs finish dead last and lose the draft lottery. Shanahan is fired and replaced by Carrot Top. Leafs ownership express their excitement in the clubs new direction.

7. Brian Burke trades for Jay Rosehill, Jon Scott and signs Mike Tyson. He then builds a time machine and takes them all back 40 years to 1974. The Flames still can't beat the Flyers in the 1st round.

8. We find out that Ed Snider actually died in 1998 when Ron Hextall beheads him with a goalie stick and sparks and wires spring out of his neck. Hextall says, "Hey, killing an android is not technically a crime and besides, he insisted I trade Morin, Ghost and Laughton to Winnipeg for Byfuglien.

9. LA goes on to win another cup. Mike Richards still doesn't crack a smile.

10. Travis Sanheim scores 70 goals and 190 points in the WHL. He also finishes +90 and logs the most minutes on Canada's championship World Junior Squad. OB still insists that he needs another year of Junior.

Is it game time yet???

The reason would be to eliminate this annual tap-dance that teams like the Flyers and Bruins have to do.
- jmatchett383

There is no reason to eliminate it. It's what the Cap is designed to do. And every year, it's easily done.

The reason would be to eliminate this annual tap-dance that teams like the Flyers and Bruins have to do.
- jmatchett383

Or to allow Pronger to take a job with the DOPS without any appearance of impropriety

The fact that they imposed those penalties in the first place is solid proof that the NHL is totally fine with creating new rules about the cap out of thin air when they feel like it.
- jmatchett383

I agree, and I think it was wrong.

Misses the point. The contract has now been wiped out, and the team that signed the player, got off from it. Has nothing to do with not allowing the player to play again. A player can retire, and un-retire to my knowledge.
- MJL

I am officially climbing out of the rabbit hole that I have sworn not to go down again.

Anybody else think that the Bruins are going to struggle for offensive flow tonight?

I am officially climbing out of the rabbit hole that I have sworn not to go down again.

Anybody else think that the Bruins are going to struggle for offensive flow tonight?
- AllInForFlyers

No

I am officially climbing out of the rabbit hole that I have sworn not to go down again.

Anybody else think that the Bruins are going to struggle for offensive flow tonight?
- AllInForFlyers

They could. Krejci is their main offensive catalyst. They have some good, talented players who can certainly light the lamp, but Krejci really drives the train for them.

No
- aflyerpower8

You don't think Iginla being gone, as well as Krejci, doesn't hurt?

Yes, I'm wanting it to be true -- would love to get off to a good start tonight.

I agree, and I think it was wrong.
- MJL

I agree, but whether it's wrong or not isn't the point. The point is that the NHL has made a statement (not a verbal one) that they are perfectly fine with appending the rules of the CBA related to the cap, so it's not outside the realm of possibility that they could do it again if they feel so inclined.