Love this move by the Kings, we needed a vet on the blueline.

The Kings repaid Richards by giving him another chance and not using a compliance buyout on him last off-season, a choice that pretty much everyone bashes with their hindsight goggles. Richards abused that chance, and as Lombardi said in his pre-termination interview, "In a cap world, you can't have any heart and soul." So when DL was presented with the border-incident news a few weeks later, he checked his heart and soul at the curb and terminated Richards' contract.
- tkecanuck341

So, instead of getting him the help he needs, the kings throw him away like a used tool. Classy. The Kings knew what they were getting into when they traded for him. They can't be indian givers.

There are no more compliance buyouts available to any team under the current CBA. They can exercise a regular buyout if they choose to on a player.
- MJL

My bad meant to say if a situation like that popped up in the future.

I personally felt there was a conflict of interest there. How can a player who is still a member of the NHLPA, and still being represented by the NHLPA, be involved in working with the NHL, and disciplining players? The NHLPA didn't seem to have an issue with it though.

You'll have to explain how it is an obvious case of cap circumvention. The Flyers received the LTIR exemption for Pronger, when he was a Flyer, due to a legitimate injury. They traded Pronger, with the approval of the NHL to Arizona. There is no rule in the CBA preventing a team from trading an injured player. So how did the player not deserve it? It was all legitimate.

You're incorrect here. Pronger is not actually retired. Retiring is a formal process by which a player follows a process and officially retires. That has not happened with Pronger.

Why would a player with a legitimate injury, be kept from "living" out the remainder of his contract on LTIR. The owners have nothing to do with it. It is in the agreed upon and negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement between two parties.
- MJL

If he is not retired, then he is not eligible for the Hall of Fame. He has been elected to enter the Hall of Fame this year, ergo he clearly is retired (and has been for two full years, in order to be eligible).

Therefore, since he is retired, and being the beneficiary of a 35+ contract, according to the CBA, the entirety of his cap hit should be on the books for the team which owns his contract. Since that is not the case, the current situation is, by definition, circumventing the salary cap requirements as outlined in the current CBA.

I'm not saying the status quo isn't exactly what should be happening. I don't necessarily disagree that a player who has a career ending injury shouldn't be allowed to live out the remainder of his contract on LTIR. However, the way that it has been implemented by the league thus far has been a farce.

So, instead of getting him the help he needs, the kings throw him away like a used tool. Classy. The Kings knew what they were getting into when they traded for him. They can't be indian givers.
- 2Real

I hope you realize how offensive and blatantly racist that term is.

Secondly, who says they're not "getting him the help he needs"? Just because they terminated his contract for business purposes doesn't mean they're "throw[ing] him away like a used tool." Getting his contracts off the books to allow for a competitive cap situation and helping a drug addict get through addiction are not mutually exclusive.

So, instead of getting him the help he needs, the kings throw him away like a used tool. Classy. The Kings knew what they were getting into when they traded for him. They can't be indian givers.
- 2Real

So the Kings knew he would fall off the map?

You really need better arguments.

So, instead of getting him the help he needs, the kings throw him away like a used tool. Classy. The Kings knew what they were getting into when they traded for him. They can't be indian givers.
- 2Real

So what exactly is the help he needs? The only thing I've read is he was caught at the Canadian/USA border with Oxy. Unless I've missed something, which is entirely possible, I haven't read that he's been charged for anything (so far). I haven't read that the drugs weren't prescribed. (Note: probably not by the team physician, but his wife/girlfriend IS a physician) We don't know the facts.

I don't think what the Kings did was right, but, if they're breaking CBA rules, they'll be held accountable. As far as Richards goes, I'll wait for more information to come out before I assume he needs "help". If I had a dollar for every hockey player that probably abuses pain meds, I'd have a nice steak dinner at Mortons.

The Kings are likely going to be forced to terminate Voynov's contract if for no other reason than setting a precedent. Any lawyer will prove that if a guy serving jail time is treated less harshly than a guy accused of having a few oxy pills on him at the boarder... you get the point.

So the Kings knew he would fall off the map?

You really need better arguments.
- KINGS67

No but it's the risk YOU take when you accept a contract.

If he is not retired, then he is not eligible for the Hall of Fame. He has been elected to enter the Hall of Fame this year, ergo he clearly is retired (and has been for two full years, in order to be eligible).


- tkecanuck341

Seems as though you are misinformed. The Hockey Hall of Fame general voting members ratified new bylaws making Pronger eligible. He is not retired.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/st...-hall-fame-due-new-bylaws

Therefore, since he is retired, and being the beneficiary of a 35+ contract, according to the CBA, the entirety of his cap hit should be on the books for the team which owns his contract. Since that is not the case, the current situation is, by definition, circumventing the salary cap requirements as outlined in the current CBA.


- tkecanuck341

Again, incorrect, since he is not retired. You can make it up as you go along, or state that he is retired as many times as you want. Won't make him retired, and still won't make it a cap circumvention.

I'm not saying the status quo isn't exactly what should be happening. I don't necessarily disagree that a player who has a career ending injury shouldn't be allowed to live out the remainder of his contract on LTIR. However, the way that it has been implemented by the league thus far has been a farce.
- tkecanuck341

I don't think you've made a single valid argument about how it is a farce. It seems you based your entire argument on Pronger being retired, which he is not. The NHL does not control the Hockey Hall of Fame. It is the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame.

So what exactly is the help he needs? The only thing I've read is he was caught at the Canadian/USA border with Oxy. Unless I've missed something, which is entirely possible, I haven't read that he's been charged for anything (so far). I haven't read that the drugs weren't prescribed. (Note: probably not by the team physician, but his wife/girlfriend IS a physician) We don't know the facts.

I don't think what the Kings did was right, but, if they're breaking CBA rules, they'll be held accountable. As far as Richards goes, I'll wait for more information to come out before I assume he needs "help". If I had a dollar for every hockey player that probably abuses pain meds, I'd have a nice steak dinner at Mortons.
- quackup

Exactly, Lombardi is using this situation to avoid any responsibility on his end. I'm glad the Hawks are showing some class with Kane and not tossing him to the curb without all the information.

I hope you realize how offensive and blatantly racist that term is.

Secondly, who says they're not "getting him the help he needs"? Just because they terminated his contract for business purposes doesn't mean they're "throw
- tkecanuck341[ing] him away like a used tool." Getting his contracts off the books to allow for a competitive cap situation and helping a drug addict get through addiction are not mutually exclusive.

Is everybody so sensitive these days that the political correctness police has to rear it's ugly (I know, ugly=insensitive and racist) head at every turn? Get over it already. I can think of a hell of a lot more offensive and blatantly racist terms than "indian giver".

Anybody like football? How about those Washington Redsk.......... Oops, offensive and racist.

Is everybody so sensitive these days that the political politeness police has to rear it's ugly (I know, ugly=insensitive and racist) head at every turn? Get over it already. I can think of a hell of a lot more offensive and blatantly racist terms than "indian giver".

Anybody like football? How about those Washington Redsk.......... Oops, offensive and racist.
- quackup

Everyone throws that term out without understanding what it means or frankly even knowing that it's offensive. To me, it's one of the most offensive terms out there, because it implies that Native Americans asked for their own genocide. I didn't chastise him for using it, I just wanted to make sure that he understands that it's derogatory.

Is everybody so sensitive these days that the political correctness police has to rear it's ugly (I know, ugly=insensitive and racist) head at every turn? Get over it already. I can think of a hell of a lot more offensive and blatantly racist terms than "indian giver".

Anybody like football? How about those Washington Redsk.......... Oops, offensive and racist.
- quackup

Totally agree! Please stop the politically correct B.S. The Kings have did what the rules allow them to do in these situations. We probably don't know the whole story on the Richards drama anyway.

Everyone throws that term out without understanding what it means or frankly even knowing that it's offensive. To me, it's one of the most offensive terms out there, because it implies that Native Americans asked for their own genocide. I didn't chastise him for using it, I just wanted to make sure that he understands that it's derogatory.


- tkecanuck341

I just wish people would grow a spine and stop calling the word/ thought police every time a word is spoken. We've become far too sensitive and need to chill out.

Kings fans knew it wasn't going to be good.

Don't need someone telling us that. Sorry.
- KINGS67

That was all Lombardi. Richards' numbers have been declining for several years and expecting that contract to be sound going forward was pretty shortsighted by most measures.

I just wish people would grow a spine and stop calling the word/ thought police every time a word is spoken. We've become far too sensitive and need to chill out.
- arh777

Political correctness is just a manifestation of 1st world problems.

No but it's the risk YOU take when you accept a contract.
- 2Real

NO SH!T SHERLOCK.

Seems as though you are misinformed. The Hockey Hall of Fame general voting members ratified new bylaws making Pronger eligible. He is not retired.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/st...-hall-fame-due-new-bylaws

Again, incorrect, since he is not retired. You can make it up as you go along, or state that he is retired as many times as you want. Won't make him retired, and still won't make it a cap circumvention.

I don't think you've made a single valid argument about how it is a farce. It seems you based your entire argument on Pronger being retired, which he is not. The NHL does not control the Hockey Hall of Fame. It is the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame.
- MJL

I was unaware of the new bylaws for the HHOF. However, it doesn't make it any less of a farce. I can go through all of the arguments that have been brought up over the last year-and-a-half since Pronger got hired by the NHL, then all of the arguments of why it's ridiculous to allow his contract to be traded to Arizona, but I think those horses might have already been beaten to death.

I think this tweet from Buffalo News' Mike Harrington expresses everything I'm trying to say:

I hate that the Pronger situation is legal. Just hate it. It's stupid. But I get it too.

— Mike Harrington (@BNHarrington) June 27, 2015

The fact that he's treated as an active player solely for salary cap purposes is circumvention, and the farce is that the league is complicit in the circumvention.

Circumvention: to avoid by artfulness or deception

"Chris' case is unique. There are salary cap reasons why he couldn't officially retire, but ... if in fact we go that route (hiring Pronger to NHL Player Safety), I'm not sure that presents any problem at all to deal with. He's done playing. He gets paid no matter what from the Flyers. He doesn't owe them anything."
- "Garry Bettman

Again, I understand that it's legal. I understand why they're doing it. I understand why no one involved is opposing it. But, as Mike Harrington says, I "Just hate it. It's stupid".

Everyone throws that term out without understanding what it means or frankly even knowing that it's offensive. To me, it's one of the most offensive terms out there, because it implies that Native Americans asked for their own genocide. I didn't chastise him for using it, I just wanted to make sure that he understands that it's derogatory.


- tkecanuck341

Not according to Wikipedia.

But they're offensive and racist too.

I was unaware of the new bylaws for the HHOF. However, it doesn't make it any less of a farce. I can go through all of the arguments that have been brought up over the last year-and-a-half since Pronger got hired by the NHL, then all of the arguments of why it's ridiculous to allow his contract to be traded to Arizona, but I think those horses might have already been beaten to death.


- tkecanuck341

Having an opinion of why a rule or law should be different, is not the same as saying a law or rule was broken.

I think this tweet from Buffalo News' Mike Harrington expresses everything I'm trying to say:

I hate that the Pronger situation is legal. Just hate it. It's stupid. But I get it too.

— Mike Harrington (@BNHarrington) June 27, 2015

The fact that he's treated as an active player solely for salary cap purposes is circumvention, and the farce is that the league is complicit in the circumvention.

Circumvention: to avoid by artfulness or deception


- tkecanuck341

Where is the deception at? You can post tweets on people's opinions, or definition until the cows come home. There is no deception on anyone's part.

I can post the definition of murder, doesn't mean someone is guilty of it!

Actually, Pronger hasn't been an active player for a number of years. He's been on the LTIR which means long term injured reserve, with a legitimate injury. There is no circumvention.

Again, I understand that it's legal. I understand why they're doing it. I understand why no one involved is opposing it. But, as Mike Harrington says, I "Just hate it. It's stupid".
- tkecanuck341

If you understand it is legal, then you wouldn't label it circumvention. You're certainly entitled to an opinion of how you think things should be, but that's not the same as labeling something as circumvention. If you came from that perspective, I would understand, but you didn't. May not agree, but I'd understand.

Having an opinion of why a rule or law should be different, is not the same as saying a law or rule was broken.

I can post the definition of murder, doesn't mean someone is guilty of it!

Actually, Pronger hasn't been an active player for a number of years. He's been on the LTIR which means long term injured reserve, with a legitimate injury. There is no circumvention.

If you understand it is legal, then you wouldn't label it circumvention. You're certainly entitled to an opinion of how you think things should be, but that's not the same as labeling something as circumvention. If you came from that perspective, I would understand, but you didn't. May not agree, but I'd understand.
- MJL

I think you missed the "or" in that definition. I never said that a rule was broken. Cap circumvention means getting around the cap rules by "artfully" implementing the rules in the CBA. The New Jersey Devils also broke no rules by signing Ilya Kovalchuck to his ridiculous 17-year contract. The contract followed every single letter of the CBA at the time, but the league still determined that it was circumventing the cap, through "artful" implementation.

The circumvention from Kovalchuk's situation was that no one expected him to return to the NHL to play out the final years of his contract, thus making the cap situation not reflect the actual situation on the ice. Likewise, no one expected Pronger to return to the NHL to play out the final years of his contract, thus making the cap situation not reflect the actual situation. There does not have to be illegality for their to be circumvention.

There is the move I have been waiting for for about a month when I last posted about the Kings and their depth. After missing out on Oduya, the Kings were able to get their depth d man and also maybe more importantly beat out Chicago for Erhoff who are in dire need for D men as well. But with Kane perhaps in trouble the Hawks wont be the team to worry about which is great news for the Kings!

Not according to Wikipedia.

But they're offensive and racist too.
- quackup

Look, I'm not gonna sit here and argue what is and isn't offensive on a hockey blog. If you want to use Wikipedia as your primary source of information, that's fine. If you're really interested, I would suggest going out and doing some more research before you make a decision. You might learn something.

I think you missed the "or" in that definition. I never said that a rule was broken. Cap circumvention means getting around the cap rules by "artfully" implementing the rules in the CBA. The New Jersey Devils also broke no rules by signing Ilya Kovalchuck to his ridiculous 17-year contract. The contract followed every single letter of the CBA at the time, but the league still determined that it was circumventing the cap, through "artful" implementation.


- tkecanuck341

Do you consider placing a player with a legitimate injury on LTIR, artfully getting around the cap rules? How did they get around the rules? They didn't, they used the rules. We're discussing the Pronger situation, now you're deflecting away from that, and bringing up the Kovalchuk situation. I disagree with the NHL and their ruling on that by the way.

The circumvention from Kovalchuk's situation was that no one expected him to return to the NHL to play out the final years of his contract, thus making the cap situation not reflect the actual situation on the ice. Likewise, no one expected Pronger to return to the NHL to play out the final years of his contract, thus making the cap situation not reflect the actual situation. There does not have to be illegality for their to be circumvention.
- tkecanuck341

There's some good points here on another issue, but now you're confusing two different issues. You could make an argument that the original contract they signed Pronger to, was circumvention similar to how the Kovalchuk was ruled circumvention, which I would also disagree with. We're talking about the Pronger LTIR situation and retirement. You're making a different conversation.

Here is the bottom line. You haven't made an effective argument for how placing Pronger on LTIR, or trading him, circumvented the cap.