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.
- tkecanuck341

Ditto


Remind me again who started this with stating what they thought was offensive, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was on a hockey blog too.

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.

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.
- MJL

No, I don't consider putting a player with a legitimate injury on LTIR cap circumvention, as long as that player has a desire and intention to return to the league. Where I do consider the the circumvention is when that player decides to hang up the skates (injury-related or not) and move on to other things, that he is not treated as a retired player. Bettman has confirmed that he's "done as a player." If you want to allow for contracted injured players to move on from the NHL without cap penalty, fine...write that situation into the CBA. Otherwise, you are circumventing the cap.

Ditto


Remind me again who started this with stating what they thought was offensive, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was on a hockey blog too.
- quackup

You are wrong. Most of the time actually. I was trying to be nice though.

No, I don't consider putting a player with a legitimate injury on LTIR cap circumvention, as long as that player has a desire and intention to return to the league. Where I do consider the the circumvention is when that player decides to hang up the skates (injury-related or not) and move on to other things, that he is not treated as a retired player. Bettman has confirmed that he's "done as a player." If you want to allow for contracted injured players to move on from the NHL without cap penalty, fine...write that situation into the CBA. Otherwise, you are circumventing the cap.
- tkecanuck341

Pronger didn't decide to hang up the skates, he was forced not to play, due to concussion issues. In order for it to be circumvention, what you want the situation to be, needs to be in the CBA. Pronger is done as a player because he has post concussion syndrome. I'm sure when Pronger was injured, he desired to continue playing, and intended to return to playing. So because something is not written into the CBA, it's circumvention? That is a ridiculous argument.

Again, you're confusing how you want the rules to be, instead of looking how they actually are. I'm sure you're going to come back with a rule doesn't have to be broken in order for there to be circumvention, ala the Kovalchuk situation, but at least there you can make the argument that they never intended Kovalchuk to play the final years of his deal, and only put them in to lower the AAV.
As I said previously, you might have an argument based on that part of it, if you want to look at the original Pronger contract. As far as the injury and LTIR side of it, you don't have a legitimate argument.
If you read the CBA, and the parts concerning LTIR, there is no language pertaining to the player having to desire or intend to play again.

I'll finish with this. The league is who hired Pronger for the player safety department, not the Flyers. So how does the league hiring the player, point to the Flyers circumventing the cap?

Ditto


Remind me again who started this with stating what they thought was offensive, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was on a hockey blog too.
- quackup

Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't mean it's not offensive to other people (him).

If he's offended respect that, don't be a (frank)ing tool about it.

Pronger didn't decide to hang up the skates, he was forced not to play, due to concussion issues. In order for it to be circumvention, what you want the situation to be, needs to be in the CBA. Pronger is done as a player because he has post concussion syndrome. I'm sure when Pronger was injured, he desired to continue playing, and intended to return to playing. So because something is not written into the CBA, it's circumvention? That is a ridiculous argument.

Again, you're confusing how you want the rules to be, instead of looking how they actually are. I'm sure you're going to come back with a rule doesn't have to be broken in order for there to be circumvention, ala the Kovalchuk situation, but at least there you can make the argument that they never intended Kovalchuk to play the final years of his deal, and only put them in to lower the AAV.
As I said previously, you might have an argument based on that part of it, if you want to look at the original Pronger contract. As far as the injury and LTIR side of it, you don't have a legitimate argument.
If you read the CBA, and the parts concerning LTIR, there is no language pertaining to the player having to desire or intend to play again.

I'll finish with this. The league is who hired Pronger for the player safety department, not the Flyers. So how does the league hiring the player, point to the Flyers circumventing the cap?

- MJL

At the time, yes, I'm sure Pronger wanted to return to playing. At some point over the next few years, he decided that he didn't, and moved on to a new position. If he had never taken the new position and left open a return to the ice, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. However, at some point over the past few years, he decided that his hockey career was over, and the only reason he didn't announce his retirement was for cap considerations.

I never said that the Flyers are the ones to blame here. If I remember correctly, I pointed to the league as the ones that were at fault here.

I don't fault the Flyers for what is an obvious case of cap circumvention. Of course they are going to do everything in their power to ice the best possible team, which includes getting cap relief for a player that doesn't deserve it. The fault here lies with the league, who is allowing it.
- tkecanuck341

I never said that the Flyers are the ones to blame here. If I remember correctly, I pointed to the league as the ones that were at fault here.
- tkecanuck341

Correct, you did say that. I think you're wrong. The league can't circumvent the cap.

In terms of the LTIR situation, there isn't even a hint of circumvention.

You are wrong. Most of the time actually. I was trying to be nice though.
- 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.
- 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.


It was your post.

Correct, you did say that. I think you're wrong. The league can't circumvent the cap.
- MJL

I didn't say the league circumvented the cap. I said the league allowed the Flyers to circumvent the cap.

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
- quackup[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.


It was your post.

It was. I was not arguing at the time though, simply making an observation. The arguing part came later after people were offended over my observation.

I didn't say the league circumvented the cap. I said the league allowed the Flyers to circumvent the cap.
- tkecanuck341

The Flyers didn't circumvent the cap by placing Pronger on LTIR. He had a legitimate injury.

Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't mean it's not offensive to other people (him).

If he's offended respect that, don't be a (frank)ing tool about it.
- KINGS67

Everything could be considered offensive if taken the wrong way. Just because someone may be offended, doesn't mean they have to cry to everybody about it. I could be offended by your childish grammer, but no need to come on board and whine to everybody.

As someone said earlier, people need to grow a spine.

Good pickup by the Kings. Adds to their defensive bench strength.

Everything could be considered offensive if taken the wrong way. Just because someone may be offended, doesn't mean they have to cry to everybody about it. I could be offended by your childish grammer, but no need to come on board and whine to everybody.

As someone said earlier, people need to grow a spine.
- quackup

Who's crying?

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

you can't respond to this clown. He seems to be 13 year old troll .

The Flyers didn't circumvent the cap by placing Pronger on LTIR. He had a legitimate injury.
- MJL

I agree. At the time of Pronger's injury, there was no circumvention. They did everything correctly by placing him on LTIR. However, when Pronger accepted a new position that made his return to the team impossible if he ever were to be cleared by a doctor, he retired. Now, you can dance around the definition of "retired" all that you want, which is exactly what the Flyers did, hence the circumvention.

you can't respond to this clown. He seems to be 13 year old troll .
- seven111dman

Who me? I actually thought we were having a few intelligent debates on here.

Everything could be considered offensive if taken the wrong way. Just because someone may be offended, doesn't mean they have to cry to everybody about it. I could be offended by your childish grammer, but no need to come on board and whine to everybody.

As someone said earlier, people need to grow a spine.
- quackup

Lol childish grammAR

How about do a spell check before correcting someones childish grammAR.

Everything could be considered offensive if taken the wrong way. Just because someone may be offended, doesn't mean they have to cry to everybody about it. I could be offended by your childish grammer, but no need to come on board and whine to everybody.

As someone said earlier, people need to grow a spine.
- quackup

Yes, grammar and race are remotely the same thing

Yes, grammar and race are remotely the same thing
- sbroads24

Lol no SH!t

I agree. At the time of Pronger's injury, there was no circumvention. They did everything correctly by placing him on LTIR. However, when Pronger accepted a new position that made his return to the team impossible if he ever were to be cleared by a doctor, he retired. Now, you can dance around the definition of "retired" all that you want, which is exactly what the Flyers did, hence the circumvention.
- tkecanuck341

Back to that again. It is factually and unequivocally false that Pronger retired. I'm not dancing around it, you're actually the one who is doing that by calling Pronger retired. Originally with the HOF nonsense. The Flyers had absolutely nothing to do with Pronger being hired by the league, but the Flyers did it.



How was Pronger accepting the position making it impossible to return to the team? He couldn't resign from the position if he was medically cleared?

Alright. Enough.

Any more talk of racism, casual racism, workplace racism, racism racism, grammar racism or anything unrelated to hockey even in the slightest of terms will be reported.

You want to talk about cap circumvention, the Flyers, the Kings, Mike Richards...be my guest. BUT KEEP IT TO HOCKEY PLEASE.

Clear? Keep it to hockey talk.

I agree. At the time of Pronger's injury, there was no circumvention. They did everything correctly by placing him on LTIR. However, when Pronger accepted a new position that made his return to the team impossible if he ever were to be cleared by a doctor, he retired. Now, you can dance around the definition of "retired" all that you want, which is exactly what the Flyers did, hence the circumvention.
- tkecanuck341

Do you think the Kings are circumventing the cap by having Voynov's cap hit off the books?

Back to that again. It is factually and unequivocally false that Pronger retired. I'm not dancing around it, you're actually the one who is doing that by calling Pronger retired. Originally with the HOF nonsense. The Flyers had absolutely nothing to do with Pronger being hired by the league.

How was Pronger accepting the position making it impossible to return to the team? He couldn't resign from the position if he was medically cleared?
- MJL

No, he couldn't return to the team. Bettman ruled that out as a possibility to subside the allegations of possible bias. He said that Pronger was "done as a player" and that "he owes them nothing," speaking of the Flyers.

Do you think the Kings are circumventing the cap by having Voynov's cap hit off the books?
- rangerdanger94

For the suspension yes, for the Achilles injury no. Once Voynov is medically cleared, I think he should be returned to the cap. If the Kings want him off the books, they should terminate his contract.