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.
- tkecanuck341

You've put the cart before the horse. Pronger was not going to return to play, before he was hired by the league, due to the concussion injury. Which is why the league was okay with hiring him. You want to put that on the Flyers and label it circumvention. That is false.

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.
- tkecanuck341

So it's pretty much you have your own personal definition of what circumvention is, and really what's in the CBA doesn't matter.

The league has suspended Voynov for the legal issues.

You've put the cart before the horse. Pronger was not going to return to play, before he was hired by the league, due to the concussion injury. Which is why the league was okay with hiring him. You want to put that on the Flyers and label it circumvention. That is false.
- MJL

If the Flyers are that upset about the league hiring one of their active players, they should file a grievance or sue for contract tampering. They're obviously not upset, because it's essentially a guarantee that they will have cap relief for the life of Pronger's contract. The Flyers and the NHL are complicit in the cap circumvention. If the Flyers weren't ok with it, the NHL would not have done it, and again, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Again, I think you draw a false equivalence between illegality and circumvention. The part where the farce exists is that the league will not call it circumvention because they are complicit in, if not primarily responsible for that circumvention.

So it's pretty much you have your own personal definition of what circumvention is, and really what's in the CBA doesn't matter.

The league has suspended Voynov for the legal issues.
- MJL

The Kings suspended Voynov for injuring himself during non-hockey related activities. This is a violation of the player's contract and his team suspension is different than the NHL's suspension.

Who me? I actually thought we were having a few intelligent debates on here.
- tkecanuck341

You were, I just finished reading the rest of the thread. The intelligent posts were not made by him. I just don't like him. Last year I called him a 12 year old troll and the year before that he was an eleven year old troll. He rarely says anything intelligent. Good stuff otherwise. On the subject with MJL teams can and will use the rules to make the best moves for their team, like it or not. I, for one, am tired of people bashing the Kings for making the best team decisions regarding MR while playing by the rules.

So it's pretty much you have your own personal definition of what circumvention is, and really what's in the CBA doesn't matter.

The league has suspended Voynov for the legal issues.
- MJL

The Kings have also suspended Voynov (and stopped paying him) for his Achillies injury. Circumvention is a word, not a legal definition. I have already said that there is nothing illegal about what's going on with the Pronger situation. Likewise, there's nothing illegal about what's going on with the Voynov situation. Currently Voynov's team suspension is legit because he is not physically capable of playing. His league suspension is legit because the league has full discretion to suspend whoever they want. The application of LTIR cap rules to Voynov's domestic violence suspension is clearly meant to allow the Kings to circumvent the cap.

In my opinion, the Kings should keep Voynov on LTIR until he is physically able to play, then either terminate his contract, or keep him on the books. Long-Term Injured Reserve is very obviously not meant for healthy players.

You were, I just finished reading the rest of the thread. The intelligent posts were not made by him. I just don't like him. Last year I called him a 12 year old troll and the year before that he was an eleven years old troll. He rarely says anything intelligent. Good stuff otherwise. On the subject with MJL teams can and will use the rules to make the best moves for their team, like it or not. I for one am tired of people bashing the Kings for making the best team decisions regarding MR while playing by the rules.
- seven111dman

Oh, you quoted me. I thought you were calling me the troll.

If the Flyers are that upset about the league hiring one of their active players, they should file a grievance or sue for contract tampering. They're obviously not upset, because it's essentially a guarantee that they will have cap relief for the life of Pronger's contract. The Flyers and the NHL are complicit in the cap circumvention. If the Flyers weren't ok with it, the NHL would not have done it, and again, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Again, I think you draw a false equivalence between illegality and circumvention. The part where the farce exists is that the league will not call it circumvention because they are complicit in, if not primarily responsible for that circumvention.
- tkecanuck341

I think you're drawing a false equivalence between what your opinion is, and what circumvention actually is. You're labeling it a circumvention based on what your opinion is, and how you think things should be. The perfect example of that is your insistence that Pronger is retired, when he in fact is not. The league will not call it circumvention, simply because there is no circumvention when it comes to Pronger being placed on LTIR, and hired by the league.
The Flyers were already guaranteed that they would have cap relief before Pronger was hired by the league.

You were, I just finished reading the rest of the thread. The intelligent posts were not made by him. I just don't like him. Last year I called him a 12 year old troll and the year before that he was an eleven year old troll. He rarely says anything intelligent. Good stuff otherwise. On the subject with MJL teams can and will use the rules to make the best moves for their team, like it or not. I, for one, am tired of people bashing the Kings for making the best team decisions regarding MR while playing by the rules.
- seven111dman

As long as the Kings played by the rules, concerning MR, I'm fine with it. With very little of the facts known, I think there is some doubt that they did.

Oh, you quoted me. I thought you were calling me the troll.
- tkecanuck341

Never, I think you are the most neutral and educated Kings poster. I always enjoy reading your take.

Never, I think you are the most neutral and educated Kings poster. I always enjoy reading your take.
- seven111dman

Much appreciated. I enjoy contributing on here.

As long as the Kings played by the rules, concerning MR, I'm fine with it. With very little of the facts known, I think there is some doubt that they did.
- MJL

They might be treading some unknown waters but considering the chances he was given and the timing of his drug debacle who can really blame the Kings for doing what they have to to rid themselves of his negative impacts on the team?

The Kings have also suspended Voynov (and stopped paying him) for his Achillies injury. Circumvention is a word, not a legal definition. I have already said that there is nothing illegal about what's going on with the Pronger situation. Likewise, there's nothing illegal about what's going on with the Voynov situation. Currently Voynov's team suspension is legit because he is not physically capable of playing. His league suspension is legit because the league has full discretion to suspend whoever they want. The application of LTIR cap rules to Voynov's domestic violence suspension is clearly meant to allow the Kings to circumvent the cap.

In my opinion, the Kings should keep Voynov on LTIR until he is physically able to play, then either terminate his contract, or keep him on the books. Long-Term Injured Reserve is very obviously not meant for healthy players.
- tkecanuck341

You're deflecting away again, now trying to make it about the difference between illegal, and circumvention. In reality, if you're circumventing the cap, your are breaking the rules of the salary cap. It won't go to court, it will be dealt with according to the CBA.

You're wrong on the Voynov situation on two fronts. First of all, the suspension is not legit because he is not physically capable of playing. A player is not suspended for that. He is suspended because of how he sustained the injury that is rendering him unable to play. They are also not circumventing the cap due to the domestic violence suspension. That is written into the CBA, and agreed upon in a collective bargaining agreement between two parties.

Are you aware that there is no LTIR during the off season?

They might be treading some unknown waters but considering the chances he was given and the timing of his drug debacle who can really blame the Kings for doing what they have to to rid themselves of his negative impacts on the team?
- seven111dman

It's not really about blame, it's whether or not the Kings and the leagues decision is on the up and up. What if down the road, Richards is cleared of all charges?

It's not really about blame, it's whether or not the Kings and the leagues decision is on the up and up. What if down the road, Richards is cleared of all charges?
- MJL

Kings go back to plan A and he gets bought out. Kings will be punished for being bad?.........no...........DL is an attorney and possible outcomes have been considered. These guys don't sit around a table at a local bar making decisions in between shots and pool games

You're deflecting away again, now trying to make it about the difference between illegal, and circumvention. In reality, if you're circumventing the cap, your are breaking the rules of the salary cap. It won't go to court, it will be dealt with according to the CBA.

You're wrong on the Voynov situation on two fronts. First of all, the suspension is not legit because he is not physically capable of playing. A player is not suspended for that. He is suspended because of how he sustained the injury that is rendering him unable to play. They are also not circumventing the cap due to the domestic violence suspension. That is written into the CBA, and agreed upon in a collective bargaining agreement between two parties.

Are you aware that there is no LTIR during the off season?
- MJL

Yes, I'm aware that there's no LTIR during the offseason. The hard salary cap also does not apply during the off-season, as teams are allowed to exceed it by 10% as long as they are in compliance by the end of training camp. I'm not sure what your point here is.

I didn't mean that the team was allowed to suspend him because he was injured, but rather because his off-ice injury made him incapable of physically playing. I thought that was implied. Once he is medically cleared, the team suspension would have to be lifted, as the off-ice injury is no longer preventing him from his duties.

I also didn't say that the suspension for domestic violence wasn't called for. It absolutely was. The league can suspend him for his actions indefinitely, as they have.

However, the part that is a little shady is the LTIR cap relief that the Kings are getting. Voynov's cap relief did not come from of his injury, it came from his domestic violence suspension. The fact that he is now also injured makes it a little easier to swallow, but once he is medically cleared, it will go back to being shady. If Voynov is not injured, the Kings should not be allowed the LTIR cap exception.

You put a lot of words into my mouth that time.

Kings go back to plan A and he gets bought out. Kings will be punished for being bad?.........no...........DL is an attorney and possible outcomes have been considered. These guys don't sit around a table at a local bar making decisions in between shots and pool games
- seven111dman

The buyout period is over. He can't be bought out again until next June. I'm sure the Kings feel they're justified in terminating the deal, and the NHL agreed. Since when are lawyers infallible?

The buyout period is over. He can't be bought out again until next June. I'm sure the Kings feel they're justified in terminating the deal, and the NHL agreed. Since when are lawyers infallible?
- MJL

Right, because the league obviously always strictly follows the rules when it comes to the CBA.

Yes, I'm aware that there's no LTIR during the offseason. The hard salary cap also does not apply during the off-season, as teams are allowed to exceed it by 10% as long as they are in compliance by the end of training camp. I'm not sure what your point here is.

I didn't mean that the team was allowed to suspend him because he was injured, but rather because his off-ice injury made him incapable of physically playing. I thought that was implied. Once he is medically cleared, the team suspension would have to be lifted, as the off-ice injury is no longer preventing him from his duties.

I also didn't say that the suspension for domestic violence wasn't called for. It absolutely was. The league can suspend him for his actions indefinitely, as they have.

However, the part that is a little shady is the LTIR cap relief that the Kings are getting. Voynov's cap relief did not come from of his injury, it came from his domestic violence suspension. The fact that he is now also injured makes it a little more cut-and-dry, but once he is medically cleared, it will go back to being shady. If Voynov is not injured, the Kings should not be allowed the LTIR cap exception.

You put a lot of words into my mouth that time.
- tkecanuck341

There weren't any words placed in your mouth, my reply was based on exactly what you said.

Here is the key difference between our opinions. Yours is based pretty much on what you think should happen, rather than being based on the CBA. My stance is based on the CBA, and the rules contained in the agreement, independent of what I might think personally. For example, I personally don't feel that Voynov should be allowed to play in the NHL again.

Again, my disagreement with you is on the comments you made concerning Pronger and any potential circumvention by the Flyers. Moving the conversation away from that, is just deflecting. I think it's been proven by the multiple posts you made that were factually incorrect, most prominently trying to state that Pronger is retired, that you have zero basis for stating that the Flyers circumvented the cap.

Right, because the league obviously always strictly follows the rules when it comes to the CBA.
- tkecanuck341

Yes, they do.

There weren't any words placed in your mouth, my reply was based on exactly what you said.

Here is the key difference between our opinions. Yours is based pretty much on what you think should happen, rather than being based on the CBA. My stance is based on the CBA, and the rules contained in the agreement, independent of what I might think personally. For example, I personally don't feel that Voynov should be allowed to play in the NHL again.

Again, my disagreement with you is on the comments you made concerning Pronger and any potential circumvention by the Flyers. Moving the conversation away from that, is just deflecting. I think it's been proven by the multiple posts you made that were factually incorrect, most prominently trying to state that Pronger is retired, that you have zero basis for stating that the Flyers circumvented the cap.
- MJL

At this point, we're going around in circles. Pronger IS retired. He no longer plays in the NHL anymore, and according to the NHL commissioner himself, is done as an NHL player. You're welcome to use whatever justifications you want to deflect from that, but those are all facts.

I have only made one factually incorrect statement regarding the HHOF, which I admitted that I did not realize that they updated their bylaws. Besides that, name one thing that I have said that you have proven to be factually inaccurate. You may disagree with my assertions that the Flyers circumvented the cap, but you can't say that I have zero basis. I think the majority of the hockey world is on my side with this one.

As for this aquisition, I have been saying that we don't really have a replacement for Mitchell. Erhoff seems to be good option. 3 specially for the money

As for this aquisition, I have been saying that we don't really have a replacement for Mitchell. Erhoff seems to be good option. 3 specially for the money
- seven111dman

I actually advocated for the acquisition of Ehrhoff a few years back when he was rumored to be on the trading block before he was bought out by Buffalo. Before Muzzin, he would have looked really good on a pairing with Drew Doughty. The potential recapture penalties scared away any suitors.

At this point, we're going around in circles. Pronger IS retired. He no longer plays in the NHL anymore, and according to the NHL commissioner himself, is done as an NHL player. You're welcome to use whatever justifications you want to deflect from that, but those are all facts.


- tkecanuck341

That is incorrect. He is not retired, he is currently on Arizona's cap, counting exactly as any other player is. You're welcome to continue stating that Pronger is retired, but it is a fact, that he is not retired. Again, this is a situation where you want to use your definition of what retired is. A player is retired when files his retirement papers with the NHLPA. Until then, Pronger is not retired. The fact that he cannot play due to injury, does not mean he is retired.

I have only made one factually incorrect statement regarding the HHOF, which I admitted that I did not realize that they updated their bylaws. Besides that, name one thing that I have said that you have proven to be factually inaccurate. You may disagree with my assertions that the Flyers circumvented the cap, but you can't say that I have zero basis. I think the majority of the hockey world is on my side with this one.
- tkecanuck341

Pronger is retired is factually untrue. Retired players cannot be placed on LTIR, because retired players are not on a teams roster. Pronger is currently on Arizona's player roster, and will be during the season. Pronger also counts as one of the teams 50 contracts. Retired players do not have an active contract with an NHL team. In terms of the LTIR issue, you have zero basis. How you want the rules to be, is not a sound basis to state a team has circumvented the cap. Who you think is on your side is irrelevant to the facts.

That is incorrect. He is not retired, he is currently on Arizona's cap, counting exactly as any other player is. You're welcome to continue stating that Pronger is retired, but it is a fact, that he is not retired. Again, this is a situation where you want to use your definition of what retired is. A player is retired when files his retirement papers with the NHLPA. Until then, Pronger is not retired. The fact that he cannot play due to injury, does not mean he is retired.



Pronger is retired is factually untrue. Retired players cannot be placed on LTIR, because retired players are not on a teams roster. Pronger is currently on Arizona's player roster, and will be during the season. Pronger also counts as one of the teams 50 contracts. Retired players do not have an active contract with an NHL team. In terms of the LTIR issue, you have zero basis. How you want the rules to be, is not a sound basis to state a team has circumvented the cap. Who you think is on your side is irrelevant to the facts.
- MJL

You make a pretty good argument against the obvious.......but you are only really just strengthening his stance