|
|
Post by Douper on Jun 26, 2009 18:09:25 GMT -5
ON TSn.ca
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 26, 2009 18:38:31 GMT -5
Like I said, despite an already huge payroll, Philly are always in the mix when a high profile player is available through trade or free agency. I wonder if the Habs made an offer.
Now Philly will have some serious cap issues. Once they resign to the fact that they're stuck with Briere, perhaps they'd listen to offers for Gagne.
|
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Jun 26, 2009 18:46:30 GMT -5
I would love for Gainey to go get Carter from Philly
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 26, 2009 19:21:58 GMT -5
They're going to have to part with at least one body. They were over last year, and adding Pronger's $6.5 million won't help any.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 26, 2009 19:25:22 GMT -5
Like I said, despite an already huge payroll, Philly are always in the mix when a high profile player is available through trade or free agency. I wonder if the Habs made an offer. Now Philly will have some serious cap issues. Once they resign to the fact that they're stuck with Briere, perhaps they'd listen to offers for Gagne. They gave up two guys and two 1st rounders for one year of Pronger. Sounds like too much to me. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 26, 2009 19:28:01 GMT -5
Like I said, despite an already huge payroll, Philly are always in the mix when a high profile player is available through trade or free agency. I wonder if the Habs made an offer. Now Philly will have some serious cap issues. Once they resign to the fact that they're stuck with Briere, perhaps they'd listen to offers for Gagne. They gave up two guys and two 1st rounders for one year of Pronger. Sounds like too much to me. ... and it's the second time Lupul was involved in a Pronger deal. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 26, 2009 19:42:50 GMT -5
Interesting deal, Philly still doesn't have a goaltender though.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 26, 2009 19:52:29 GMT -5
Interesting deal, Philly still doesn't have a goaltender though. You don't think Emery is going to do it for them? |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 26, 2009 19:56:25 GMT -5
Interesting deal, Philly still doesn't have a goaltender though. You don't think Emery is going to do it for them? No, not at all. I admit that it is possible he's completely focused and plays very well for them; I just don't see it happening |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 26, 2009 20:00:50 GMT -5
I agree this is an awfully steep price for Pronger, and fact is, with a huge question mark in nets, it's not as if Philly could claim they're a serious threat for the Cup next season (ie, overpaying to get a key player if he makes you a contender can be justified, but IMO, Philly isn't a sure-thing to be a contender... whereas overpaying to rent Hossa last season was expensive but a reasonable gamble by PIT)
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 26, 2009 20:06:24 GMT -5
You don't think Emery is going to do it for them? No, not at all. I admit that it is possible he's completely focused and plays very well for them; I just don't see it happening Sorry, forgot the smilie. One year away from trouble does not an angel make. Focused and Emery go together like a brick and a window. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 26, 2009 20:23:58 GMT -5
Didn't Emery have issues with his temper while in the KHL? I seem to recall he went after trainer on his own team.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 26, 2009 20:30:29 GMT -5
Emery has issues. period.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 26, 2009 20:41:30 GMT -5
Philly's got another 2nd tier goaltender in Emery, who could light it up and get on a hot streak. They're not willing to invest in true quality goaltending, and truthfully I don't agree that they should. I do think they should perhaps not only sign also-rans and has-beens, but there's no need to spend $8M on a goaltender like Vancouver is rumoured to be doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 26, 2009 21:13:42 GMT -5
Didn't Emery have issues with his temper while in the KHL? I seem to recall he went after trainer on his own team. Yeah, he got pulled & then get into a scuffle with his trainer. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 27, 2009 5:33:22 GMT -5
They gave up two guys and two 1st rounders for one year of Pronger. Sounds like too much to me. ... and it's the second time Lupul was involved in a Pronger deal. and back to Anaheim for Lupul. I didn't realize that Lupul was making so much - 4.2 million for the next 4 years. Couple that with Sbisa at the minimum and that's 5 million against Pronger's 6.2 million - a difference of about 1.2 million. However 2 players, 2 first rounders & another conditional pick is a lot, especially if they don't extend Pronger. Just read some Flyer fans reaction to this trade on hockeybuzz because they do get a lot of Philly fans there. The gist of what I read there is that they feel Holmgren overpaid a lot but hey, it's Pronger and if he is extended then it will be worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 27, 2009 7:03:19 GMT -5
Heavy price but Philly is a better team today than they were before. That's where Holmgren is.
...and Detroit traded 6 of their last 10 first round picks...
Cap issues?
...bah, that's good for GM looking for excuses to stay pat...
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 27, 2009 10:20:56 GMT -5
Philly also got AHL forward Ryan Dingle in the deal along with Pronger.
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jun 27, 2009 10:30:00 GMT -5
Expensive but bold.
"Sometimes ya just gotta have the nuts"
|
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Jun 27, 2009 11:16:48 GMT -5
Expensive but bold. "Sometimes ya just gotta have the nuts"And sometimes ya just gotta BE nuts...  |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 7, 2009 17:08:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jul 7, 2009 19:42:00 GMT -5
The contract goes into effect the season after this; he'll be 35, and it will count against the cap if my reading comprehension is correct... which it may not be The bracketed part is what seems important to me, as it defines when the contract was "Signed" |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 7, 2009 22:18:00 GMT -5
A 7 year deal should take him to 42, should it not? He was born on October 10, 1974.
Yes, the $5M cap hit will count regardless of whether he's playing. Good eye Roke.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jul 7, 2009 23:42:22 GMT -5
Funny how some GM's seem to think players can keep contributing well into their late 30's and early 40's, like they're all called Chelios or Howe. I have to believe these contracts are going to really hurt these teams in the later contract stages, when their CAP space is zilch and they're icing a few good players, a whack of minor leaguers, and a few over the hill bodies. Or will they change the rules then?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 8, 2009 8:12:57 GMT -5
If Pronger goes down with some serious "injury" that forces him to retire doesn't that remove his cap impact (of course the Flyers will have to continue to pay him, but we're doing an end run around the salary cap here, not balancing their books)? It might be what the Flyers are thinking - when Chris decides to hang 'em up he just comes down with some kind of injury that prevents him from playing any more, they send him home and finish paying out his contract and he gets what is effectively seven million a season for a five million a season cap hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 8, 2009 8:44:20 GMT -5
A 7 year deal should take him to 42, should it not? He was born on October 10, 1974. Yes, the $5M cap hit will count regardless of whether he's playing. Good eye Roke. Am I missing something ... All Player Salary and Bonuses earned in a League Year by a Player who is in the second or later year of a multi-year SPC which was signed when the Player was age 35 or older (as of June 30 prior to the League Year in which the SPC is to be effective), This contract was signed when Pronger was 34. He doesn't turn 35 until October. The clause says the effective date is when it is signed ... not when he gets paid. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 8, 2009 8:48:08 GMT -5
"as of June 30 prior to the League Year in which the SPC is to be effective" might be the part you're missing.
The SPC is to be effective in 10-11, which means he has to be 35 prior to June 30, 2010, which he will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 8, 2009 9:09:26 GMT -5
"as of June 30 prior to the League Year in which the SPC is to be effective" might be the part you're missing. The SPC is to be effective in 10-11, which means he has to be 35 prior to June 30, 2010, which he will be. He signed the contract on July 7 2009, as a 34 year old ... which is prior to June 30, 2010 ("June 30 in which the SPC is to be effective".) Maybe I am understanding the english wrong, or there is a dangling participle in there ... I dont know .... but the stuff in brackets, is qualifying the age. Taking out the brackets it reads: All Player Salary and Bonuses earned in a League Year by a Player who is in the second or later year of a multi-year SPC which was signed when the Player was age 35 or older regardless of whether, or where, the Player is playing, except to the extent the .... Did Pronger sign this contract when he was 35 or older? NO. Now you put the brackets back in the clause ... it is the qualifier for determining the date to calculate if a player is 35 or older. Just like schools use Dec 31, for determining if a 4 yr old can go to kindergarten so to speak. All Player Salary and Bonuses earned in a League Year by a Player who is in the second or later year of a multi-year SPC which was signed when the Player was age 35 or older (as of June 30 prior to the League Year in which the SPC is to be effective),Was Pronger 35 or older when this contract was signed? NO I've reworded this many times trying to get what I thinking out (boy is it hard) ... to me the bracketed portion means little. This year is quite obviously before next season and the clause only says it has to be signed as a 34 yr old before the effective year .. and it was. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 8, 2009 9:40:47 GMT -5
Well Bill Daly confirmed that the only date that matters is June 30, 2010, not when the contract was actually signed. I'll try to find a link for that. I agree, it's worded funny. I think if you remove the emphasis on the word "signed" in the literal sense, it becomes clearer. edit: That's right, it was on Elliott Friedman's twitter account. He called Bill Daly about it. Bill Daly on Pronger contract: "The relevant date is the June 30 before the extension becomes effective. So that's June 30, 2010...Yes, its an Over 35 deal, and yes, every year will count against the Flyers cap even if Chris retires." Impressed Daly was up at 6 amtwitter.com/FriedmanHNIC |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 8, 2009 11:01:30 GMT -5
Well Bill Daly confirmed that the only date that matters is June 30, 2010, not when the contract was actually signed. I'll try to find a link for that. I agree, it's worded funny. I think if you remove the emphasis on the word "signed" in the literal sense, it becomes clearer. edit: That's right, it was on Elliott Friedman's twitter account. He called Bill Daly about it. Bill Daly on Pronger contract: "The relevant date is the June 30 before the extension becomes effective. So that's June 30, 2010...Yes, its an Over 35 deal, and yes, every year will count against the Flyers cap even if Chris retires." Impressed Daly was up at 6 amtwitter.com/FriedmanHNICThanks Redscull They should really reword that clause in the next CBA .... as it is written there (if that is the official CBA language) I have my doubts if it would hold up in court if someone (*cough* Lamarello *cough*) ever tried to challenge it |
|
