Chris Pronger Signs 7 Year, $35 Million Extension
by Travis Hughes on Jul 7, 2009 5:31 PM EDT
in News
40 comments
At his press conference yesterday, Chris Pronger noted that he would love to retire with the Philadelphia Flyers. Just a day later, he assured that he will, signing a seven-year, $35 million dollar contract extension. Pronger, 34, will be 42 years old when this contract expires following the 2015/2016 season.
The deal is structured so that the Pronger will cost the Flyers a reported $5 million against the salary cap over the next seven years, but his $6.25 million cap hit is still in effect this upcoming season Details on the exact structure of the contract are not yet available.
Presumably, the contract is structured with more cash in the early years of the deal and less cash in the later years of the deal, lowering the cap hit and giving Pronger more dollars should he retire before the deal is up. Sportsnet in Canada is reporting that this is the case, and that the deal also comes with a no-movement clause.
In signing Pronger to a long-term extension so quickly, the Flyers and general manager Paul Holmgren have promptly answered the critics who said that they gave up too much for Pronger, a player who without a extension could have walked as a free agent next July. He has never reached free agency in his 15-plus season career, however, and given that this is likely his last contract, it appears he never will be a free agent.
1 recs |
40 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
Awesome. This is an even better bargain that what I proposed yesterday (8 years $32 mil with just $3m in the final three years).
by MarioD on Jul 7, 2009 4:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, this is good news.
I’m glad it got done so quickly. $5 million isn’t cheap, but it’s not going to kill us in terms of the cap either. I’m wondering, is it a restructuring/extension, or simply 7 years attached to this current deal? In other words, does this change Pronger’s cap hit for 09/10 from $6.25 million to $5 million?
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 7, 2009 4:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The CBA prohibits altering any contract that has been completed. His cap hit this season remains at $6.whatever this season, as does whatever his salary was.
This contract begins in the 2009-10 season.
by MarioD on Jul 7, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. Sorry. I got the rule right, but somehow thought we are in 2008.
by MarioD on Jul 7, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 6.25 million cap hit is still in effect for this coming season.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jul 7, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The price was still really steep, but slightly more palatable now. I guess we’ll all get to know him quite well now.
by gnuf on Jul 7, 2009 5:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
WIP is reporting
That $29 million of the deal is in the first 4 seasons.
by JasonB on Jul 7, 2009 5:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Fantastic. Homer, you did good. That additional room going into ‘10-11 + the loss of Jones + whatever spare change we have left will put us in a good position to re-sign Emery, Coburn and Parent (and presumably Asham and Carcillo, who wouldn’t be getting serious raises).
by Ben Feldman on Jul 7, 2009 5:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Look at it this way: in the 10-11 season, Pronger will only take up 750k more cap space than Lupul.
by SJPhillyVT on Jul 7, 2009 5:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t this qualify as a 35 years old or plus contract (which means the cap hit remains if the player retires? Or why doesn’t it.
As of June 30, 2010, Pronger is 35, i.e. when the contract takes effect.
Just asking. The CBA has me confused again.
by godot10 on Jul 7, 2009 5:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s when the contract is signed, not when it takes effect. That’s what I’ve heard the most, I can barely read the CBA directly.
by SJPhillyVT on Jul 7, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whether or not it’s correct, who knows… but capgeek.com is calling the extension a 35+ contract.
I’m not a lawyer, so my understanding of legal-speak is not perfect; but I attempted to read the CBA for clarification on this one. Everywhere that there is mention of an SPC with age 35+, it reads like this:
mult i-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 effect ive)
which leads me to believe that him being 35 next summer because the SPC takes effect in 10-11 means it IS a 35+ contract.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 7, 2009 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are reading that wrong.
it says “signed when the Player was age 35…”
Its not a 35+ contract.
To put it in the most simple terms: The Flyers wouldn’t have reached this agreement if it wasn’t coming off the books in four years.
by MarioD on Jul 7, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except that the contract doesn’t come into effect until ‘10-11, and 35 “as of June 30 prior to the League Year in which the SPC is to be effective” makes me think that it might be a 35+ contract. This whole thing is very vague. Someone needs to ask the Flyers front office for the definitive answer (and I’m sure this will be asked in Homer’s next conference call with the media).
by Ben Feldman on Jul 7, 2009 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is extremely vague… but I’m with Ben, that whole thing about the year the SPC becomes effective is what lead me to think that capgeek is right.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 7, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im an attorney.
The parenthetical is modifying the definition of “age 35 or older”.
Again: The Flyers don’t sign this deal if it counts as a 35+ contract.
by MarioD on Jul 7, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops, supossed to say: “I’m an attorney for what its worth.” Not trying to sound like a jerk, just that I’ve read a lot of legalese.
by MarioD on Jul 7, 2009 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not trying to be a a b* either, but capgeek just posted this on the front page:
PRONGER CLARIFICATION: Capgeek.com sources have clarified that Chris Pronger’s new seven-year extension is a 35-plus deal, meaning it counts toward the cap under pretty much any circumstance. His birthdate is calculated on June 30, 2010.
Ahhhh! I’m confused.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 7, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know who their source is, but again make this simple:
The last two years wouldn’t be structured at the vet league minimum ($525k each) if they were taking a $4mil cap hit those years.
by MarioD on Jul 7, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
unless the flyers made a mistake in their interpretation..
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 8, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t doubt you for a second, but I still don’t quite understand. Does it not say that the player’s age for the contract is defined as their age at June 30 prior to the season when the contract comes into effect? This contract comes into effect for ‘10-11, and on June 30, 2010, Pronger will be 35, so that wouldn’t make this a 35+ deal?
by Ben Feldman on Jul 7, 2009 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did some digging...
Regardless of our individual interpretations of the language, I searched around for some similar situations to see what the verdict was in those cases.
This one is from 2 years ago, but quotes to the NHL Deputy Commissioner who was involved in negotiating this CBA:
Extending Rolston’s contract this summer before he turns 35 seems logical, but NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly, who negotiated the CBA, wrote in an e-mail: “The key date is what age he will be on June 30 preceding the July 1 his contract extension would become effective. If Brian would be 35 on that date, he’s subject to the over 35 rule regardless of the date on which he signed his contract.” http://www.startribune.com/sports/wild/11664961.html
This one is from just a few months ago, when the Bruins gave Tim Thomas an extension that was signed before 35:
“For contract purposes, the player’s age is calculated on the June 30 before the season the deal goes into effect.” — Larry Brooks, New York Post; subquoted from http://www.fromtherink.com/2009/4/5/823767/an-important-note-on-thomass
Last, the interpreted definition from nhlscap.com:
“The first requirement is that the player must be 35 or older in the League Year when the SPC first becomes effective.” http://www.nhlscap.com/cap_faq.htm
There does seem to be mass confusion, but the discussions all seem to end with it being considered 35+. If the precedent follows, which it should, Pronger has a 35+ contract.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 7, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is bad news… Pronger’s not playing until he’s 42… but we have to deal with a $5m cap hit for seven years regardless starting in ‘10-11. Homer better have a damn perfect explanation (’Chris is a great player and we think we can win’ isn’t good enough), and he better not have assumed it wasn’t going to be a 35+ contract cause someone told him that’s what they thought.
If we think we’re being strangled by Randy Jones’ $2.8m cap hit, just wait until we have to deal with Pronger’s $5m hit after he retires — and at least Jones is playing some games while producing that hit!
I hope these interpretations are wrong, that what I am saying is dead wrong and I’m just overreacting, that somehow Homer has proof that this isn’t a 35+ contract or has something else up his sleeve, otherwise we’re winning within the next few seasons or forget about it for a long time.
by Ben Feldman on Jul 8, 2009 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would have been happier with three or four years, but this ain’t bad.
by Ben Rothenberg on Jul 7, 2009 6:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
3 or 4 years gives us a higher cap hit.
by SJPhillyVT on Jul 7, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a four year contract.
Thats why WIP is reporting that 29 of th 35 mil get paid over the first four years.
by MarioD on Jul 7, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Essentially, it’s a four year, $35 million deal. Adding extra years simply makes the cap hit manageable.
Snider is a gazillionaire and has no problem shelling out the bucks, and a $5M cap hit for Pronger is outstanding.
by TheRuckus on Jul 7, 2009 6:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i feel like i should pay them more…they just provide such great service
by Eric10689 on Jul 7, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It'll suck in the last couple years
if he’s retired, that’ll be a real albatross if no one takes him in a trade or he’s playing poorly. Lotta ifs though. As is, I’m happy with it.
by Alon on Jul 7, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone needs to chill out. As I mentioned above, there’s a reason the contract pays the vet minimum the last two years.
Whether he can retire, be bought out, or they have a handshake agreement that he’ll go on LTIR for the last couple years, it doesn’t matter. It’s very clear he’s not going to drag his body out there for $535k dollars at the age of 41, and he’s not going to count against the cap those years.
A physical d-man like Pronger is will be very easy to declare injured and place on LTIR.
by MarioD on Jul 8, 2009 12:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for writing this. Needed a slap in the face and a reminder that both Homer and Pronger are smart, classy guys. My head was sorta spinning pretty quickly after going through this plus I made the mistake of reading some comments on CSNPhilly.com and elsewhere, which, along with the hour, led me into the stereotypical “our team sucks even though it doesn’t” thing that we are all too familiar with.
by Ben Feldman on Jul 8, 2009 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least Homer didn’t forget how to send offers out to RFA’s and lose a bunch of cheap highly skilled players:
by MarioD on Jul 8, 2009 2:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you’re right, there is a reason: the flyers GM screwed up.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 8, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
either the flyers screwed up or the league screwed up. it’s one or the other. good luck.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 8, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does Pronger’s time of Birth factor into this if he was born before noon on June 30th maybe we are okay but a buyout of the last two years would cost practically nothing.
by chrislanci on Jul 8, 2009 12:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Atlantic Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Jersey
|
58 | 36 | 20 | 2 | 74 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
59 | 35 | 22 | 2 | 72 |
|
Philadelphia
|
57 | 29 | 25 | 3 | 61 |
|
New York Rangers
|
59 | 26 | 26 | 7 | 59 |
|
New York Islanders
|
58 | 23 | 27 | 8 | 54 |
(updated 2.9.2010 at 9:00 AM EST)
Flyers Schedule
Next 5 Games
|
@
New Jersey
|
Wed 02/10 | 7:00 PM EST |
|
Montreal
|
Fri 02/12 | 6:00 PM EST |
|
@
Montreal
|
Sat 02/13 | 7:00 PM EST |
|
@
Tampa Bay
|
Tue 03/02 | 7:30 PM EST |
|
@
Florida
|
Wed 03/03 | 7:30 PM EST |
Last 5 Games
|
New Jersey
|
Mon 02/08 | W 3 - 2 |
|
@
Minnesota
|
Sat 02/06 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Edmonton
|
Wed 02/03 | L 0 - 1 |
|
@
Calgary
|
Mon 02/01 | W 3 - 0 |
|
New York Islanders
|
Sat 01/30 | W 2 - 1 |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
