You Have Got To Be Joking
by Justin F. on Sep 25, 2011 12:13 AM EDT
Email
PrintConfession, I am not good with flowery language. Confession, I am a college student who does not make any money off writing about sports or knowing sports documents, here or elsewhere. But apparently I am more competent than Flyers GM Paul Holmgren and assistant GM and CBA specialist Barry Hanrahan. I downloaded the CBA and within five minutes, I knew something the Philadelphia Flyers did not know: As long as he is suspended, Jody Shelley does not count against the salary cap.
Article 50, Section 10 (c) of the NHL's Collective Bargaining Agreement reads as follows:
For Players that are suspended, by a Club or by the League, the Player Salary and Bonuses that are not paid to such Players shall not count against a Club's Upper Limit or against the Players' Share for the duration of the suspension, but the Club must have Payroll Room for such Player's Player Salary and Bonuses in order for such Player to be able to return to Play for the Club.
Translation, a suspended player (in this case, Jody Shelley) does not count against the NHL's salary cap as long as he is suspended. Seem simple enough? I downloaded the CBA and found that paragraph in five minutes.
You have got to be joking.
Fire Paul Holmgren. Fire Barry Hanrahan.
This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.
210 comments
|
Add comment
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
For all we know, Homer might not have anything to do with it. Hanrahan has a law degree, so Homer may trust him or whatever staff is supposed to help him. Hanrahan however doesn’t have any excuses for this foolishness.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 12:26 AM EDT reply actions
True. But still, I have other reasons for not wanting Holmgren on the club anymore. ;-)
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
That’s fine, I’m just not sure we can pin this one on him. He has too many other important things to deal with than reading the CBA, so that’s not in his job description.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t have twitter, and don’t understand who is saying what to whom above. There’s too many @’s
I'm kind of a dick.
Carchidi is quoting my tweet where I tell him Shelley does not count against the Cap as long as he is suspended. Carchidi responded to that by saying the Flyers disagree with me.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Gotcha. Just curious, what was the conversation that made you say that to him? Was he saying the Shelley does count against the cap?
I'm kind of a dick.
Yes. And the Flyers keep telling him that Shelley counts. But both the CBA and CapGeek’s archive from last year say otherwise.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions
The full conversation, as I’ve seen it:
9/22: Someone asks if Shelley counts on cap while suspended, Carchidi says yes. I disagree and link him to Capgeek as evidence.
9/23: Unasked, Carchidi announces that Shelley comes off the cap. I disagree again and link to Capgeek. Carchidi replies that his information comes from a Flyers official. I quote the CBA. He says it sounds like the Flyers erred.
9/24: Carchidi announces that the cap hit really does count, and the discussion above ensues.
My assumption is that sometime today he went back to the team with my CBA quote and they said I was wrong. If that’s what happened, I honestly don’t blame him here — the team ought to know better than some random blogger; they’re pretty much the most authoritative source he has. I think there’s some chance that somehow we’re all wrong, and some (larger) chance that the team has screwed it up yet again and that we should be really pissed at them.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Yea I saw the conversation play out earlier and I was laughing to myself. This guy gets paid by a major news organzation to report. Part of reporting or shall we say journalism is to research and FACT check. Either he is not very smart or really LAZY. He should just call Dragongirl for his ?’s on the CBA she knows more than him or the Flyers.
That would require people to notice me outside of this blog… Thus far that hasn’t gone so well
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Don’t feel bad, it took me a while too figure that stuff out. I have been on twitter for a while and at first I had no idea what was going on. It still can be confusing because some people do it one way, and others another way.
If you Re-tweet (RT) someone, put your comment first, then the RT; it’s the best way, since you are saying something, then including what someone else said.
G, the second coming of Foppa.
by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
The @’s mean those people are in the conversation. But Carchidi is copy & pasting what Justin said before posting his reply. So Justin said to him that Carchidi was wrong; Carchidi showed what Justin said to everybody else and tacked his response to Justin onto the end.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions
And this is easy with the screen shot to see this tweet is from Sam, and the quotes show the original message.
G, the second coming of Foppa.
by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand that Homer and his crew messed up the Hyka situation and may or may not understand the Shelly/suspention situation but isn’t “fire him” a little much? He obviously has an exceptional eye for finding late round talent (Powe FA, Gustafsson FA, Bobrovsky FA, Hyka 7, Akeson FA, Ranford 7, Eriksson 7, Hovinan FA). Yes it’s a major mistake for him not to know that he should take the European over the Canadian because you can’t sign a European FA under 22… but I don’t think this mistake is big enough to fire him. Big mistake—-he’ll learn from it and not let it happen again.
Just for the record if Hyka didn’t get an uncontested break away resuting SOLEY BECAUSE of a goaltending error and bury it, no one would really care. I was at that game and noticed something wierd at the end of a power play… the bench was tapping their sticks to notify the defenders that their PP was coming to a close—-because the goalie forgot. He didn’t tap his stick, the defenders were not able to react to Hyka coming out of the box in time, and he buried it. We of the small sample size clan can proove 1,000,000x over that seventh round picks weighing 165 pounds are a longshot to ever make an NHL roster let alone contribute. I get why everyone is mad, but fire him is a little much.
The Hyka debacle is merely a blemish on Paul Holmgren’s face of failure. 18-year olds come and go and if he never wears a Flyers jersey, I won’t sleep over it, no matter what becomes of his career. What bothers me is what caused the Hyka debacle, and that is a general misunderstanding of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. On top of that, his ability to understand the free agent market is piss poor at best.
Some examples of Holmgren’s incompetency: Remember the Bartulis incident last year where Anthony San Filippo had two members of the Flyers organization saying two completely different things in terms of Oscars Bartulis’s waiver situation? Messing up Talbot’s contract the first time around? The Talbot contract? The Pronger contract? The Bryzgalov contract? The JVR contract? The Pronger contract? The Timonen contract? The Briere contract? The Shelley contract? The Bryzgalov contract? The Timonen contract? The Richards trade? The Carter trade? The consistent trading away of draft picks? The barren farm system? Did I mention the Pronger and Bryzgalov contracts? DragonGirl may be right and this incident in particular is not Holmgren’s fault, but he has shown general incompetence far too often that whether or not this isolated incident is his fault, I want him fired anyway.
This from James Mirtle’s article yesterday on “Moneypuck” is very telling.
"You can see that there are a lot of decisions made every year – Philadelphia getting [Ilya] Bryzgalov, for one – that pretty much any analytics department would, 100 per cent, advise you against," [Gabriel] Desjardins said, referencing the Flyers netminder’s $51-million contract as an example of inefficient spending.Paul Holmgren is good at scouting players. That should be his job. His job should not be a general manager and I want him away from that position as soon as possible.
If you need me to go into further detail on any of the above examples, I will.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
The Richards trade? The Carter trade?
Those are the two I would disagree with. I don’t think Homer got fleeced on either of those trades. There’s a decent chance that at least one of Voracek or Couturier will be better players than Jeff Carter (as elite as he is, those are two elite prospects). Richards is a bit more of a maybe, because it relies on Schenn (love Simmer, but he’s not going to turn into Mike Richards).
If we delete those two parts of the list what are we left with? A whole lot of contracts and not a whole lot of trades. And that’s basically my view of Paul Holmgren. He’s probably above average at scouting out talent, he’s had some fine moments when trading personnel, he’s below average at handing out money-efficient contracts and he’s downright crap at cap management.
Now whether Hanrahan plays a part in this is anyone’s guess. The only thing is that we know that something is definitely wrong with this FO, and some personnel change, even if it is at the Assistant GM level, would be extremely reassuring right now. Considering having Shelley off the cap is such a key part of our early season strategy what with Couturier having a chance to have a brief NHL stint before returning to juniors, the FO should be on top of this. The fact that it appears that Carchidi quoted the CBA to the Flyers and was told he was wrong is frightening.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Sep 25, 2011 6:24 AM EDT up reply actions
What exactly does unused salary cap get you? Nothing. Sure, if Homer got the same players at less money, we’d all be happier. Hell, ticket prices might even be a buck or two cheaper. Would you like to be the Pittsburgh Pirates of the NHL? Nice, low payroll…but haven’t sniffed the playoffs in generations.
What exactly does unused salary cap get you? A chance to pick up players at the deadline when teams with one or two good players but no chance to make the playoffs are trying to make deals. It also gives you room to sign players to new deals when their ELCs expire. Next year, JvR’s deal will make things fun. Our roster for next year:
Hartnell-Briere-?
JvR-Giroux-?
Simmonds-Talbot-Nodl
Shelley-?-?
Timonen-Pronger
Meszaros-Bartulis
Lilja-???
Bryzgalov
Bobrovsky
$47.354 million in contracts, with the need to sign a first and second line winger, an entire fourth line (assuming we finally realize Shelley’s not worth dressing), and realistically three starting defensemen, plus the 13th and the 7th. Sure, Schenn can slide into one of those slots, which will take it up to $48.254 million (his cap hit during a bonus cushion year is only $900k). And OK, maybe you can use Sestito, Rinaldo, and Testwuide as a fourth line (although three rookies on the fourth line would scare the hell out of me). That’s another $2 million, so you’re at $50.254, and need to re-sign Carle and Coburn, plus find a first-line wing. It’s doable, but there are a lot of wasted resources, that’s not going to be a fourth line you can use, the third line’s passable but not really a shutdown line, and the five big defenseman contracts will limit flexibility until Pronger and/or Timonen come off the books.
Bob.
A chance to pick up players at the deadline
Kris Versteeg showed you how that can work the other way.
by OrangeNblacK on Sep 25, 2011 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
But it’s not like we’ve never made a good deal on deadline day. Coburn, for example, worked out just fine.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Touché, but I’d rather go into the season with a full roster with around 700k-1million spare—-anything more and I’d rather have a player
by OrangeNblacK on Sep 25, 2011 4:12 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The other issue to add here is the contracts down the road. Many people here (and in other places) think Bob will be a great starting goalie in a year or two, so many siad go get a good veteran for a two or three year deal to help mentor him, and then he takes over. No you have Bryz signed for 9 years, on a huge contract. Who’s going to want to trade for him with that? What if he’s just average the next two years and you want to dump him?
And the Flyers, while pushing the cap most years, almost always make the playoffs, so would having one or two lower price players kill that? And also leave more options during the season, IE being able to bring up a great player from AHL instead of a good one because the contract would fit with less $$ going out per day?
G, the second coming of Foppa.
by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Is Voracek a prospect? He’s played 3 full seasons, and has played more games than Giroux and JVR.
I'm kind of a dick.
Yep what kinda I meant was two players who are/were elite prospects. Voracek isn’t a prospect, but he can develop into an elite player.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Sep 25, 2011 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Elite? I wouldnt go that far, but I think he can become what Gagne was his final 2-3 years in Philly.
Team Kafka.
"When life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons, what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!" - Cave Johnson
Guess you have low expectations. Voracek, in my view, has got real potential to be a star winger.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Sep 28, 2011 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions
The Pronger contract?
He’s the 21st top paid defender in the league, sounds like a bargain to me. Later on, when his play declines we’ll see how Homer handles the situation.
The Bryzgalov contract?
Everyone and their mother knew that Snider made that move happen. Bryz had a $$$ value and Snider said pay him.
The JVR contract?
How can you make a judgement on a contract that doesn’t even kick in for ten months. If JVR drops 35 goals this year we are going to be singing Homer’s praises on that signing. He made a major gamble, lets at least wait and see if it pays off.
The Timonen contract? The Briere contract?
In one year we went from the worst team in hockey to the Eastern Conference Finals. How is that bad? Does Briere make 1-2 million too much? Probably. Does Kimmo Timonen make 1-2 million too much? Probably. Have these guys been major cornerstones and fan favorites since the day they were signed?
Homer does have some flaws as a GM regarding his knowledge of the CBA and his valuation of the market—-but we have a team that can win the cup year in and year out. We just got much younger, faster, and bigger. In his four years as a GM we have won the Atlantic, the East, made another ECF and lost to the Stanley Cup Champions three years in a row (and four years ago we lost to the Eastern Conference championshions).
by OrangeNblacK on Sep 25, 2011 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think the Pronger contract will look like a bargain when he’s 42 and retired and still counting 4.9M against the cap.
You can’t evaluate a 7-year deal that starts when the guy is 36 on whether he looks underpaid in year 2. Especially when he’s getting 7.6M that year and only looks cheap because of a bunch of years at the end of the deal that he won’t play but will still count against the cap.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Good lord, Pronger has a seven year deal and we’re only on year 2? I’ve heard (read) you all complaining about Pronger’s contract since I started following the Flyers last year, but I never looked it up. Holy crap.
Ok. I’ll go back to the rock I live under now. :)
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 25, 2011 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, the team thought they were signing one of these clever cap-circumventing back-loaded contracts.
But they didn’t read the CBA well enough to understand that it’s a 35+ deal, and so it’s going to stay on their cap even if he retires. Oops.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Aaaand that’s when (and why) I started reading the CBA.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d bet a lot saying that if Pronger is not a Flyer for his full deal—-we won’t have to pay him (or Bryz for that matter) some how.
by OrangeNblacK on Sep 25, 2011 3:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Not unless Holmgen is as good a GM as you and some others seem to think. Who’s taking that money on?
G, the second coming of Foppa.
by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
The only hope is a trade. And no one in their right fucking mind is going to trade for Pronger.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Florida? Or any other team that needs to reach the floor for that matter. He’s making 500K in reality, but will be worth nearly 5 against the cap.
by OrangeNblacK on Sep 25, 2011 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not the size of the hit as a player, it is the length and that the Flyers will be stuck with it when he decides to retire.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
And what 42-year old hockey players garner a huge cap hit?
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Nick Lidstrom
he will be 42 in April
So I believe Lidstrom and Pronger are top 5 of all time. So thats two out of 5. I dare say Chellios is probably in top 10 of all time maybe top 7 but lets say top 10. So thats 20% of the top ten NHL defensemen that have played til 42 or more. So if Pronger does it that will be 33%. Paul Coffey who is somewhere near top 10 played til 40. So that would be 40% of the greatest defensemen played til they were 40.
Lidstrom will only count as 42 if he plays another year after this. Due to the age definitions of contracts, Lidstrom is 41 for this entire year. If he retires this season, he’ll never play as a 42 year old.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions
For example, Chris Pronger will be 37 in about 2 weeks. But he will officially be 36 until June 30th.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions
According to the CBA, his birthday doesn’t matter. He is 41 until June 30th.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions
But it doesn’t count to the league, so he’ll never qualify as a 42 year old defenseman.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Unless he plays another year, like I said above.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions
But that’s not the definition under the CBA and that is not what we are going by.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
It’s not Justin’s fault that we’re making our calculations of who is 40 by the league’s rules. Lidstrom will not be 42 until after the regular season is complete.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Due to the age definitions of contracts
The whole conversation around age is centered around age definition of the CBA. It’s the league’s fucked up rule and in the context that of these discussions, that is what we have to go by.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Oh, for the record, Paul Coffey was 39 years old when he played his final game. Biologically 39 mind you, he didn’t turn 40 until June 1st and he didn’t play in a single post season game.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions
You realize that if Pronger plays until the age of 40, that means two years where he’s not playing and still counting 4.9M against the cap, right?
Your claim is that he’s going to play out the whole contract. Citing players who played until there was only a year or two left on the deal doesn’t support that claim.
Only one of the top ten defensemen of all time played until 42. Less than half even played until 40. I don’t see how you’re going to get to “Pronger will play this out” on historical comparables; it seems like you have to add some wishful thinking in to arrive at that conclusion.
The contract was originally structured in a way that screamed “retire at 39 or 40”, with tiny salaries the last two years and the team not realizing it counted as a 35+ deal. He’s had a rash of injuries and surgeries since then. I can’t prove that he won’t play until 42, but it seems crazy to believe that it’s the most likely outcome.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Let’s also point out that Lidstrom is playing at age 41 for $6.2 million, or 1,080% the minimum wage.
If Pronger plays at age 41 – let alone age 42, the final year of his contract – he’ll be doing it for $525,000, or (presumably) less than the minimum wage.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 26, 2011 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Define “a lot”
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Sep 25, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Can’t we just give him the Rathje treatment instead of having him retire?
by philiafan14364 on Sep 25, 2011 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
The Flyers were still paying for Rathje, if I’m not mistaken. He was a scratch for a year and a half.
G, the second coming of Foppa.
by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Rathje was on LTIR. If we can proove that an injury caused his not being able to perform—-we could Ratje him (or “Lappy” him, whichever you prefer)
by OrangeNblacK on Sep 25, 2011 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
And essentially he wouldn’t count vs. the cap
by OrangeNblacK on Sep 25, 2011 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Its funny why do people think he is just going to retire without a reason. I doubt he is just going to retire for no reason. If there is a reason he can’t play than he just gets LTIR.
You can’t go on LTIR just because you’re old; there has to be an injury that renders you unfit to play.
People think he will retire without being injured at some point because most people don’t play until they’re 42. And even if he does, he probably won’t be worth $4.9M at that age.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
I never said he can go on LTIR because he is old. What makes you think he will not honor his contract?
People think he will retire without being injured at some point because most people don’t play until they’re 42. And even if he does, he probably won’t be worth $4.9M at that age.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Number of defensemen who have played at age 42 since the lockout: 1.
One other, the mighty Tommy Albelin, played at the age of 41.
You’re right that we don’t know for sure, but it seems unlikely that he will play for $525k at the age of 41 and 42 and be worth $4.9M.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Lidstrom, Chellios why does it have to be a small size of after the lookout why not in the league. Why limit it too defensemen?
Do you really think it’s more likely than not that Pronger will play at a very high level at age 42 for $525k?
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
I really honestly hand to the bible if you believe that kind of thing don’t know. I will tell you this I have been watching him play for his whole carrer, and he might be top 5 of all time. I know you might disagree and thats fine but I don’t see why he cannot play into his 40’s. Not only play but at a high level maybe not ’98 level but very solid.
Yeah, obviously you don’t know. But if you only evaluate things after you know for sure, then we can’t talk about anything except the past.
Sometimes you have to go out on a limb and make your best guess. I agree that Pronger is one of the all-time greats, but very few — even of the all-time greats — play until 42, and even fewer do it for less than 1/10 of the salary they pulled down a couple years earlier. Thus, it seems the safest guess would be that he won’t play this one out.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Once again Chris Chellios did it and was still great at 42 and played until 47 or so. The funny thing is you are doing the same thing I am guessing because I don’t care how educated you are its still a guess.
Yes, I am definitely guessing. We’re trying to predict the future, obviously we don’t know for sure.
But when only one defenseman in the last 35 years has played at the age of 42, it seems like the smart money would be on a guy not playing for $525k at that age.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Then I suggest looking.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 25, 2011 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t even know if he will be a Flyer 5 years from now. Anything can happen in the new CBA. The rules could be totally different who knows.
He might get a sex change, join the WNBA, average 40 points a game and win three championships, and be the first player elected to two halls of fame. Who knows?
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Nobody is talking about the CBA.
Only one guy in 35 years has played at the age of 42, and he did it for $700k, 40% more than the minimum wage.
You see that and say “yeah, so I see no reason why Chris Pronger can’t play at age 42 for $525k, or less than the minimum wage.”
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 25, 2011 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Chris Pronger will A) play his contract out unless he is injured and gets LTIR or B) If barring injury he plays it out it will be at a above average level.
Well, I just want you to know why you were called a homer.
The entire claim reminds me of:
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 25, 2011 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
You can call me what you like. Is that suppose to hurt me? I love how people call each other a name when they have no idea who that person is. For that matter call someone a name and have never met them.
No, it’s not supposed to hurt you. But if you think people “have no idea who” I am, because they never met me, or who Eric is, or who Travis is, or who CoburnsCuddleBuddy is, I think you’re mistaken.
With all I’ve learned from this conversation, you’re either a homer, or you’re a homer on Chris Pronger. I don’t need to know you to describe a position of yours.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 25, 2011 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I have no position. I call it as I see it. Why do you have to have a position?? What does that mean?? Does that mean I have to be for or against 100% of the time? I don’t always agree with what they do but I also don’t always disagree. Is that bad? I am not sure where you are going with the first paragraph so you will have to help me out on that one.
You have to have a position, or you wouldn’t be arguing. Your belief, what you’re arguing for, is your ‘position’. Your most recent position in this thread of the argument is that you don’t see a reason why Pronger can’t play until he’s 42.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
obviously on that I gave my position other wise you would not know that I believe he can play til 42. I wait for things to happen and then form my opinion. Is that a position?? That is my position then. I don’t think everything they do is right or everything is wrong. Is that bad? Is that wrong?
Your allowed to have your opinion, I merely said that you do have a position that you are representing. I was contesting your statement that you had no position.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t mean to snap I have just can’t believe that you cannot have a different opinion around here. Or if you do that means your a Homer or you don’t know what your talking about. I have been around hockey longer than some of these guys have been alive.
You can have a different opinion, the trick is to be able to support it with evidence or a compelling argument. Geoff and Eric have provided statistical evidence of their position, which is that based on precedent the likelihood of Pronger playing at age 42 is highly unlikely; so they expect you to create an equally compelling argument in return. But their position is partly rooted in the fact that at the time Pronger signed on the dotted line, he may have had absolutely no intention of actually playing at age 42. That is the root of the problem, because the team had no idea how the CBA would affect their contract offer, and thus both sides could have made that agreement under false assumptions. Your position is based on the notion that Pronger will play at that age even if he didn’t initially intend to do so. You’re entitled to that opinion, but it doesn’t necessarily jive with the original intent of the conversation.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions
When they got into the convo. it was already moved away from its or
oigin.
But their position is partly rooted in the fact that at the time Pronger signed on the dotted line, he may have had absolutely no intention of actually playing at age 42.
How can I argue that. It is not fact because it has not been proven. There is no stats that I can use. That is their speculation that cannot be supported by fact. That is their OPINION, what makes their opinion more valid than mine. Do you see what I am saying?
also so because I don’t agree with you I am either a “Homer” or a “Homer on Chris Pronger” (what ever that means). So does that mean that all these people who always agree with you are Geoff Homers or a homer of Geoff Detweiler?
No, it means anybody who is presented evidence that what they are saying has only happened once in 35 years is not thinking rationally.
People are encouraged to disagree with me. But they are also encouraged to think rationally.
Since 1974, only one defenseman has played to the age of 42. Saying Chris Pronger will be the second, when accounting for how little money he’ll be making in back-to-back years, and how many surgeries he’s already had, is such an unlikely position as to stray away from merely ‘disagreeing’ and into ‘homer’.
If you can’t see the distinction, I don’t know how to make it any clearer.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 26, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I do get it though Geoff, you have to have a negative slant because thats what gets people here and reading. If it was happy everything is great here then it would look like the CANNON.
I don’t have to have a negative slant at all. In fact, from February to May, I was one of the very few to have a positive slant on the Flyers.
Further, I don’t think pointing out that 1 person in 35 years playing at age 42 for 40% more than the league minimum is being negative. It makes it ridiculously unlikely that Chris Pronger becomes the 2nd player in two years and the 2nd player in 35 years to play at age 42, for less than the league minimum.
Just because you think that miniscule chance is possible doesn’t mean disagreeing with it is negative. It means it’s realistic.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 25, 2011 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions
First off it seems everything they do of late has a negative slant. Second the posts started out as me saying that Pronger would either honor his contract or be LTIR’d. I don’t believe he will retire and leave the Flyers in a bad spot. That was how this started. People think he is just going to retire and screw the team. I said that won’t happen.
This thread started with a conversation about mistakes the team has made with the CBA. It’s really hard for that topic not to have a negative slant, but it’s also rooted in fact because we can show situations where their lack of understanding has put them into difficult situations. We can also reference team-issued statements where they admit things were an oversight or a misunderstanding. Based on what we have heard from those statements, we believe that team did not intend to have Pronger’s contract be a 35+ contract, and would not be subject to the rules that prevent him from retiring. Thus, at the time they signed the contract, both Pronger and the team appeared to be of the belief that he would have the option of retiring without consequence, only to find out later than an oversight meant that that was no longer possible.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree that they make mistakes. I don’t agree that they signed him and didn’t realize there was a 35+ rule. I believe that they think he will honor his contract and if he doesn’t it will be because of injury. I don’t believe that he will just say I retire and screw the team. Sorry I don’t believe they did not know he was 35+ or that they did not know there was a rule.
Per Darren Dreger of TSN, we got this nugget at the time of the signing:
The Flyers disagree and interpret the CBA language governing the “over 35” clause differently.So we had at least one report that indicated the Flyers lawyers didn’t agree with the NHL’s interpretation of the rule.
Sources say the Flyers’ lawyers are now aware of the league’s stance and are debating this issue
At the time, some people didn’t want to believe that the Flyers didn’t know the terms of the CBA, but over time as more mistakes were proven, more people have begun to consider the idea that they may have made a mistake initially.
Pronger said in his original press conference that he wasn’t sure how far into his 40’s he planned to play:
"I’d love to finish my career here and I probably could. I don’t know if I want to play as long as Chris Chelios, but I certainly feel like I could.That was said before the extension was signed, but it adds an interesting dimension.
We can’t know for 100% certainty, but we have definite reason to suspect that they didn’t believe it would be the case, no matter what they said when they initially found out it was 35+.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions
We can’t know for 100% certainty, but we have definite reason to suspect that they didn’t believe it would be the case, no matter what they said when they initially found out it was 35+.
You can’t know for sure exactly. He even says he feels like he could play as long as Chellios that is 47.
Did you look at the Dreger quotes before that?
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions
I certainly hope that was sarcasm.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
not sure what you mean i am going back and forth with you and justin so i am doing this very fast what did i miss
Look at my post, then. A very well respected TSN reporter quoted his sources that the Flyers lawyer’s disagreed with the NHL’s interpretation of the 35+ rule and felt it didn’t apply to the Pronger contract. That should certainly raise suspicion that they didn’t understand it.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
i don’t know I see no source but the guy who is printing it. I see what Pronger himself says and to me it sounds like he wants to play and intends to play into his 40’s
That would be why I linked the actual TSN article. If you expect every source to be printed with their name, then you can never read any article about the NHL because they almost never are. That’s the nature of the industry.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions
I expect if you are ? a teams front office then you better come with a source. Like I said I don’t doubt the Flyers have made mistakes, I just don’t think on this particular one they did. I just showed you 4 out of the top 10 dmen that played til at least 40 and another one that played til a month before. I think Pronger can do it.
Do you think that means anything. Could it possibly mean that the better dmen can be good as they get older and therefore play longer because they were better than most to begin with
He had a source, he just isn’t allowed to name him. Stop pretending that sources give their names to the media when they’re reporting things like a team pushing back at the NHL when they disagree. That’s delusional.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe the fact that one is respected and the other isn’t. Darren Dreger is not a hack with a reputation for making things up. His source, whether within the Flyers front office or within league headquarters, has an extremely high probably of being completely legit. He works for TSN and hockey fans trust him, he doesn’t hide behind an assumed name and write for a blog.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:39 AM EDT up reply actions
A blog that most people don’t take seriously mind you. Or at least they don’t take what Eklund writes seriously, Meltzer is fine. But Meltzer also writes periodically for the Flyers official website, which gives him a degree of credibility that Eklund doesn’t have.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions
It was a joke. Listen like I said from the begining you have your opinion and I have mine. Did you see my post about the players its 3 up. Read the last paragraph and tell me what u think
Yes, I see that you listed 4 players who played into their 40s. Unfortunately one of them is Pronger, who isn’t 40 yet. So that leaves you with 3. Only 1 of those has played at age 42, whether biologically or by league rules.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions
okay well then I guess I suck. Only 33% or 40% if Pronger makes it or 50 if you count Coffey. So even if you just take Lidstrom and chellios thats 20% of the top dmen. I dont think that is that bad
Coffey never played a game at 40, I don’t see how you can try to count him. Ray Bourque I am allowing you to count, even though he was 39 by league rules, he played half a season at 40 as his 40th birthday was on December 28th of his final season. Lidstrom, who will not be 42 until the second round of the playoffs this season, and Chelios who I would not personally claim is a top 10 elite defenseman but I’ll let it slide since you think so, are your only legs to stand on. And Lidstrom doesn’t use his body the way Pronger does, so his longevity and health could theoretically be better than Pronger’s when he reaches that age. I think it is unfair to make a comparison that “30%-50%” of the situations are applicable to a guy who will play the entirely of his final season at age 42 biologically. That is nearly two years beyond Borque retirement age, two and a half years beyond Coffey’s, and unless Lidstrom plays another year, a year beyond Lidstrom. I feel it is closer to 10%-20% are applicable, because there is a distinct difference between age 39 1/2 and age 42, especially for a guy who has been playing a rough style of play in the NHL continuously since he was 18 years old. But that is my opinion.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree with that. I think Chelios is top 10 all day. Now his game was a lot like Pronger and he played til 47 or so. Lidstrom was more physical in his younger days but has more mileage than Pronger. The last part of that sentence I am not sure but said because of many playoff games he has played. Pronger played on some not so good Blues teams early on that didn’t play as many playoff games
OK, if you don’t like limiting it to the salary cap era:
Only four defensemen have played at the age of 42 in the modern era. Only one since Tim Horton retired in 1974.
Why limit it to defensemen? Because forwards seem to age more gracefully than defensemen — a whopping eight of them have played at the age of 42 in the modern era.
You’re right that we can’t know the future for sure. But it sure seems unlikely that he’s going to play at the age of 42 for $525k.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Every defenseman to play age 42 or older – Chelios, Doug Harvey, Tim Horton, Allan Stanley. That’s four. In the entire history of the NHL. And Doug Harvey managed an entire two games at that age.
Add forwards, and you’re up to twelve players total – add in Messier, Gordie Howe, Recchi, Bucyk, Andreychuk, Gary Roberts, Larionov, and Frank Boucher.
The odds don’t look too good on this one.
Bob.
Well, Rathje was on LTIR with chronic back issues and Pronger just had a disk taken out of his, so its not exactly a stretch.
by philiafan14364 on Sep 26, 2011 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
And that would be an actual injury.
People think he will retire without being injured at some point because most people don’t play until they’re 42.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 26, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
So, if we can bullshit him onto LTIR after he stops being useful, what’s the problem?
I thought it was assumed all along that he was going to end up being Rathje 2.0 somehow…
by philiafan14364 on Sep 26, 2011 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
If he goes on LTIR, things are fine (it’s a little bit of a pain, but worth the discount they got on him for the part of the deal that he played out).
But this whole conversation was about Mattx’s belief that Pronger is going to play out the whole deal unless some crippling injury forces him to retire.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Seems to me he already has sustained that crippling injury. Back problems aren’t exactly a good sign of longevity.
by philiafan14364 on Sep 26, 2011 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think the Pronger contract will look like a bargain when he’s 42 and retired and still counting 4.9M against the cap.
Exactly. Everything about that contract is absolutely terrible. The Flyers thought they were being cute, were ignorant to what was a 35+ contract, and have screwed the team royally until the contract expires.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Everything about that contract is absolutely terrible
That is a ridiculous statement. Everyone on this site would agree with me that he will play up to his value this year and for hopefully a year or two after. The first few years of the contract work out favorably for the Flyers. Like I said before he’s the 21st highest paid (against the cap) among defenders. Can you name 20 better defenders? Because I can’t. Cap hit is all about relativity, and 21st in the league is relatively awesome.
by OrangeNblacK on Sep 25, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
And then it is going to be relatively a gigantic skidmark on the underwear known as Paul Holmgren’s reign as General Manger of the Philadelphia Flyers in a 2-3 years. Maybe sooner if injuries continue to derail him this season like last season.
They are trapped with this contract until July 2017. And a trade is not bloody likely.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Can’t we just give him the Rathje treatment instead of having him retire?
by philiafan14364 on Sep 25, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
If he plays it out and remains a solid player and we win a cup or two how does it look. You are crying about something that has not happened yet. At least wait and see what happens. IF it goes badly then worry about it. Right now he has at least two or three more years of solid play, who knows what will happen.
You hope he has that much time; with the injuries last year, you can’t say that with too much certainty.
G, the second coming of Foppa.
by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
If he plays it out and remains a solid player and we win a cup or two how does it look. You are crying about something that has not happened yet. At least wait and see what happens.
By this logic, you can’t criticize or praise any moves except in retrospect. It seems like nonsense to say that we can’t do any real-time or forward-looking analysis, only analyze in hindsight.
In fact, although you won’t let people criticize the Pronger deal even when he’s entering his second year of the deal and injured for the second time, you were willing to praise the JvR signing before his contract even started. So the sense I get isn’t that you’re unwilling to evaluate moves before they play out, but that you’re unwilling to criticize them — that in effect, you’re going to trust that everything the team does is great until/unless proven otherwise. This seems more like homerism than rational analysis to me.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
by Eric T. on Sep 25, 2011 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wow I am so glad you Know MY BRAIN so well. I was commenting on the fact that it is speculation right or wrong that is all it is. I could easily say the same with what you are saying except backwards. Lets criticize every move and never trust anything the does. But you know what I have got more class than to question your fandom or call you a non fan or whatever the opposite of homer would be:)
But you know what I have got more CLASS than to question your fandom or call you a non fan or whatever the opposite of homer would be
Please. Enlighten me. What is CLASS? How is one CLASSY? Because from where I sit, whenever someone calls themself CLASSY or claims that they have CLASS, they are filling the blog space with sanctimonious bullshit and statements that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Read what I said.
I did not call you a name either.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
But you, on the other hand, continue to call yourself CLASSY. Like it actually means something.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I have got more class than to question your fandom
You = CLASSY
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I don’t name call
You really are not good at arguments.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Okay this is getting ridiculous
The words “CLASSY” and “CLASS” are the bane of my existence. I can’t stand those words, they are overused like crazy, and mean absolutely nothing. You implied to Eric that you had more CLASS than to question fandom. Me not liking that word, told you what I think of that word. (And for the record, yes I did read the 10,000 references to CLASS in Chemistry66’s post on Wayne Simmonds and the subsequent comments and while each one in their own right made my blood boil, that is not the place for me to respond to that; you will notice in my comment I refrained from that terrible word which means nothing)
I said referring to oneself as classy (which you did in your reply to Eric) is sanctimonious bullshit (which it is). You replied with “I don’t name call,” inferring that I called you a name. I did not, I said referring to oneself ad “CLASSY” is sanctimonious bullshit, but that is my description of an action, not a description of you. You said you did not call yourself CLASSY. I showed you where you did. You were still confused that I said “I did not call you a name either,” and wondering where you said you did. By saying “I don’t name call,” as you did, it is a rather clear implication you think the other person is name-calling. And like I already stated, I described your action, I did not describe you. Last I checked, that is not “name-calling” someone.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
That is your Opinion. I don’t name call sorry I don’t think that is classy.
Hey look! He capitalizes “opinion” just like Flyerrob always did!
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 26, 2011 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
And why shouldn't I reply to you with
If he plays it out and remains does not turn out to be a solid player and we do not win a cup or two how does it look. You are crying celebrating about something that has not happened yet. At least wait and see what happens.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Oops, meant to strike crying and italicize celebrating. You get the point — it goes both ways.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
You can thats why this place is great. I can have an opinion and so can you. Thats all they are. One is not better because we don’t have crystal balls so its all speculation.
But you said I couldn’t have my opinion, that we have to wait and see how it plays out before we cry about it.
That’s what I’m objecting to in this line of discussion, but it sounds like you’re taking that back here.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Does Kimmo Timonen make 1-2 million too much?
This is where those front-loaded contracts get weird, though. Is Kimmo’s cap hit 1-2 million too much this season? Maybe. Is his $5M actual salary more than he’s worth? Not in my opinion.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I respectfully disagree with you regarding Holmgren. Of the examples you cite, only the Shelley contract stands out as terrible. But I agree that Hanrahan may be a greater detriment to the team than people realize. He is allegedly educated in sports management and was brought here from Tampa as assistant to the general manager. I take that to mean assisting Homer with special regard to salary cap management and CBA interpretation, the kind of help that Homer needs. But Hanrahan seems to be unable to understand free agent definitions, waiver eligibilties, LTIR exemptions, and so on. In the Hyka Debacle, he essentially admits he didn’t understand the CBA well enough, asked the league for clarification (which the league provided), and yet he continued to misunderstand. How many times has Hanrahan done this kind of thing? I think it’s time for Holmgren to reevaluate the FO.
If I go back through the BSH archives and count the the number of times we’ve called them out for CBA mistakes; the number would be higher than I want to think about. For my own sanity, I’m not doing to do it.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
The Randy Jones failure to trade was one that really pissed me off. Set off a real chain reaction that season.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
:)
One I’ve documented many times.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 25, 2011 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Yep, but people seem to selectively forget about it. This team just can’t manage the cap (STILL) and it’s pretty unforgiveable at this point. I honestly don’t know if firing Holmgren will totally solve the problem, as we still don’t have transparency on how much Snider involves himself in the proceedings. If I had to guess, I’d say more than we think.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
We don’t know if firing Holmgren will solve the problem, but Hanrahan should be on the chopping block first. Some of this stuff seems more obvious to us because I have done so much of the work. But if I suddenly started misinterpreting things, it wouldn’t be all Travis’ fault for trusting me to do my job, he could only be blamed if he neglected to remove me once I started screwing up.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed entirely.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 25, 2011 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
And despite consistent screw-ups, Homer continues to neglect to remove Hanrahan of his duties.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Whether Homer can fire his assistant GM I don’t know; that really should fall on Luukko, but whoever can fire him really needs to.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Or (playing devil’s advocate here) cut his other responsibilities so he can actually focus on CBA and cap issues. Hanrahan’s just listed as an Assistant GM, so it’s entirely possible he’s doing plenty of other stuff.
Bob.
Or even shift Hanrahan’s responsibilities and hire an additional CBA guru. They’ve gotta do something, though.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that’d work too. I’m just trying to say that “fire Hanrahan” may not be the most desirable response. He might be very good at other GMing duties; he might even be good at the CBA if given time to focus on it. I just don’t think we have enough information on how the FO works to know for sure.
Bob.
Of course the sky is falling! Have you heard about the Phillies? They’re doomed!
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 25, 2011 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
For a second I thought I was on the Eagles game thread.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Sep 25, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree, just think (especially in the Flyers case) the small things start to add up. Let’s say Hyka ends up being “the next Giroux”; what have the Flyers done to help themselves get him?
1. Forgot about him in the 3rd or 4th round.
2. Chose a “tough guy” in the 7th when they remembered him.
3. Brought major attention to him with their screw ups about the CBA in the past week.
So basically though three small (in)decisions, they have not acquired him and given everyone in the league a look at his potential. Now the draft comes next year and someone picks him before you and you have lost a good quality player.
End of the world? No. But at any of those stages they could have played it better and made the team stronger, versus having one of your opponents pick him up and make themselves the better team. And what if next time it’s not just the next G, but someone better?
G, the second coming of Foppa.
by JerseyDriver on Sep 25, 2011 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
This one is great. Ok the Flyers made a mistake. The fact is though that there has been a grey area on this and it has not been consistent. But yea they probably made a mistake.
Now every other team passed on this guy. At least the Flyers brought him in and took a look. The guy has one goal. It was nice but is was more a brian fart by the Leafs and a great pass. If the Flyers don’t bring him in you still have NO idea who he is.
Yea they brought attention too him but at least you know who he is. If the Flyers did not bring him in you have no idea who he is and you have nothing to bitch about. Who’s to say if the Flyers did not bring him in that they would have drafted him next year.
I’m confused about the “grey” area thing; no 18 year old Europeans who have never played in NA have been allowed to sign before. All the examples that I have seen people have cite that make them think this is a gray area aren’t correct; because they usually fall elsewhere within the rules and don’t match Hyka. Not being allowed to sign European players who match Hyka’s situation and career path has been a consistent ‘no’.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 25, 2011 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions
As I stated above I agree a mistake was made. The “grey area” is all the confusing jargon in the CBA that I don’t think has anything to with Homer. People are saying this is a mistake, I agree but I think they are blamming the wrong guy. They pay one guy to know this stuff if he doesn’t than he is the problem not the entire organazation. Now if you want to say well the organazation hired him and pays him that is fair, but maybe they are looking for a replacement. I would think if I was in charge I would be, how many times are you going to look foolish. I just don’t think its fair for Homer to take the blame when its not his fault.
After consistent screw-ups, shouldn’t Hanrahan be held responsible from Holmgren? And if he does not, then doesn’t the blame lay on Homer as well for failing to remove someone who has given him bad information multiple times?
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Well this thread blew up more than I expected it too. I gotta do some reading about the biology of adolescence. Yay for reading about puberty!
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Matt,
It sounds like I really offended you by calling you a homer. I apologize for that; I meant no offense.
The definition on urban dictionary, “someone who shows blind loyalty to a team or organization, typically ignoring any shortcomings or faults they have,” is roughly what I was going for. You have said that I called your fandom into question, but surely that is not what I intended — I don’t think one can be a homer without being a big fan of the team.
All I meant by it is that I think your desire to see the team do well was leading you to excessive optimism about their moves. Step away from the names and think about it dispassionately: what would you say to someone who said “I don’t care that TSN reported the team fought the NHL about the contract; I think they knew what it meant all along”? Or to someone who said “I don’t care that only one defenseman in the last 35 years has played until the age of 42; I think ours is going to”?
Do a quick google search of “Pronger 35 contract”. Click links from a half-dozen or so different publications — a mix of local and non-local. Go to another team’s site — say, Pension Plan Puppets or Japer’s Rink — and ask their relatively unvested members whether they expect Pronger to play out the whole deal or whether they think the Flyers knew it was a 35+ contract when it was signed. I think you’ll find that it’s almost universally agreed that the team didn’t understand the deal when they signed it and that it is likely to really hurt the team.
You can see why that might lead me to believe that someone who is a fan of the team and is passionately arguing that he will play the deal out is having their perceptions twisted by a desire to see the team succeed.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Can’t we just agree that the Pronger deal is gonna suck regardless? Pronger isn’t physically built like Lindstrom to be supper effective at that age. His build and his play style will take a much bigger toll on his body. Even IF he does play out his contract, he will essentially be a $4.5 mill 5th or 6th guy.
Team Kafka.
"When life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons, what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!" - Cave Johnson
Can’t we just agree that the Pronger deal is gonna suck regardless?
No
by OrangeNblacK on Sep 26, 2011 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
CBA Question about Pronger
If Pronger does officially retire, with years left on his contract, say at age 40 or even 38, he no longer gets paid, yet he still counts against the cap. Can his rights then be traded away so that a salary floor team can take the cap hit without paying a penny?
It’s probably a moot point, because I can’t imagine the league and/or NHLPA would let it happen, but I’m curious about the answer too.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Yea, it absolutely wreaks of circumvention. I guess we’ll have our answer in 3 or 4 years.
by hebrew hammer on Sep 26, 2011 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
We kind of already talked about this, but I’m sure they wouldn’t be able to trade his rights after he retires. If he was traded and retires right away it would certainly trigger Circumvention under Article 26. The fact that Pronger’s contract is already labeled as suspicious and was grandfathered into prevent it from being nullified makes me feel that any retirement before age 42 by Pronger is going to be thoroughly analyzed by the league.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
makes me feel that any retirement before age 42 by Pronger is going to be thoroughly analyzed by the league.
Including a Lappy-type retirement?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 26, 2011 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought the question was about actually retiring, not about indefinite LTIR. Indefinite LTIR all they can really do is push for second opinions of doctors to confirm that he really can’t play.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 26, 2011 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that’s my own individual question.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Sep 26, 2011 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m too lazy to update the post but because it was just discovered the Flyers were right and I was wrong I will apologize.
Sorry guys! kisses.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I think we should get a whole bunch of recs on this so it goes to the top of the list :D
Mourning Gagne forever.
I was wondering why all of a sudden this post got a rec. ;-)
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
- Adam Henrique sends New Jersey Devils to Stanley Cup Final with OT goal vs. Rangers (VIDEO)
