DEAL VOIDED BY ARBITRATOR! Kovalchuk re-signs in Jersey: $102M over 17 years

shabbs wrote:

Amnesia021 wrote:

shabbs wrote:Pronger's contract certainly has the look cap circumvention...

$33.4M over the first 5 years and $1.05M over the last two years.

Big difference though is that if Pronger decides that playing for two years on a 525,000 salary is not worth it, so he retires, the flyers will still be left with a massive Cap hit for those years...

Yes, this is true... but the subtle difference is that without those two years added on, the cap hit is $6.89M. With them, it's $4.921. It saves them some room.

If the Flyers were not aware of the 35+ rule they they screwed themselves even more as the hit remains.

The key issue the NHL has is artificially extending contracts to bring the cap hit down and front loading them, knowing full well the player won't play those last few years and will get their money up front.

The 35-and-Older Clause:

* When a player aged 35 or older signs a multi-year contract, his average salary is counted against the team's salary cap during every year of the contract, even if the player retires before the contract is up.
* If the player is sent to the minor leagues, his cap hit is reduced by $100,000.

Counting the Cap:

* Team salary expenditures are calculated on a daily basis from the first day to the final day of the NHL regular season.
* A team is in compliance if it has not already exceeded the cap for the season, and if it could carry its current roster without exceeding the cap at the end of the season.
* Counted against the cap: All players on the active roster, injured reserve or the long-term injured list. Players who have left the team on a contract buyout, according to a formula that charges a percentage of the buyout against the cap.
* Not counted against the cap?: Players assigned to the minors or returned to junior hockey after signing an NHL contract.

shabbs wrote:Would just love to know if they totally forgot about the 35+ rule...

Dash wrote:I believe though the Flyers could waive Pronger if he was to retire, and then assign him to the minors, where he could retire and be off the NHL cap, I believe. i'll look into it.

Dash wrote:Yeah I saw that, as I quoted in my earlier post. But if they retire from the AHL...

RobbyJ wrote:

shabbs wrote:

Amnesia021 wrote:

shabbs wrote:Pronger's contract certainly has the look cap circumvention...

$33.4M over the first 5 years and $1.05M over the last two years.

Big difference though is that if Pronger decides that playing for two years on a 525,000 salary is not worth it, so he retires, the flyers will still be left with a massive Cap hit for those years...

Yes, this is true... but the subtle difference is that without those two years added on, the cap hit is $6.89M. With them, it's $4.921. It saves them some room.

If the Flyers were not aware of the 35+ rule they they screwed themselves even more as the hit remains.

The key issue the NHL has is artificially extending contracts to bring the cap hit down and front loading them, knowing full well the player won't play those last few years and will get their money up front.

It saves them room now, but they pay for it later when they have a 5M cap hit for a couple years and are getting nothing for it.

SpezDispenser wrote:Here comes a 15 year contract, worth a cap hit of around 6.5. It's not that hard to fix, but it hurts the Devils (which is good).
EDIT: This is my gut feeling, nothing more.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Here comes a 15 year contract, worth a cap hit of around 6.5. It's not that hard to fix, but it hurts the Devils (which is good).
EDIT: This is my gut feeling, nothing more.

They allowed contracts to go to age 42 already, so this might be the ticket. They can probably still work the same cap hit too for a little more money in different years of the deal.

shabbs wrote:Lou will have to make the salary drop off much less ridiculous as well. As long as they structure is similar to an already approved contract, the NHL will have to allow it.

shabbs wrote:If they appeal and it goes to arbitration... I think the NHLPA wins. There really is nothing concrete in the CBA that does not allow this type of contract. We all know it's wrong, but the CBA allows for it, for now.

shabbs wrote:Lou had some interesting comments today... actually distancing himself from this contract suggesting this was a decision that came from "above him" and not something he would have done.

Interesting.