Savard's contract comes under the recapture rules, so if he retired Boston would have dead cap space, too.

http://www.capgeek.com/recapture-grid
- Feanor

Correct. And the reason why even though his deal fits the criteria, that Pronger's contract doesn't fall under the recapture rule. Is because it is a 35+ contract.

It sucks for these guys, but it's only for two or three more years.

hypotheticals = life
- stayinthefnnet

Often the case.

It sucks for these guys, but it's only for two or three more years.
- Feanor

It'd be nice to have the extra money, another open contract slot and Pronger being free to move on, but yeah, none of that helps or is better for anyone.

In terms of point production only, his season last year was below his career points per game mark but higher than the year before (although that was the shortened season). Last year he averaged 0.46 points per game, the year before he averaged 0.38 and his career average is 0.54. There has been a clear drop off since 2010-11 when he averaged 0.70 ppg. There's also a span of 4 years where he was well above his career average from 2007-08 to 2010-11. He averaged 0.65 ppg in that span.

My thinking is that, if healthy and in a role that warrants it, he will move closer to his career average in ppg aka he will regress toward the mean. However, he may not get the ice time to do so.
- NickTheKid87

It's less about the points and more about his ability to help the team at 5v5. If he scores 12 points, but helps the team improve it's 5v5 play, I will be happy.

No.
- MJL

Care to elaborate?

It's not an extenuating circumstance. It's an injury. There is no reason for the League to grant the Flyers or any other team an exemption to the LTIR rule. And by putting the LTIR rule in place, they are already giving the team an exemption to replace the player.
- MJL

It is extenuating in that the league, the PA and Pronger himself all know he'll never play another game. It's not like he torn an ACL and will miss the season. He has to wait until 2017 until he can officially complete the inevitable. Why do this LTIR juggling every year and make an exception that will satisfy both the PA and owners?

It'd be nice to have the extra money, another open contract slot and Pronger being free to move on, but yeah, none of that helps or is better for anyone.
- Jsaquella

I did not state that it isn't better for anyone. I stated it is not better for all parties involved. Simple.

The Flyers could possibly move him to a team at the salary floor after this season, although the league could nix such a deal
- Jsaquella

They let the Tim Thomas deal go through although that was different but with the same general principal.

They let the Tim Thomas deal go through although that was different but with the same general principal.
- NickTheKid87

True, but Thomas wasn't on a front loaded deal that led to changes in the CBA and saw other teams punished for cap circumvention when they tried to copy it.

I did not state that it isn't better for anyone. I stated it is not better for all parties involved. Simple.
- MJL

I still don't get it. The reason that it's better for all parties involved seems to play in both the Kovalchuk and Pronger situations. Doesn't it?

It is extenuating in that the league, the PA and Pronger himself all know he'll never play another game. It's not like he torn an ACL and will miss the season. He has to wait until 2017 until he can officially complete the inevitable. Why do this LTIR juggling every year and make an exception that will satisfy both the PA and owners?
- NickTheKid87

That doesn't make it extenuating. That he's never going to play again, doesn't make the money that he is still going to be paid, not part of the players share. And not part of what the Cap keeps track of. Nobody can predict with precision where the cap is going to go, or what moves a team will make in the future.

Samsies with Ohlund. If I'm Boston or Tampa, I definitely take issue with an exemption for only Pronger.
- BulliesPhan87

They would, but when has the NHL ever acted fairly?

That doesn't make it extenuating. That he's never going to play again, doesn't make the money that he is still going to be paid, not part of the players share. And not part of what the Cap keeps track of. Nobody can predict with precision where the cap is going to go, or what moves a team will make in the future.
- MJL

What's the issue with making an exception that takes him off the cap, frees a contract spot and let's him retire but allows the players and owners get the same shares they would as if he were still on the books as he's been the last few years?

Care to elaborate?
- mcefalu

no

no
- PhillySportsGuy

I still don't get it. The reason that it's better for all parties involved seems to play in both the Kovalchuk and Pronger situations. Doesn't it?
- mcefalu

That the NHL gave the Devils back their 1st round draft pick, is obviously good for the Devils and their owners. If it helps them become a better team, then maybe they can draw more fans, and that is obviously better for the Devils, their owners, for the League, and the owners of other teams.

Having a player paid millions of dollars outside of the cap, and not counted as part of the players share, would be good for Pronger, the players, but not for the Owners.

Pronger and Savard aren't going to be the last guys to end their careers on LTIR. If the league makes exceptions for them they are going to have to keep on making them. And they don't need to. Boston and Philly are coping alright with them still on the roster, and these guys are getting every cent of their contract.

What's the issue with making an exception that takes him off the cap, frees a contract spot and let's him retire but allows the players and owners get the same shares they would as if he were still on the books as he's been the last few years?
- NickTheKid87

None. The compliance buyouts counted against the players' share of HRR, the situations with Pronger, Savard and/or Ohlund could be handled the same way. That way the owners don;t get screwed out of $5mm, the players aren't screwed because the cash already counted against their portion of HRR and the teams get a break and the benefit of more money to spend on adding players and a freed up contract slot.

Sounds like a fair situation for everyone.

I did not state that it isn't better for anyone. I stated it is not better for all parties involved. Simple.
- MJL

the rule was designed to prevent clubs from using long term deals to circumvent the cap # used every year.....I prefer the NFL way of using injury settlements....but those contracts are not guaranteed. I had hoped that there would have been changes in the last lock out to address guys like Savard and Pronger, but in end its all about protecting the system.....

That the NHL gave the Devils back their 1st round draft pick, is obviously good for the Devils and their owners. If it helps them become a better team, then maybe they can draw more fans, and that is obviously better for the Devils, their owners, for the League, and the owners of other teams.

Having a player paid millions of dollars outside of the cap, and not counted as part of the players share, would be good for Pronger, the players, but not for the Owners.
- MJL

So then I guess I'm wondering why a team would use a compliance buyout at all. Wouldn't that also be considered not good for the owners?

Pronger and Savard aren't going to be the last guys to end their careers on LTIR. If the league makes exceptions for them they are going to have to keep on making them. And they don't need to. Boston and Philly are coping alright with them still on the roster, and these guys are getting every cent of their contract.
- Feanor

It's not a major issue, but it's still a headache for the teams and it prevents the players from retiring. Hell, if Pronger is interested in a job with the league, it may well be detrimental to him.

So then I guess I'm wondering why a team would use a compliance buyout at all. Wouldn't that also be considered not good for the owners?
- mcefalu

Compliance buyouts counted against the the players' share of HRR

None. The compliance buyouts counted against the players' share of HRR, the situations with Pronger, Savard and/or Ohlund could be handled the same way. That way the owners don;t get screwed out of $5mm, the players aren't screwed because the cash already counted against their portion of HRR and the teams get a break and the benefit of more money to spend on adding players and a freed up contract slot.

Sounds like a fair situation for everyone.
- Jsaquella

Yeah, I think it does too.

What's the issue with making an exception that takes him off the cap, frees a contract spot and let's him retire but allows the players and owners get the same shares they would as if he were still on the books as he's been the last few years?
- NickTheKid87

How would you do that? How would you account for the money outside of the system paid to a player that you made an exception for? If it still puts the player "on the books", then it is the same thing.

Let's say HRR for the season is 100M. With the 50/50 split, each side gets 100M. Is there a limit to how many players are able to get this exemption? The players are already unhappy with the escrow situation to guarantee the correct split.

Here's the bottom line, the cap is about limiting players salaries for the owners. And they do not want any money paid to players off the books, or under the table.