I understand how it works. Im suggesting changes. I know why a salary cap is there in the first place. Parity and prevention of soaring salaries... However, there SHOULD be changes made that would help in the case of a player being forced to retire due to injury.

I fully understand what you are saying. I am not lacking understanding of the salary cap and its function, I am challenging it with the proposed IDEA of helping teams who have lost a MAJOR contributor to their teams success.

Losing a key player (they are usually the ones signed to long term deals ya know) to a CEI is already a tough blow, but having them cost against your salary cap is an even bigger blow. There SHOULD be ways around that aside from trading their cap hit to a team who needs to reach the cap floor.

THESE ARE ALL PROPOSITIONS.

Cap recapture is a punishment to teams who sign guys to long term deals only to have them retire (Kovalchuk) early and save a boatload on them. I understand it, but was SUGGESTING something a bit different.

Sometimes I swear youre Data from Star Trek.
- jak521

As you tell me you understand it, it's clear that you don't. No offense. LTIR exists for one reason, and one reason only. That is to help a team, not to hurt it. So no, having that injured player still count against the cap, is not a bigger blow.
LTIR lessens the blow for a team that lacks cap space. Without LTIR many teams would not be able to make a lot of moves, and in a lot of cases, wouldn't be able to field a full roster.

The only way it is punitive in any way, is for teams that have a player in that situation, that is tight against the cap in the off season. As I addressed earlier, that is the only aspect that I personally feels should be changed.

Look at how the Flyers have been using LTIR this season, with the injury situations.

Whenever this conversation comes up, I wait for someone to make a reasonable case for why changes like you propose need to happen. It never comes.

As far as your data comment, I have no need to, nor do I want to make any personal comments towards you.

As you tell me you understand it, it's clear that you don't. No offense. LTIR exists for one reason, and one reason only. That is to help a team, not to hurt it. So no, having that injured player still count against the cap, is not a bigger blow.
LTIR lessens the blow for a team that lacks cap space. Without LTIR many teams would not be able to make a lot of moves, and in a lot of cases, wouldn't be able to field a full roster.

The only way it is punitive in any way, is for teams that have a player in that situation, that is tight against the cap in the off season. As I addressed earlier, that is the only aspect that I personally feels should be changed.

Look at how the Flyers have been using LTIR this season, with the injury situations.

Whenever this conversation comes up, I wait for someone to make a reasonable case for why changes like you propose need to happen. It never comes.

As far as your data comment, I have no need to, nor do I want to make any personal comments towards you.
- MJL

I have not once suggested removing LTIR. Not at all. Not once have I stated that it hurts a team. Not even in a box. Not even with a fox.

I dont think a team nor a player should have to drag through that stuff. Chris Pronger got hurt. Tried to come back, and couldnt. Done. CEI which forced his retirement. He still gets paid, but is no longer an active NHL member. Done. I dont care if he has 3-5 years left. If he has been forced into a medical retirement, his cap hit should be dropped. The team shouldnt be forced to carry his cap hit and LTIR him. That is the BASIS of my argument.

Good night. In a box and with a fox.

The Constitution accomplishes the purpose it was set forth to but there are 27 Admendments to it. The CBA is far from ironclad and can be improved, career ending injuries is an area that it can be improved.

If LTIR and how these contracts are handled under the CBA, why are teams like Arizona and Florida trading for these contracts. The question is rhetorical. I understand why.
- MJL

Arizona traded for Pronger to reach the cap minimum. Pronger's cap hit is $4.5mil (or something like that) but they only had to pay him $450K in actual salary. Of course the NHL is fine with the Coyotes saving money while still being "cap compliant".

However, the Flyers are stuck with the Pronger's deal because they realized a querk in the system that allowed them to lower the per year cap hit of the contract. Nonsensical. Flyers should have been allowed to pay Pronger the remaning money of the contract and allow Pronger to retire. He is in the HOF, a part of DOPS, and playing in an alumni game but his contract still has to be honored?

Arizona traded for Pronger to reach the cap minimum. Pronger's cap hit is $4.5mil (or something like that) but they only had to pay him $450K in actual salary. Of course the NHL is fine with the Coyotes saving money while still being "cap compliant".

However, the Flyers are stuck with the Pronger's deal because they realized a querk in the system that allowed them to lower the per year cap hit of the contract. Nonsensical. Flyers should have been allowed to pay Pronger the remaning money of the contract and allow Pronger to retire. He is in the HOF, a part of DOPS, and playing in an alumni game but his contract still has to be honored?
- mickel25

That is not how the CBA is constructed. You have an obvious lack of salary cap knowledge.

I have not once suggested removing LTIR. Not at all. Not once have I stated that it hurts a team. Not even in a box. Not even with a fox.

I dont think a team nor a player should have to drag through that stuff. Chris Pronger got hurt. Tried to come back, and couldnt. Done. CEI which forced his retirement. He still gets paid, but is no longer an active NHL member. Done. I dont care if he has 3-5 years left. If he has been forced into a medical retirement, his cap hit should be dropped. The team shouldnt be forced to carry his cap hit and LTIR him. That is the BASIS of my argument.

Good night. In a box and with a fox.
- jak521

I didn't say you suggested removing LTIR. You've contradicted yourself multiple times. If LTIR doesn't hurt a team, then what is the issue with a team having to "drag through all that stuff?

Your argument doesn't make any sense. Why should a team not have to account for a player on the cap that it is paying. What is a salary cap for?

You also advocate that a team should have to pay some kind of punitive recapture penalty for a player over 35? Well they shouldn't. LTIR assures that a teram is not punished for a player having a CEI regardless of their age.

Arizona traded for Pronger to reach the cap minimum. Pronger's cap hit is $4.5mil (or something like that) but they only had to pay him $450K in actual salary. Of course the NHL is fine with the Coyotes saving money while still being "cap compliant".

However, the Flyers are stuck with the Pronger's deal because they realized a querk in the system that allowed them to lower the per year cap hit of the contract. Nonsensical. Flyers should have been allowed to pay Pronger the remaning money of the contract and allow Pronger to retire. He is in the HOF, a part of DOPS, and playing in an alumni game but his contract still has to be honored?
- mickel25

None of that is why the Flyers were stuck with Pronger's contract. How the contract was structured, was not the reason why the Flyers were "stuck" with the contract.
The fundamentals of the salary cap are just not well understood. No player can be paid, and have it not count towards the cap.

None of that is why the Flyers were stuck with Pronger's contract. How the contract was structured, was not the reason why the Flyers were "stuck" with the contract.
The fundamentals of the salary cap are just not well understood. No player can be paid, and have it not count towards the cap.
- MJL

I GET THAT. I was pointing out how the league basically allowed the Coyotes to circumvent the cap by taking on Pronger's contract. Coyotes basically had $4.4mil they were not paying to players that they should have been.

I was also pointing out how easily the league could have ended the farce that his contract had become by allowing the Flyers to pay the remaining dollars on the contract. They could have applied that total to the Flyers cap the year they paid it and the contract would have ended that year.

Also, quick question. Since you understand the cap so well why are you not working in the NHL?

That is not how the CBA is constructed. You have an obvious lack of salary cap knowledge.
- jak521

I know right. Maybe Cap Master will post some sort of instructional video.

I GET THAT. I was pointing out how the league basically allowed the Coyotes to circumvent the cap by taking on Pronger's contract. Coyotes basically had $4.4mil they were not paying to players that they should have been.

I was also pointing out how easily the league could have ended the farce that his contract had become by allowing the Flyers to pay the remaining dollars on the contract. They could have applied that total to the Flyers cap the year they paid it and the contract would have ended that year.

Also, quick question. Since you understand the cap so well why are you not working in the NHL?
- mickel25

It's not circumvention. Pronger is signed to a valid SPC. It's not a farce, and it's perfectly legal under the rules of the CBA.

If they were able to do what you suggest, then the end result would be cap circumvention, and result in more salary being paid out than cap dollars in the end.

The only way that it could be considered a punishment, is that a team using LTIR is not banking any cap space. They can change that by waiving, demoting, trading other players. No team is forced to spend up to the cap limit. Ultimately, the team is responsible for it's cap position.
- MJL

Agreed. However, LTIR forces you to be cap compliant with the injured player at the beginning of the season.

Hypothetical A- The cap is $73mil. The Flyers are at the cap ceiling to the penny with Pronger's contract. By using LTIR they are allowed to exceed the cap by the full amount of his cap hit. $4.5mil I believe.

Hypothetical B- The cap is $73mil. The Flyers use $71mil of the cap space with Pronger's contract included. The Flyers would only be allowed to exceed the cap by $2.5mil using the LTIR allowance. So they are punished by $2mil.

Just sayin.

Agreed. However, LTIR forces you to be cap compliant with the injured player at the beginning of the season.

Hypothetical A- The cap is $73mil. The Flyers are at the cap ceiling to the penny with Pronger's contract. By using LTIR they are allowed to exceed the cap by the full amount of his cap hit. $4.5mil I believe.

Hypothetical B- The cap is $73mil. The Flyers use $71mil of the cap space with Pronger's contract included. The Flyers would only be allowed to exceed the cap by $2.5mil using the LTIR allowance. So they are punished by $2mil.

Just sayin.
- mickel25

In hypothetical B, there is no LTIR. The Flyers would have the available 2M to play with and then if they needed more, they could then in season place Pronger on LTIR, and get the maximum benefit.

It's not circumvention. Pronger is signed to a valid SPC. It's not a farce, and it's perfectly legal under the rules of the CBA.

If they were able to do what you suggest, then the end result would be cap circumvention, and result in more salary being paid out then cap dollars in the end.
- MJL

If you don't believe that his contract became a farce than I cannot help you. He was in the HOF, on the DOPS team for the league and is playing in an alumni game this weekend. He also was only owed $900K in actual salary for the last two years. However, that contract still needed to be drawn out to the bitter end? Under the rules of the CBA it is not a farce. I hear you. However, looking at it from the outside it is a farce and absurd.

The league very easily could have allowed the Flyers to pay Pronger what he was owed in actual salary over the last two-three years of that contract and have the Flyers apply that total to there cap that same year. That would have ended the contract with Pronger being paid what he is owed and the Flyers still seeing an appropriate cap hit. Again, not in the CBA but would have made a ton of sense.

Are you ok with the Coyotes basically not paying players $4.4mil but still being "cap compliant"?

In hypothetical B, there is no LTIR. The Flyers would have the available 2M to play with and then if they needed more, they could then in season place Pronger on LTIR, and get the maximum benefit.
- MJL

LTIR is an allowance to go over the cap. You lose the overage every dollar you are under the cap.

Again, if you are under by $2mil and the total cap hit is $4.5mil you can only exceed the cap using the allowance by $2.5mil. If you are at the cap you can exceed by $4.5mil.

LTIR is an allowance to go over the cap. You lose the overage every dollar you are under the cap.

Again, if you are under by $2mil and the total cap hit is $4.5mil you can only exceed the cap using the allowance by $2.5mil. If you are at the cap you can exceed by $4.5mil.
- mickel25

In hypothetical B, the team would not have to place the player on LTIR, and would have the option of doing so in season. That would give them, if the injured players cap hit is 4.5, and they were 2M under the upper limit, 6.5M to play with potentially.

If you don't believe that his contract became a farce than I cannot help you. He was in the HOF, on the DOPS team for the league and is playing in an alumni game this weekend. He also was only owed $900K in actual salary for the last two years. However, that contract still needed to be drawn out to the bitter end? Under the rules of the CBA it is not a farce. I hear you. However, looking at it from the outside it is a farce and absurd.

The league very easily could have allowed the Flyers to pay Pronger what he was owed in actual salary over the last two-three years of that contract and have the Flyers apply that total to there cap that same year. That would have ended the contract with Pronger being paid what he is owed and the Flyers still seeing an appropriate cap hit. Again, not in the CBA but would have made a ton of sense.

Are you ok with the Coyotes basically not paying players $4.4mil but still being "cap compliant"?
- mickel25

Incorrect. The Flyers would've save substantially in cap dollars due to what they saved in the beginning of the contract, if that was done. That would be actual circumvention.

In hypothetical B, the team would not have to place the player on LTIR, and would have the option of doing so in season. That would give them, if the injured players cap hit is 4.5, and they were 2M under the upper limit, 6.5M to play with potentially.
- MJL

From fearthefin.com

FTF Example: The salary cap Upper Limit is $60.0MM, and a team currently has a 20 man roster of $59.0MM. There is $1.0MM in cap room available to them. In the first day of the regular season, a player making $2.0MM is hit along the boards, injured, and subsequently placed on LTIR. The team now has that $2.0MM to use in order to bring in replacement player(s) to fill the hole left by that $2.0MM player-- that number is equal to the injured player's salary. They are able to spend up to $61.0MM (or, $1.0MM over the cap) to replace that player.

This is because, at the time of injury, the team had $1.0MM in cap space available to them. Since the injured player on LTIR had a salary of $2.0MM, $1.0MM of that goes towards getting the team to the Upper Limit of that year (which is $60.0MM), and then the remaining $1.0MM is used to allow the team to temporarily exceed the Upper Limit until the player on LTIR is able to return.

Think of it this way-- a $2.0MM player was injured on a team that had $1.0MM in cap room. The cap hit of the injured player ($2.0MM) minus the amount of salary cap space ($1.0MM) equals the amount that team can exceed the upper limit by ($1.0MM).

Incorrect. The Flyers would've save substantially in cap dollars due to what they saved in the beginning of the contract, if that was done. That would be actual circumvention.
- MJL

Not really. They would actually lose the ability to go over the cap using the LTIR. So, it would basically be even. In my settlement scenario the Flyers would have an actual cap hit of close to $1mil that would be dead space in the season they paid off actual salary owed.

From fearthefin.com

FTF Example: The salary cap Upper Limit is $60.0MM, and a team currently has a 20 man roster of $59.0MM. There is $1.0MM in cap room available to them. In the first day of the regular season, a player making $2.0MM is hit along the boards, injured, and subsequently placed on LTIR. The team now has that $2.0MM to use in order to bring in replacement player(s) to fill the hole left by that $2.0MM player-- that number is equal to the injured player's salary. They are able to spend up to $61.0MM (or, $1.0MM over the cap) to replace that player.

This is because, at the time of injury, the team had $1.0MM in cap space available to them. Since the injured player on LTIR had a salary of $2.0MM, $1.0MM of that goes towards getting the team to the Upper Limit of that year (which is $60.0MM), and then the remaining $1.0MM is used to allow the team to temporarily exceed the Upper Limit until the player on LTIR is able to return.

Think of it this way-- a $2.0MM player was injured on a team that had $1.0MM in cap room. The cap hit of the injured player ($2.0MM) minus the amount of salary cap space ($1.0MM) equals the amount that team can exceed the upper limit by ($1.0MM).
- mickel25

That is only the scenario involving that specific situation. That team would still have the ability to use up the 1M in cap space they have under the upper limit, and get the full 2M in LTIR cap space and raise their upper limit to 62M. That team would still have 1M in available LTIR cap space that they could use daily to add to the roster.

Not really. They would actually lose the ability to go over the cap using the LTIR. So, it would basically be even. In my settlement scenario the Flyers would have an actual cap hit of close to $1mil that would be dead space in the season they paid off actual salary owed.
- mickel25

Yes really. What you propose if I understand what you're proposing they be allowed to do, would result in the Flyers circumventing the cap, and getting around 7.5M in cap savings in the end.
If you want to see the math, I'd be happy to post that for you. Which would clearly indicate why what you propose, does not make sense.

That is only the scenario involving that specific situation. That team would still have the ability to use up the 1M in cap space they have under the upper limit, and get the full 2M in LTIR cap space and raise their upper limit to 62M. That team would still have 1M in available LTIR cap space that they could use daily to add to the roster.
- MJL

OK, last time. The Flyers have to be cap compliant day one of the season with Prongers contract on the books. If they choose not to LTIR him that cap space is basic dead space especially if they are tight to the cap. They do not get the allowance until he is LTIR.

LTIR accumulates per game missed. Waiting to LTIR him only costs in a!lowance money. They don't get $4.9mil in LTIR the Day they put him on LTIR.

Not sure what your missing.Having Pronger at the beginning of every season cost them $4.9mil in cap space during the summer.

Yes really. What you propose if I understand what you're proposing they be allowed to do, would result in the Flyers circumventing the cap, and getting around 7.5M in cap savings in the end.
If you want to see the math, I'd be happy to post that for you. Which would clearly indicate why what you propose, does not make sense.
- MJL

Please do. You are wrong. The only advantage the Flyers gain is flexibility in the off season.

OK, last time. The Flyers have to be cap compliant day one of the season with Prongers contract on the books. If they choose not to LTIR him that cap space is basic dead space especially if they are tight to the cap. They do not get the allowance until he is LTIR.


- mickel25

That is false, they don't have to be cap compliant day one of the season with Pronger's contract on the books. There are two options. A team can place a player on LTIR coming out of training camp. If a team wants to maximize thier LTIR cap space, they need to include the player "on the books" for day 1 of the season, get as close to the Upper Limit as possible, and then place the player on LTIR.

LTIR accumulates per game missed. Waiting to LTIR him only costs in a!lowance money. They don't get $4.9mil in LTIR the Day they put him on LTIR.

Not sure what your missing.Having Pronger at the beginning of every season cost them $4.9mil in cap space during the summer.
- mickel25

False again. Nothing about the salary cap is based on games. Cap accounting is done daily, and is based on days of the season, not games. LTIR cap space never accumulates. It is non bankable cap space and it is use it or lose it.

All player signed to one way contracts count against the cap in the off season, and players signed to two way contracts count in proportion to the number of days spent on the roster the previous season. Teams are allowed to exceed the cap by 10% during the off season, to cover for issues like that. As I alluded to in an earlier post, how teams have to account for a player who has suffered a career ending injury and is still under contract during the off season, and how they have to handle the roster coming out of training camp, is the only problem I see with the system, and where I would like to see change. At the same time, I understand why that is done.

Please do. You are wrong. The only advantage the Flyers gain is flexibility in the off season.
- mickel25

First of all, let's reinforce what you posted earlier. This is copied and pasted from your post above.

"The league very easily could have allowed the Flyers to pay Pronger what he was owed in actual salary over the last two-three years of that contract and have the Flyers apply that total to there cap that same year. That would have ended the contract with Pronger being paid what he is owed and the Flyers still seeing an appropriate cap hit. Again, not in the CBA but would have made a ton of sense. "


Now, let's break it down in that scenario, and look at the math at what you propose, and why it doesn't make sense.

The Flyers signed Pronger to a 7 year deal worth 34,550,000 for an AAV of $4,935,714

So let's propose to keep it simple that Pronger played until the 14/15 season, and then suffered a career ending injury, where his playing career was over, and was still on the Flyers roster.

In the first 5 years of Pronger's deal, the Flyers paid Pronger a total of $33,400,000. In those same 5 years, the Flyers were only charged a total of $24,678,570 in cap hits. A cap savings of $8,721,430 for the Flyers.

In reality he was then traded to Arizona, but it doesn't really matter, the concept is the same regardless of what team he is on, because it's all about cap hit and money paid equaling out, as best as close as possible.

In the contract negotiations, the Flyers, and other teams, added seasons on the back end, to lower the AAV. The last two seasons of Pronger's deal, is when the cap savings on the deal, are paid back. As the cap hits for the last two seasons add up to 9,871,428 but salary paid out is only $1,150,000 resulting in a cap deficit of 8,721,428. Does that number look familiar? Just about equal to the cap savings the Flyers enjoyed over the first 5 years of the deal. In the end, the league gets what they want, and cap dollars pretty much are equal to salary paid out, and the league is happy.

Now, let's look at your scenario. You propose that Pronger be allowed to retire, paid the salary he is owed, and the Flyers would only have to pay a cap hit equal to what he was owed in salary the last two seasons.

Let's break down the math in that scenario. That would result in the Flyers paying Pronger a total of 34,550,000, the total of the contract, but only paying 25,828,570 in total cap hits. The end result is the Flyers getting a cap savings of 8,721,430 when all is said and done. Cap hit paid out does not equal salary paid out, and the league gets shafted because over 8M is not accounted for as part of the players share under the salary cap. It's money outside the system, and is what the league fought against, and a big part of why there was a lockout, and why there are new contract rules, cap recapture, etc.

First of all, let's reinforce what you posted earlier. This is copied and pasted from your post above.

"The league very easily could have allowed the Flyers to pay Pronger what he was owed in actual salary over the last two-three years of that contract and have the Flyers apply that total to there cap that same year. That would have ended the contract with Pronger being paid what he is owed and the Flyers still seeing an appropriate cap hit. Again, not in the CBA but would have made a ton of sense. "


Now, let's break it down in that scenario, and look at the math at what you propose, and why it doesn't make sense.

The Flyers signed Pronger to a 7 year deal worth 34,550,000 for an AAV of $4,935,714

So let's propose to keep it simple that Pronger played until the 14/15 season, and then suffered a career ending injury, where his playing career was over, and was still on the Flyers roster.

In the first 5 years of Pronger's deal, the Flyers paid Pronger a total of $33,400,000. In those same 5 years, the Flyers were only charged a total of $24,678,570 in cap hits. A cap savings of $8,721,430 for the Flyers.

In reality he was then traded to Arizona, but it doesn't really matter, the concept is the same regardless of what team he is on, because it's all about cap hit and money paid equaling out, as best as close as possible.

In the contract negotiations, the Flyers, and other teams, added seasons on the back end, to lower the AAV. The last two seasons of Pronger's deal, is when the cap savings on the deal, are paid back. As the cap hits for the last two seasons add up to 9,871,428 but salary paid out is only $1,150,000 resulting in a cap deficit of 8,721,428. Does that number look familiar? Just about equal to the cap savings the Flyers enjoyed over the first 5 years of the deal. In the end, the league gets what they want, and cap dollars pretty much are equal to salary paid out, and the league is happy.

Now, let's look at your scenario. You propose that Pronger be allowed to retire, paid the salary he is owed, and the Flyers would only have to pay a cap hit equal to what he was owed in salary the last two seasons.

Let's break down the math in that scenario. That would result in the Flyers paying Pronger a total of 34,550,000, the total of the contract, but only paying 25,828,570 in total cap hits. The end result is the Flyers getting a cap savings of 8,721,430 when all is said and done. Cap hit paid out does not equal salary paid out, and the league gets shafted because over 8M is not accounted for as part of the players share under the salary cap. It's money outside the system, and is what the league fought against, and a big part of why there was a lockout, and why there are new contract rules, cap recapture, etc.
- MJL

In my scenario the Flyers are released completely of the last year of Prongers deal. Would they not spend the cap space on other players? So the players would get there share.

Conversely, allowing Pronger to be traded to the Coyotes cost the players roughly $4.4mil in actual paid salaries and possibly 1-4 players jobs. I would think they would be more upset by the latter.

The Coyotes circumventing the cap at the low end helps literally no one. Allowing the Flyers to fulfill the total dollar value of a contract and then add cap space to spend on other players would seem to be a plus for the players.