NHL News: Flyers Sign Pronger To 7 Year Extension
by Ryan McFadden on Jul 7, 2009 4:10 PM EDT
in NHL News
26 comments
The agent for Chris Pronger told Sportsnet that his client has signed a seven-year contract extension that will likely see the defenceman finish his career in Philadelphia.
The confirmation will come down later Tuesday.
The extension is front-loaded to lower the salary cap hit, and is rumoured to be worth $35 million, or five million per season. The deal also includes a no-movement clause.
Wow, signing a 35 year old defenseman to a 7 year deal? Either way, the Flyers are serious contendors for the next few seasons and hopefully Pronger can throw a few beat downs on Sidney Crosby. I think everyone will agree with me that they would like to see that. After all, he does have the most punchable face in the NHL.
Then again, let's hope he doesn't break Marian Gaborik with a flying elbow at some point in his tenure in the Altantic Division. I guess it's good the Rangers have Brashear.. NOT
0 recs |
26 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Boy teams are throwing around these long-term deals with NMC’s like its 2003.
"Never surrender opportunity for security."
--Branch Rickey
by brozer on Jul 7, 2009 4:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i want to know what they plan on doing when they have a 40 year old defenseman with a 5 mill cap hit.
by Ryan McFadden on Jul 7, 2009 4:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Trading him to the Rangers?
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers
Big Blue View: Unofficial New York Giants blog
by Jim Schmiedeberg on Jul 7, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hear that Glen?
haha, imagine… what a waste that would be. Highly doubt Pronger plays at the level he does now in 5 years, let alone 7.
by rmc235 on Jul 7, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s currently under 35, he will retire and the amount will be wiped from the books.
by Dave (BSB) on Jul 7, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dave, the Rangers are still on the hook for the balance of the Naslund contract correct? It just doesn’t count against the cap.
"Never surrender opportunity for security."
--Branch Rickey
by brozer on Jul 7, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nevermind, I found the article Brooks wrote. Apparently, Markus left it on the table – there is a fine line between honor and stupidity.
"Never surrender opportunity for security."
--Branch Rickey
by brozer on Jul 7, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, he retired. He left the money on the table. He wasn’t 35 when he signed the deal.
by Dave (BSB) on Jul 7, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
james mirtle tweeted (ugh) a good question I think – if he signed the extension at age 34, but he will be 35 when it kicks in, does he meet that under-34 cut off?
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Jul 7, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. He signed it under 35. Naslund was about 2 months from 35 when he signed the deal, and was 35 before the season started.
by Dave (BSB) on Jul 7, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would assume thats the Flyers interpretation as well – as long as it was “signed” when he was 34, it doesnt matter when the extension becomes effective. There is no clear language on this in the CBA. Naslund turned 35 before the season started, but after June 30 of the year the contract became effective (ie he was 34 when the contract became effective). Pronger signed the extension when he was 34, but will turn 35 before June 30 of the year the contract becomes effective. Probably a moot issue, because in this case, I think the NHLPA would be in agreement with the team – it wants the players to have the flexibility to sign long-term extensions in a way that gives the team ability to take advantage of the “retirement loophole”.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Jul 7, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BOOM Chris Pronger
Lopez wants it away, and it's hit deep to left center, Andruw Jones on the run, this one has a chance... home run!!, Mike Piazza!, and the Mets lead 3 to 2!!
-Howie Rose
Gary Thorne=Simply the Best!
by The American Mr.Hockey on Jul 7, 2009 4:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Damn 7 years?
I wonder if the deal is strictly $5 mill per season tho. If they front loaded it that would be an excellent deal.
Philly’s gonna be awful touch, especailly with Richards and Carter getting better presumably.
by FreeBradshaw on Jul 7, 2009 4:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
can someone explain to me how the front loaded thing works? how is lesser of a cap hit? i thought the cap hit was an average of the whole contract?
by b4mv01 on Jul 7, 2009 5:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
by Dave (BSB) on Jul 7, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Dave for clearing that up. Now i understand it
by b4mv01 on Jul 7, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No problem. Resident capologist at your service.
by Dave (BSB) on Jul 7, 2009 7:25 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
So the Flyers have
Brier for 6 more years 6.5 a year
Pronger for 7 more years at 5 mil a year
Richards for 11 more years at 5.75
Timmonen 4 more years 6.3 a year
Hartnell at 4 years 4.2 million
You wanna talk about cap strapped. Wait till Jeff Carter is a RFA in two years …
The Ranger Reporter - My Ranger Blog!
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 7, 2009 6:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
dont forget
coburn and parent next year and giroiux with carter.
by mleetch352 on Jul 7, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
$10 says they waive Briere.
by Dave (BSB) on Jul 7, 2009 8:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
this is why the avg cap hit standard is ineffective and leads to bogus evasion. this is the BS the nhl needs to deal with next with the cap problem. teams are throwing on bogus years at the end of deals knowing the players will no longer be there just to lower the cap hit during the earlier years. the wings did it w franzen, hawks with hossa, flyers with pronger.
by mleetch352 on Jul 7, 2009 7:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And if Sather did it with Staal you’d complain? Or would you be happy?
by Dave (BSB) on Jul 7, 2009 8:06 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
do you think he is going to give staal a 20 year deal?
if not then your comparison doesnt work.
by mleetch352 on Jul 7, 2009 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Works for Zetterberg, Franzen, etc.
by Dave (BSB) on Jul 7, 2009 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
franzen was 29 Zetterberg 28 not 22.
they are signing deals til they r 40-42 so if staal wants a 20 year deal go for it. 20 years 70 million? lol.
by mleetch352 on Jul 7, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re splitting hairs man. The point is you can’t be pissed at a GM for being cap-savvy. It’s a high-risk, high-reward. What happens if a player gets hurt? LTIR doesn’t wipe the contract from the cap.
by Dave (BSB) on Jul 8, 2009 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blueshirt Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Atlantic Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pittsburgh
|
67 | 40 | 22 | 5 | 85 |
|
New Jersey
|
65 | 39 | 23 | 3 | 81 |
|
Philadelphia
|
66 | 35 | 27 | 4 | 74 |
|
New York Rangers
|
67 | 29 | 29 | 9 | 67 |
|
New York Islanders
|
67 | 26 | 32 | 9 | 61 |
(updated 3.12.2010 at 1:23 AM EST)
Rangers Schedule
Next 5 Games
|
@
Atlanta
|
Fri 03/12 | 7:30 PM EST |
|
Philadelphia
|
Sun 03/14 | 3:00 PM EDT |
|
Montreal
|
Tue 03/16 | 7:30 PM EDT |
|
St. Louis
|
Thu 03/18 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
@
Boston
|
Sun 03/21 | 12:30 PM EDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
New Jersey
|
Wed 03/10 | L 3 - 6 |
|
Buffalo
|
Sun 03/07 | OT - L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 03/06 | L 0 - 2 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
Thu 03/04 | OT - L 4 - 5 |
|
@
Ottawa
|
Tue 03/02 | W 4 - 1 |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
