(6) Chris Pronger v. (11) Mattias Ohlund
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 26, 2011 10:22 AM MDT
Email
PrintAnother day, another dominant first round victory, this time for Connecticut Whale defender Wade Redden. Today's match features two more defenders, but only one of them will survive to take on Wade Redden. Unlike Redden, both players are actually pretty good players right now, but the long-term risk involved in the deals given to Chris Pronger and Mattias Ohlund are significant.
Chris Pronger
Chris Pronger today is still a great player, and there's no doubt about that. He's playing top four ice time at even strength on one of the best defense groups in the NHL. He plays a huge role on both special teams, and is scoring at least 0.5 points per game for the twelfth consecutive season. But he also turned 36 in October, and unlike most of the other long-term deals, retirement is one of the major risks involved in this deal since, although the Flyers wouldn't need to pay out those last two years, that five million dollar cap hit would remain (although Tyler Dellow seems to think that there might be some wiggle room - have we seen any 35+ guys retire under this CBA with time left on their contracts?). Hands up everyone that thinks Pronger will be playing out those two seasons at 41 and 42. No one? Shocking. That the Flyers didn't seem to know that this was a 35+ contract only adds to the fun.
Mattias Ohlund
Mattias Ohlund's deal isn't any better. Capgeek isn't too sure about the kind of no-trade clause Ohlund has, and that means I'm not sure, but there's apparently something there. So far this season, Ohlund has been a solid performer, taking a lot of Tampa's defensive zone starts and the toughest competition that opponents can throw over the boards. That said, he's gotten beat up doing it, accumulating a Corsi rating of -6.03 per sixty minutes at EV, the worst rating on the team. I suppose that's somewhat to be expected, but if he's already getting beat up a little bit, is he really going to be able to contribute at a high level for five more years? Ohlund is turning 35 next season, and when defensive defensemen hit the wall, things can get ugly. The one potential saving grace is that the Lightning are a budget team, so they can probably feel like they're getting good value if Ohlund can be a top-notch third pairing guy in 2014-15 and 1015-16.
The Bracket
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
‘Have we seen any 35+ guys retire during this CBA?’
Not that I can recall, but we did see Vladimir Malakhov fail to report in the 06-07 season and he did not ‘earn’ any money. He still counted on the Sharks’ cap. Since it’s obvious that the provision is in the CBA to weed out front loaded deals given to oldsters, I am fairly certain that retirement doesn’t get someone out of a 35+ contract.
It would be interesting to see what the league would do if the Flyers “tried” to send him to the AHL, so that Pronger could not report, at which point they could terminate the deal. Lou did this successfully with Shanahan IIRC.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 26, 2011 10:32 AM MDT up reply actions
It would be interesting to see what the league would do if the Flyers "tried" to send him to the AHL, so that Pronger could not report, at which point they could terminate the deal. Lou did this successfully with Shanahan IIRC.
No, Shanahan’s contract was mutually terminated.
I don’t think the league would let that one pass the smell test. Also, IIRC, Pronger’s deal has an NMC also.
I’m pretty confident that Pronger would be fine with having his contract terminated if he was planning to retire, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have a NMC (it’s not noted on Capgeek if he does).
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 26, 2011 11:08 AM MDT up reply actions
I’m pretty confident that Pronger would be fine with having his contract terminated if he was planning to retire, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have a NMC (it’s not noted on Capgeek if he does).
The league would not allow this. They clearly didn’t allow it for the Malakhov contract (although it’s possible that Malakhov refused to do it out of spite). We’d all have some fun and games with circumvention clauses again if the Flyers tried it. Remember, the clause is to prevent exactly this kind of chicanery.
I agree with you, but that’s what I thought with Shanahan.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 26, 2011 11:22 AM MDT up reply actions
Right, but the intention behind the termination article – or so it seemed to me – was that it came about because a player was insubordinate, and in that case, it seemed more like there was an agreement between the two parties. You might be right that the league would raise a big stink in Pronger’s case, but if they exhaust their other options, it probably doesn’t hurt to try.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 26, 2011 11:29 AM MDT up reply actions
it probably doesn’t hurt to try.
tell that to the Devils about the first Kovalchuk contract. if the current leadership is still in place then, it will hurt to try.
i didn’t read too much about the shanahan termination, but it seemed like the devils and shanahan already had an unspoken agreement that this was a possibility – saving shanahan the indignity of signing a TO contract. i think both teams and players would want to have that option available and that there’s nothing really untoward about what happened there.
shanahan already had an unspoken agreement that this was a possibility
Which is what made it seem like a circumvention to me. And as for the Flyers, I don’t see how an arbitrator could penalize them for following the termination procedure to the letter of the law: Pronger assigned to minors, refusal to report, clears unconditional waivers (unless he gets claimed), contract terminated. I could see the league telling them to screw off, or telling them that the cap hit sticks, but I don’t see how the league could penalize them.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 26, 2011 12:18 PM MDT up reply actions
Which is what made it seem like a circumvention to me.
meh. it’s just a big waste of everyone’s time to go through all the steps.
And as for the Flyers, I don’t see how an arbitrator could penalize them for following the termination procedure to the letter of the law: Pronger assigned to minors, refusal to report, clears unconditional waivers (unless he gets claimed), contract terminated. I could see the league telling them to screw off, or telling them that the cap hit sticks, but I don’t see how the league could penalize them.
in considering it more, i think pronger would definitely be claimed if he were put on waivers, and i don’t think the league wants that either. i could swear pronger has an NMC, too, but capgeek’s information on this is not 100% reliable (and often changes).
i think the league still has the pronger contract being investigated for circumvention – i forget if the deal the NHL and NHLPA made this summer nixed that.
If the Flyers get a Cup thanks in part to Chris Pronger, $4.92 million in dead cap room for two years seems a small price to pay.
Ohlund is just washed the fuck up. I vote Ohlund.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Mar 26, 2011 10:59 AM MDT reply actions
Can you explain the details of 35+ clause
That is, the 35+ clause means if he retires, stuffed in AHL, injured, loaned to KHL or his contract is bought out by Philadelphia the cap hit remains on the team?
If they put him in the minors, they get $100,000 in cap relief, otherwise they get nothing.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 26, 2011 11:24 AM MDT up reply actions
Can I ask why pronger or any player would want a 35+ clause? He doesn’t get any benefit for himself and only harms his team with the clause.
it does ensure that if he doesn’t get a no movement clause, he won’t be thrown into the minors when he’s deemed not useful. remember, pre 2005 a no movement clause was an extreme rarity.
but the 35+ clause is mostly to prevent obvious cap circumventions – things which are (usually) in the best interests of the individual player and the individual team, but not the league as a whole.
As Triumph says, this was supposed to be the clause that kept teams from doing what they’ve done with Lecavalier, Zetterberg, Kovalchuk and the rest. Obviously it didn’t work so well. As for the clause itself, it’s not negotiated into individual contracts, it just automatically applies to any multi-year deals signed by players who are 35+ when the contract begins.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 26, 2011 12:21 PM MDT up reply actions
That’s my concern as well.
I may be wrong, but I think Ohlund is a much better and faster skater than Pronger. I know Pronger is one of those guys that hardly moves, so “losing a step” doesn’t hurt him as much, but losing two? Looks to me like he’s almost at that point, and from what I’ve seen it looks like the defensemen who age best are the smooth skaters.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Mar 26, 2011 7:29 PM MDT up reply actions
I bet every gm in the league would free up 4m for the next 7 years just to have pronger, i vote ohlund
by One_Roy_Save_On_The_Calendar on Mar 26, 2011 11:45 AM MDT reply actions
The redeeming quality of progner’s contract is after 2014 when the cash paid is less than cap hit. This is ideal for cash starved team needing to hit the cap space floor but who are cash short. They have at least constructed his contract in preparation for trade when he gets older.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Copper & Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Oilers Schedule
Last 5 Games
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/07 | L 0 - 3 |
|
Anaheim
|
Thu 04/05 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Mon 04/02 | L 0 - 2 |
|
@
Anaheim
|
Sun 04/01 | W 2 - 1 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- The John Tortorella origin story, including ground balls to the face
- NHL investigates Coyotes; Shane Doan explains tense Game 5 handshake with Kings’ Brown
- NHL Playoff Beard Watch: Blood, Sweat and Beards of unsung unshaven heroes
- Devils guarantee they’ll downplay 1994 conference finals for Game 6 vs. Rangers
- Dodger Stadium Winter Classic; 10 worst NHL fans; ‘While The Men Watch’ debate (Puck Headlines)
