What would you do with Pronger??

[Adelpiero]

qualify gap tooth and deal him???



Try to resign him to long term contract?

[Shoalzie]

The Blues are $24.1 million without Pronger and you've got to think he'll cost atleast $5 or $6 million. According to TSN that would put the Blues at $29 or $30 million with 14 players. If they can find some bargains to fill out their roster, I'd keep Pronger. The Ducks are reportedly shopping the #2 pick...maybe you can trade him to Anaheim for that pick and then take a run at Niedermayer perhaps. I don't think you can feel comfortable about going into the season without a true #1 defenseman in front of a questionable goalie like Lalime. Jackman and Backman are a great young pair of defensemen but you don't have much behind them if you let Pronger go and don't replace him. MacInnis probably is done so you might want to keep him as long as he doesn't ask for a max deal.

[Hapday]

I would keep Pronger and buy out Weight and Tkachuk (sp).

[fix]

I would keep Pronger and buy out Weight and Tkachuk (sp).

Maybe you would but the Blues said they won't.

Report: Blues won't use buyout option


TSN.ca Staff



7/26/2005 10:45:28 AM

The St. Louis Blues will not use the new buyout rule to address its difficult salary cap position, according to a report in the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

Team have until Friday to buy out big cantracts at two-thirds of their value. It is a temporary rule designed to help teams get under the new salary cap.

The top targets for the Blues appeared to be Doug Weight and Keith Tkachuk. Weight will make $5.7 million this season, while Tkachuk will pull in $7.8 million.

On Monday, however, Blues president Mark Sauer said the buyout plan was just a money-burner.

Related Info
Follow the day's action in the TSN hockey transaction log
"That's just cash thrown into the river as far as I'm concerned," Sauer told the Post Dispatch. "Let's not sugarcoat this, this isn't a fantasy sports league here. That's real money being paid. Some teams are being forced to do that. Thank goodness we don't have to do that."






Weight, who last week admitted to being a possible buyout casualty, could not be reached Monday. His agent, , said: "I'm happy with this decision," said Weight's agent, Steve Bartlett. "Doug is an asset who the Blues should have kept. I don't think there's any question he'll be happy about this."

Despite keeping at least two high-proced players, the Blues say they won't be big spenders.

"We're not trying to figure out, nor should we, how to spend to the max," Sauer said. "We're trying to figure out, 'How do we stay flexible? How do we get this team more stable financially? How do we prepare for a very complex set of circumstances?"

That could be bad news for restricted free agent defenceman Chris Pronger.

The Blues have until Sunday to sign Pronger or give him a qualifying offer, which would allow the Blues to match another club's offer or receive compensation if Pronger signs elsewhere. Sauer said the Blues remain uncertain how to proceed with the star defenceman.

"I think it's maybe a better spending of major dollars if you're spending them on 27-year-old unrestricted free agents rather than 31-year-old unrestricted free agents," Sauer told the Post Dispatch. "I'm not knocking Chris ... but remember, once you burn some of that salary cap room, you're done.

"The bottom line now is flexibility as far as the St. Louis Blues are concerned, and we're going to be very careful about that."

"It's frustrating that they have had 15 months to put a game plan together," Pronger told the Post Dispatch. "They had an idea of what (the CBA) was going to look like. It's very frustrating not knowing where you're going to be. That's the thing ... it's not that they're giving you good news or bad news. They're not giving you anything."

Rumours also have Keenan trying to make a deal to get Pronger...

[Cross Traffic]

I would let him go, he is too injury prone to be giving him 5 to 6 mil a season.

[Hapday]

I would keep Pronger and buy out Weight and Tkachuk (sp).

Maybe you would but the Blues said they won't.

Then the Blues cup drought continues.

[BSmack]

I would keep Pronger and buy out Weight and Tkachuk (sp).

Maybe you would but the Blues said they won't.

Then the Blues cup drought continues.

It is not a drought if its never fucking RAINED.

[Hapday]

Touché.

[al?]

I don't know about Chris Pronger, but if I were in St. Loo I would FIRE LEERY PLEAU AND BRING BACK THE ORGAN!!!!!!!!

[Hapday]

RACK AL?

[Adelpiero]

pronger qualified



rumors are atlanta is interested, who knows, with Pleau runnign the show, christ knows what he'll get in return.

[Bizzarofelice]

injury prone

He just has problems when Stevie Y shatters his wrist is all.

[Adelpiero]

wow

Pronger is a hot chip right now!

Fla,Ana,Atl,Philly all knocking heads for pronger(why? Pleau has shown in past he'll take the first and worst offer)

And another rumor, which would be a Pleau typical deal: Pronger to anaheim + blues 1st rounder for #2 pick. Horrible deal if blues make that!

Latest Fla rumor has Pronger to Fla for bouwmeister and ? Keenen has given a lot away in past for his Franchise Dman, so him overbidding wouldnt suprise me!



Lalime option picked up, lets see what he has this year.

[Shoalzie]

Pronger is now an Edmonton Oiler from the looks of this trade, the Blues might have the gotten the better of the deal. Unless Pronger is a Norris candidate for the Oilers...the Blues pick up the Oilers former #1 defenseman and one of their top propsects on the blueline. Nice move by Pleau...got two quality defensemen and saves the team a lot of money.


http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=132273&hubName=nhl

[Adelpiero]

Pronger is now an Edmonton Oiler from the looks of this trade, the Blues might have the gotten the better of the deal. Unless Pronger is a Norris candidate for the Oilers...the Blues pick up the Oilers former #1 defenseman and one of their top propsects on the blueline. Nice move by Pleau...got two quality defensemen and saves the team a lot of money.


http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=132273&hubName=nhl

3 quality and young dman


and now only at 30mil, so some leferage under the cap!

[fix]

And the small market madness continues....

[Hapday]

I wonder if this would have been possible under the old CBA? :roll: :roll:

Good for Edmonton. I think the price was a little too high for Pronger, but he is definately one of the top five defensemen in the league. Possibly even top three.

[fix]

I wonder if this would have been possible under the old CBA? :roll: :roll:

Good for Edmonton. I think the price was a little too high for Pronger, but he is definately one of the top five defensemen in the league. Possibly even top three.

Of course it would have been possible.
But then they would have looked like hypocrites for crying wolf about being broke while turning around and acquiring one of the highest paid players going..

Just like they are now.

You honestly think that they turned their fiscal situation around even before any games have been played or revenues brought in?
Please... :roll::roll:

[Bizzarofelice]

it'll suck for our forwards to be on the receiving end of Pronger's slashes and jabs. Weight will get hurt first game against EDM.

Pronger played with the last helmetless player MacTavish during the Keenan era in '96 (I think). Pronger will be the grandfather in that clubhouse.

[Hapday]

Of course it would have been possible.

Yeah, sure. Possible in the same way that it is possible to get tooth paste back in the tube.

You honestly think that they turned their fiscal situation around even before any games have been played or revenues brought in?
Please... :roll::roll:

Ummmmm, you do know that these players won't be getting a paycheck until the season starts, right? You also know that, unlike during the lockout, the Oilers will have season's tickets revenue and sponsoship money to put in the bank, right? That's how they come up with the money.

[JD]

Thing is, Edmonton's payroll isn't a whole lot higher after this move than it was before.

If they went out and signed an unrestricted guy, OK, then they're adding payroll. But they had to subtract their #1 dman just to get Pronger.

The only difference now is that Pronger is no longer worth $10M, but $6M, which is doable for smaller markets.

The new CBA is working.

[fix]

Thing is, Edmonton's payroll isn't a whole lot higher after this move than it was before.

If they went out and signed an unrestricted guy, OK, then they're adding payroll. But they had to subtract their #1 dman just to get Pronger.

The only difference now is that Pronger is no longer worth $10M, but $6M, which is doable for smaller markets.

The new CBA is working.

:roll:

And for a team that couldn't afford to keep players even last season they suddenly can afford Pronger and Peca?
That's 10 million just for 2 players JD.
Their entire payroll for 2003-2004 was $ 33,375,000 and Kevin Lowe was crying wolf about not being able to afford THAT much.

Ummmmm, you do know that these players won't be getting a paycheck until the season starts, right? You also know that, unlike during the lockout, the Oilers will have season's tickets revenue and sponsoship money to put in the bank, right? That's how they come up with the money.

Well that certainly is encouraging then isn't it..
A team that couldn't afford to keep players before claiming they were on the brink of bankruptcy is counting on money they don't even have yet from season's tickets and sponsership money to bankroll an even larger payroll...
So gullibleday... since you've bought into the owners bs hook line and sinker... what happens if the sponsership money doesn't cover it or if their fans (as you like to remind us that you're not going to do) decide not to buy tickets because they're still pissed over the lockout.
Who gets to bail them out then?

[JD]

And for a team that couldn't afford to keep players even last season they suddenly can afford Pronger and Peca?
That's 10 million just for 2 players JD.
Their entire payroll for 2003-2004 was $ 33,375,000 and Kevin Lowe was crying wolf about not being able to afford THAT much.

Hey now, be fair. My post was before Peca was added. And remember, they did subtract Mike York to get him anyway. The difference in payroll isn't $10M, probably more like an additional $5M.

But fine, if you want me to say "Kevin Lowe is a hypocrite", fine, Kevin Lowe is a hypocrite, AND a loser.

And still, it's not like the small markets are going hogwild and pushing the upper limit of the salary cap. The league is simply evening itself out.

[fix]

And for a team that couldn't afford to keep players even last season they suddenly can afford Pronger and Peca?
That's 10 million just for 2 players JD.
Their entire payroll for 2003-2004 was $ 33,375,000 and Kevin Lowe was crying wolf about not being able to afford THAT much.

Hey now, be fair. My post was before Peca was added. And remember, they did subtract Mike York to get him anyway. The difference in payroll isn't $10M, probably more like an additional $5M.

But fine, if you want me to say "Kevin Lowe is a hypocrite", fine, Kevin Lowe is a hypocrite, AND a loser.

And still, it's not like the small markets are going hogwild and pushing the upper limit of the salary cap. The league is simply evening itself out.

Kind of difficult to argue against my point AND prop up your arch enemy eh?
Was that checkmate or stalemate I heard you admit to?

Look, let's make one thing clear. I'm glad for Edmonton, Calgary and the other teams that they are doing something to improve their teams and are spending money to do it.
I just find it extremely hypocritical of these teams for crying poor for all of these years and then spending as if they have an unlimited Gold card.
There's nothing wrong with spending it but to do so as quickly as they are does refute their whole arguement about how broke they were and that even a 39 million cap was too much.
I mean jesus, look at what the Penguins are doing... they were the poster child for a team that was financially dead. Now they're spending as if they were George Steinbrenner at a free agent buffet.

[Hapday]

There's nothing wrong with spending it but to do so as quickly as they are does refute their whole arguement about how broke they were and that even a 39 million cap was too much.

Not really. For the most part, most of the teams crying poor are in a perfect situation for free agency. They don't have bloated contracts eating up their salary budget. Do you honestly think that without a hard cap and the 24 % rollback that Edmonton would be able to afford Pronger and Peca?

They are only spending like drunken sailors on shore leave because they have a shitload of cap space and super star players are now affordable for small market teams. What is wrong with that?

[fix]

There's nothing wrong with spending it but to do so as quickly as they are does refute their whole arguement about how broke they were and that even a 39 million cap was too much.

Not really. For the most part, most of the teams crying poor are in a perfect situation for free agency. They don't have bloated contracts eating up their salary budget. Do you honestly think that without a hard cap and the 24 % rollback that Edmonton would be able to afford Pronger and Peca?

They are only spending like drunken sailors on shore leave because they have a shitload of cap space and super star players are now affordable for small market teams. What is wrong with that?

:roll:

You still don't quite get it do you Hap..

Salaries were being reduced over the past couple of seasons. The players gave the NHL the 24% rollback.
If the teams didn't have the money to afford them last year when their team payrolls were in some cased well under the new 39 million cap, revenue sharing isn't going to provide them THAT much more where they can blow their wad and act as if they have the deep pockets that other successful franchises still do.
Yet, they are.
So.. where did the money come from.

[JD]

Thing is, the Flames haven't cried poor in a lot of years. In fact, not since the dollar was below 70 cents. The revenue situation has been improved immensely recently. A trip to the Finals certainly didn't hurt either.

The Flames and Oilers both had payrolls in the area of $32M to $36M last season, which is pretty much what they're going to spend this year.

Show me who's using their gold cards, other than Pittsburgh. I'll admit that what they're doing seems a little strange, but the league, as a whole, will not spend more than they're making. This CBA actually guarantees that!!

I just can't see what you're so bitter about. If you think the basis locking out the players was flawed, then you'll have to wait until the season's done and analyze the payrolls and revenues THEN rather than pointing to a flurry of signings in the last 3 days.

Maybe just a little bit of it is the fact that your team has had to sit on the sidelines and watch rather loading up with whatever they wanted like they did in the old NHL?

Otis, Champion for the Big Markets!!

[fix]

Thing is, the Flames haven't cried poor in a lot of years. In fact, not since the dollar was below 70 cents. The revenue situation has been improved immensely recently. A trip to the Finals certainly didn't hurt either.

Well seeing as that I can tell you when the dollar was last below 70 cents.. that would be just about 3 years ago and yes, I'm sure that a trip to the finals did benefit the Flames.. and deservedly so.

The Flames and Oilers both had payrolls in the area of $32M to $36M last season, which is pretty much what they're going to spend this year.

Last season, Edmonton's payroll was $ 33,375,000
Calgary's was $ 36,402,575 so yes, you're right about that. But the point I'm making here is that in Edmonton's case, Kevin Lowe said they couldn't afford to spend that amount yet they're adding an extra what, 5 million according to you to their payroll already?
And wasn't it the Flames owner Harley that was part of the owner's clique that kept pushing for an even lower maximum cap limit?

Show me who's using their gold cards, other than Pittsburgh. I'll admit that what they're doing seems a little strange, but the league, as a whole, will not spend more than they're making. This CBA actually guarantees that!!

Why look any further than Pittsburgh then? Even you are admitting that what they're doing is strange and they were the poster child for a franchise that was failing..
But if you want to talk about the league as a whole... then how come a number of former have nots are increasing their payrolls when they can't be certain what the revenues will be that they're making..
As Gary kept reminding everyone, nobody can be certain what the outcome of the lockout will look like..
It took MLB years to recover...

I just can't see what you're so bitter about. If you think the basis locking out the players was flawed, then you'll have to wait until the season's done and analyze the payrolls and revenues THEN rather than pointing to a flurry of signings in the last 3 days.

Yes, I do think the basis was flawed..
So it's not a bit shocking to see who is making these flurry of signings over the past 3 days AND more specifically, the amount of money that they're handing out?
Sure we can all wait until the end of the season then but where there's smoke, there's fire.

Maybe just a little bit of it is the fact that your team has had to sit on the sidelines and watch rather loading up with whatever they wanted like they did in the old NHL?

I don't think I've hidden the fact that I'm pissed at the lack of movement by the Leafs. They could have had more cap room if they had bought out Belfour and Klee..
If you're saying that I don't like this new system because it constricts teams from making moves, then yes you're correct.
I don't. Never did, never will.
Nor have I swayed from my stance that the cap was not necessary, warranted or beneficial to anyone except to further line the owners pockets.
Let me put it to you in another form there JD... just how do you feel about the transfer payments Alberta makes to Ottawa to help Quebec out?
Are you in favour of them?

[JD]

You should like this cap. It will never line the pockets of the owners with more than 46% of the NHL's revenues. To me, it just seems as a very fair way of dealing with the league.

But as I try to sit and imagine myself as a fan of the Leafs, I guess I can see your point. The Leafs' owners will certainly rake in the money. This salary cap is far below the Leafs' revenues. If you look at it from that perspective, I can see how I'd be leery of limiting the amount of money going in the players' direction.

But you can be assured that any and all revenue that CAN be put towards players is and always was put towards the players in my market. And when that money wasn't enough to compete with the other teams in the league, the viability of the team in this market comes into question.

Thus, the league's survival as a sum of its parts depends on the equalization of things. Enter revenue sharing, and the salary cap linked to overall league revenues. If you want to use your analogy, transfer payments. If you value the NHL as a league, then you should fundamentally be in favour of mechanisms that improve its chances of survival, again, as the sum of its parts.

And along with your analogy, Alberta's transfer payments are made because we are in favour Canada's survival, and those payments are a mechanism to prop up the parts and therefore the sum of those parts as well.

We only whine about the transfer payments because the money doesn't necessarily go to the parts that need it. Enter your Quebec comment. That's corruption and a flawed mechanism. We don't appreciate that, but we still believe in the fundamental idea behind the transfer payments. (OK, for the most part... enter western separatists)

We can argue all day about whether the new CBA is a flawed mechanism, but I believe the system put into place has the correct fundamental intention. Time will tell if I'm right.

One thing that jumps out at me so far, though: NHL GM's can be extremely short-sighted and incapable of self-control when presented with the opportunity to acquire a player for nothing but money. Thus far, a salary cap isn't stopping that. :x

And wasn't it the Flames owner Harley that was part of the owner's clique that kept pushing for an even lower maximum cap limit?

Never heard of such a thing. But I'm pretty sure his intentions and desires wouldn't have become public. He was in place as a key negotiator.

[fix]

You should like this cap. It will never line the pockets of the owners with more than 46% of the NHL's revenues. To me, it just seems as a very fair way of dealing with the league.

But as I try to sit and imagine myself as a fan of the Leafs, I guess I can see your point. The Leafs' owners will certainly rake in the money. This salary cap is far below the Leafs' revenues. If you look at it from that perspective, I can see how I'd be leery of limiting the amount of money going in the players' direction.

But you can be assured that any and all revenue that CAN be put towards players is and always was put towards the players in my market. And when that money wasn't enough to compete with the other teams in the league, the viability of the team in this market comes into question.

Thus, the league's survival as a sum of its parts depends on the equalization of things. Enter revenue sharing, and the salary cap linked to overall league revenues. If you want to use your analogy, transfer payments. If you value the NHL as a league, then you should fundamentally be in favour of mechanisms that improve its chances of survival, again, as the sum of its parts.

And along with your analogy, Alberta's transfer payments are made because we are in favour Canada's survival, and those payments are a mechanism to prop up the parts and therefore the sum of those parts as well.

We only whine about the transfer payments because the money doesn't necessarily go to the parts that need it. Enter your Quebec comment. That's corruption and a flawed mechanism. We don't appreciate that, but we still believe in the fundamental idea behind the transfer payments. (OK, for the most part... enter western separatists)

We can argue all day about whether the new CBA is a flawed mechanism, but I believe the system put into place has the correct fundamental intention. Time will tell if I'm right.

One thing that jumps out at me so far, though: NHL GM's can be extremely short-sighted and incapable of self-control when presented with the opportunity to acquire a player for nothing but money. Thus far, a salary cap isn't stopping that. :x

And wasn't it the Flames owner Harley that was part of the owner's clique that kept pushing for an even lower maximum cap limit?

Never heard of such a thing. But I'm pretty sure his intentions and desires wouldn't have become public. He was in place as a key negotiator.

First off... good points and well said.
Ok, that out of the way... I appreciate the fact that you did look at this from a Leaf fan's perspective.
But as far as caps go, I just don't believe in them in any shape or form, not just this salary cap as it pertains to the NHL.
I don't think it's right to freeze the price of gas, wage controls or price controls on engery...
So while it might help the league from your perspective, I'd have rather seen them accomplish the same thing by the use of a luxury tax.

One thing that jumps out at me so far, though: NHL GM's can be extremely short-sighted and incapable of self-control when presented with the opportunity to acquire a player for nothing but money. Thus far, a salary cap isn't stopping that. :x

Hence my whole arguement about the same teams setting themselves up for failure once more, even with a salary cap in place.
And revenue sharing in and of itself is a perpetual bail out system. That is not the answer. Because really, all it is is welfare under a 'friendly' name.
And I think we both can agree that welfar or perpetual bail outs to those on it does nothing to encourage them to get off of it.

I'm only basing my comments about Harley based on what I've heard other "hockey insiders" ie: PrimeTime sports round tables.. Leafs Lunch show.. hockey writers from Canada and the U.S. etc.. discussing throughout the lockout. But he was mentioned in that regard..
As much as they try to keep every detail behind closed doors, it's impossible with todays media...

[Hapday]

If you're saying that I don't like this new system because it constricts teams from making moves, then yes you're correct.
I don't. Never did, never will.

Philly, Montreal, Edmonton, Boston, Colorado, and Clagary aren't constricted.

The Leafs are a victim of Pat Quinn's idiocy as a GM. They sacrificed their future for way too long to try and 'win right now' and in doing so paid too high of a price. The best thing the Leafs can do this year is get younger and cheaper QUICK, and hope they have a ton of cap room to sign up quality UFA next year.

[fix]

If you're saying that I don't like this new system because it constricts teams from making moves, then yes you're correct.
I don't. Never did, never will.

Philly, Montreal, Edmonton, Boston, Colorado, and Clagary aren't constricted.

The Leafs are a victim of Pat Quinn's idiocy as a GM. They sacrificed their future for way too long to try and 'win right now' and in doing so paid too high of a price. The best thing the Leafs can do this year is get younger and cheaper QUICK, and hope they have a ton of cap room to sign up quality UFA next year.

:roll: :roll:

You really didn't pay attention in school did you?

Main Entry: salary cap
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: the maximum amount of money that can be spent on salaries for a sports team or other group
Example: The salary cap can be a per-player limit or a total limit for the team's roster or both.


con·strict ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-strkt)
v. con·strict·ed, con·strict·ing, con·stricts
v. tr.
To make smaller or narrower by binding or squeezing.
To squeeze or compress.
To restrict the scope or freedom of; cramp: lives constricted by poverty.

v. intr.
To become constricted.

[Joey Moss]

1) Edmonton's salary was $33 Million last year and it will be 31-33 this year. I don't see the problem with what they've done this year.

2) Edmonton has been one of the few teams that has actually broken even or made money in recent years (thanks to their one round playoff exits or the outdoor heritage classic game). It should be even better this year with the increase in the canadian dollar.

[Jeff 2K5]

Someone handicap the Capitals for me, I have no idea who's on their roster anymore except Kolzig. Hopefully Ovechkin is the real deal and he's ready to play sooner rather than later.

[JD]

Someone handicap the Capitals for me, I have no idea who's on their roster anymore except Kolzig. Hopefully Ovechkin is the real deal and he's ready to play sooner rather than later.

The Caps are just plain gonna suck.

Chris Clark is slated to play on the 2nd line RW. 'nuff said.