Kukla's Korner

The Puck Stops Here

How The Flyers Use IR To Beat The Salary Cap

Creative accounting is a part of the NHL in its salary cap era.  The Philadelphia Flyers have a method that is unique to them to exceed the salary cap.  They do not buyout players.  Instead they permanently transfer them to the longterm injury reserve.  Any player who has had a lengthy NHL career has some kind of recurring injury problem that can be played up and turned into a longterm ailment.  This allows the team to pay out the injured player’s salary to a new replacement player.  If the player was bought out, there would be dead salary cap space that couldn’t be used.

Mike Rathje is the best example of this.  He last played 18 games in the beginning of the 2006/07 season and remained on the Flyers injury reserve until 2010 when his contract ended.  Derian Hatcher spent the entire 2008/09 season on the injured reserve until his contract ended.  Both of these players never played again and provided needed salary cap relief with their injuries.

The current Philadelphia Flyers exceed the salary cap with their longterm injury players.  They have two players in Ian Laperriere and Blair Betts who are on the injured reserve and expected to never play again.  Ian Laperriere has not played since the 2010 playoffs.  It is highly unlikely that he ever plays another game and yet the Flyers keep him on payroll.  Blair Betts has serious knee problems.  The Flyers waived him at the end of training camp because he was unfit to earn a roster spot.  Montreal claimed him on waivers and then returned him to the Flyers when his routine medical showed just how badly he is hurt.  Their careers are likely over.

These situations do not make the Philadelphia medical crew look good.  They let players remain on the roster with serious career threatening injuries.  When in makes salary cap sense, the player is permanently transferred to the injury reserve instead of bought out.  Players may spend years in the limbo of the injury reserve and delay retirements to stay there.

The Philadelphia Flyers have exceeded the salary cap in nearly every year that it has existed.  They have done so with longterm placement of players on the injury reserve.  These players are no longer making any serious attempt to return to the NHL, but the Flyers find it advantageous to keep them there instead of buy them out.  This is one method used in the NHL to exceed the salary cap.

Filed in: | The Puck Stops Here | Permalink
 

Comments

 1 2 >       Next »

Avatar

Some bad info in this article.

1.  Betts is trying to continue his career.

2.  If Betts retired tomorrow his cap hit disappears.  He wasn’t an over 35 player when he signed his contract.

3.  Neither Rathje or Hatcher were 35 when they signed their contracts.

4.  The players stayed on LTIR instead of retiring so that THEY could benefit by being paid the rest of their contracts.  If they retired they would have forfeited the rest of their money.

5.  Lappy is the only one that’s helping the Flyers by staying on LTIR instead of retiring.  He also gets his whole contract paid by staying on LTIR, so its a win/win for Lappy and the organization.

Posted by John on 10/16/11 at 01:52 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

The player doesnt have to retire.  He just has to agree to go away and not be bought out.  Nobody said anything about over 35 contract - until you.

Betts may want to still play.  I bet he doesn’t succeed in doing so.

Nitpicking at facts that often were not in the story does not change the fact that the Flyers place players on the IR for years in order to evade the spirit of the salary cap.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 01:56 PM ET

Avatar

All four players have legit injuries that prevented them from playing again.  None of the four were made yup or faked.

In 3 of the 4 cases the Flyers would have been better off if the player just retired due to said injuries.

Only Lappy’s stay on IR could be argued “cap circumvention”.

Flyers would prefer a healthy Lappy over Nodl/Talbot.

Betts has had chronic shoulder problems.  This issue is a knee from blocking a shot.  He won’t play for the Flyers, we have better options, but I think he’ll play again somewhere at some point, quite possibly the AHL.

Posted by John on 10/16/11 at 02:05 PM ET

Avatar

There is one significant drawback to using the LTIR strategy, and that is that it severely limits the flexibility that a team has to add talent later in the season.

Because the Flyers almost always outspend the daily cap allotment, they almost never have “banked” cap space accumulating throughout the year to any significant degree. By comparison, if the Red Wings carry their current roster to the trade deadline, they could potentially add over $22 million in yearly salary and remain cap compliant.

Obviously that won’t happen, but the point is that they could add any contract in the NHL to the team, give up no salary in return, and would not have any cap issues for the 2011-12. That is because the team would still be several million dollars below the cap, and would be taking on pro-rated hits (only 40/185, or 8/37, of the full yearly hit).

On the other hand, a team over the cap like Philadelphia would only be able to add a player if they were giving up the same amount of salary in the trade.

Posted by Sven22 from Grand Rapids on 10/16/11 at 02:30 PM ET

Avatar

They still count against the 50 contract limit, though, right?

Posted by brad on 10/16/11 at 02:34 PM ET

Avatar

On a philosophical level, however, I concede that a player who clearly can no longer play (see Rathje, Mike) should either retire or be bought out. The Laperriere situation is legitimate circumvention, because he has a 35+ contract, he’s for all intents and purposes retired, and thus his whole cap hit should be counted against Philadelphia with no LTIR allowances.

That said, in most situations, I don’t see how the LTIR strategy really helps Philadelphia in any significant way, apart from perhaps not having buyouts clogging up their bottom line. To me, it seems much more advantageous (and much less in the spirit of the cap) to pull the “Bieksa Maneuver,” whereby a team is able to keep a roster full of legitimately active players that exceed the cap, as long as players are going onto, or coming off of, LTIR at the right times.

The Rathje and Hatcher LTIR spells hurt the team more than they helped, by preventing the Flyers from banking space. If they had simply retired instead of continuing to draw a paycheck on LTIR, the Flyers would have been better off.

Posted by Sven22 from Grand Rapids on 10/16/11 at 02:46 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

John

Teams cannot tell players when to retire.  even if it were good for the Flyers if these players retired, they don’t have to if they don’t want to.  For a player it is better if they don’t retire and they get paid.  As a Flyer fan you may have a problem with this idea seeing some of the moves the Flyers have made in the past (see Jeff Hackett).

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 02:59 PM ET

Avatar

But if a player has a career-ending injury and still has years left on his contract, who’s responsibility is it to determine when to officially retire? The player, or the team?

If a player can’t play any more but wants to keep drawing his full paycheck until the end of his deal, is the team compelled to say, “We can’t use you, so we HAVE to buy you out?” even though it would be competitively disadvantageous of them to do so?

Consider also the situation where Jiri Fischer almost died due to heart problems on the bench of a game in 2005. He still had a year and a half left on his deal, and it was pretty clear he wasn’t going to play again. He didn’t officially retire, and the Red Wings continued to honor his contract. Was that circumvention?

At the time, it seemed like the honorable thing to do—we understand that circumstances beyond your control ended your career, so rather than say “too bad” and pull the cord, we’ll continue to pay out the deal we agreed upon. Was that a violation of the “spirit” of the cap? Should Fischer have been forced to retire and forfeit his remaining salary, or should the Red Wings have been forced to buy him out and pay the cap price? Both of those situations seem a little heartless to me.

Posted by Sven22 from Grand Rapids on 10/16/11 at 03:02 PM ET

Avatar

Injured players can’t be bought out, without the player’s consent. If the player suffers from a career ending injury, they are unlikely to make up the 1/3 of their remaining salary due on the contract and have no incentive to agree to it. Glen Murray had a dispute with the Bruins about his injury status at the time of his buyout.

LTIR provides cap relief (compared to demoting a player) only if it is an over-35 contract, or as a holding spot to keep a player off waivers to be used once space is cleared.

The most egregious examples I recall of the LTIR being used on over-35 contracts to make cap space available were Keith Primeau and Alexander Mogilny. The Devils wanted to use it for Malakhov but it became a bizarre situation after he retired w/o filing his papers.

Posted by Dave on 10/16/11 at 03:05 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

The problem is the salary cap.  It creates these problems.  While it would be heartless in Fisher’s case to say that he had to retire or be bought out, the Flyers are the other extreme. They play a player who is hurt and when they need the salary cap space they declare him injured and he never comes back again.  Both situations would be wrong.  I don’t know that there is a one size fits all solution to the problem, other than remove the salary cap and remove the problem.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 03:08 PM ET

Avatar

Injured players can’t be bought out, without the player’s consent.

Good point. Forgot about that one.

Posted by Sven22 from Grand Rapids on 10/16/11 at 03:08 PM ET

Avatar

I’m well aware that players can’t be told to retire.

I have no problem with what Rathje and Hatcher did.  It was the smart move for them, and really didn’t hurt the Flyers much at all.

The players didn’t retire, and they were justly placed on LTIR, exactly where they belonged. 

This is the CBA working for both the player and the team.

Posted by John on 10/16/11 at 03:08 PM ET

Avatar

It creates these problems.

There aren’t problems though.  If you have a player under contract who can’t play, why should he count against your cap?

Posted by Garth on 10/16/11 at 03:31 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

There is no firm line between when a player can and cannot play.  The Flyers decide a player in question cannot play for them when it suits their salary cap situation.  He may be playing hurt with a longterm problem (nearly every NHL veteran is in this situation), but he was playing until the salary cap became a problem.  At that point, he is sent to the injured reserve, in some cases for years when it is clear he is never coming back.

It is salary cap circumvention.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 03:37 PM ET

Avatar

None of the players were playing and then just placed on IR without a serious injury.

Lappy took a puck to the head causing serious concussion and PCS issues that he still has to this day.

Betts passed his physical prior to camp.  During his second pre-season game he took a snapshot off the knee.  He had no knee issues prior to that.

Hatcher had knee issues that were serious enough that he neded knee replacement surgery.  I don’t believe that anyone has returned to play after having a knee replaced.

Rathje and Pitkanen were an excellent pair.  Rathje’s loss was a big reason the team went in the tank that season and missed the playoffs.

You’re saying that Rathje, Hatcher and Lappy weren’t seriously injured.  If that was the case, then IR would be cap circumvention.  All three had serious legit injuries.

Posted by John on 10/16/11 at 04:00 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

‘Nobody is arguing that these players were not hurt.  Everyone of these players was playing hurt.  They all became too hurt to play and got placed on the LTIR when it suited the Flyers salary cap situation.

This is a necessary grey area.  If a player says my back/hip/head whatever hurts so much that I cannot play, no doctor worth anything would say he can play when there is a legitimate injury he has been playing through - just think of the potential lawsuits.  The point is the player had been playing through the injury and the point they became too hurt was deterimined by a salary cap situation.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 04:07 PM ET

Avatar

You’re wrong.

Betts being injured actually hurts the Flyers cap situation.  If not for the injury he would have been demoted to the AHL, and his $700k would no longer count against the Flyers cap.

The Flyers missed Lappy so much last year that they went out and overpaid Max Talbot both in years and salary to be Lappy’s replacement.  Your argument that Lappy could play, but the Flyers don’t want him to because it helps their cap situation for him to be on LTIR couldn’t be more untrue.

Posted by John on 10/16/11 at 04:16 PM ET

awould's avatar

Nitpicking at facts that often were not in the story….

Those pesky facts getting in the way again? Not saying the gist of your post isn’t accurate (it could be), but those pesky facts certainly chip away at it and clearly it is not as black and white as you portrayed it to be. It looks to me like Lappy is the only one who really fits the bill on this one, which makes it one instance that may have a good explanation if you sought one out instead of just making accusations based on what you think happened. You got two Philly fans who quite easily put forth much more context than you provided. And since that context does not quite fit your story, you just choose to ignore it and any other explanation it might suggest.

If you put forth a theory, especially one that attacks the integrity of an entire organization, and you leave out mitigating facts that are easily found on the top of the heads of any knowledgeable fan, you diminish your own credibility and call into question your entire argument.

Posted by awould on 10/16/11 at 04:20 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Laperriere played in the 2010 playoffs.  By October he was too hurt to play from a concussion suffered before his 2010 playoff games.  Coincidentally the Flyers needed the cap space the got by Laperriere’s trip to the IR. 

You are the only one who thinks it is a coincidence.  And Hatcher was one too.  And Rathje.  Its too many coincidences for me.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 04:20 PM ET

Avatar

Lappy missed the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the playoffs.  He lied to the training staff/doctors and played when he shouldn’t have in the Finals.  He wanted to play because it was the Finals.

Over the summer when he was training for the 2010-11 season he had to stop because he was still having headaches and a sensitivity to light.

I’d love to hear your brilliant analysis as to why the Flyers were more beneficial with his replacements of Wellwood/Nodl/Holmstrom/Carcillo/Powe instead of Lappy.  The Flyers would much prefer a healthy Lappy to any of those other options.

Also no response to the fact that Betts injury actually hurts the Flyers, and doesn’t help them.

Posted by John on 10/16/11 at 04:35 PM ET

Avatar

If all 4 players really weren’t injured as you’re implying the Flyers could have waived Rathje, Hatcher and Betts just like Redden, Finger, Avery etc. have been waived to get rid of their salaries.

Only Lappy couldn’t have been waived and had his cap figure disappear because of that 35+ contract.

All 4 have legit injuries and were correctly placed on LTIR.

Nice try though.

Posted by John on 10/16/11 at 04:53 PM ET

Avatar

Hatcher’s the best example of Flyers IR cap circumvention. He had a bum knee, but, according to him, he could play on it. Flyers management didn’t think Hatcher with a bum, but playable, knee was the best use of that capspace, so they IRed him (against his will) and, iirc traded for a replacement.

Posted by steviesteve on 10/16/11 at 05:20 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

John

You are entirely right.  The Flyers can send most of these players to the minors instead of put them on injured reserve.  That would be a different appraoch to salary cap circumvention than the one the Flyers chose.  I suppose the Flyers would rather not have a resentful aging player in their minor system.

Any team that has the financial resources to find a method to circumvent the salary cap probably should be doing that.  It may help them win in a competitive league.  Unlike what awould says i am not calling out the integrity of the Flyers.  I am merely pointing out their chosen method of salary cap circumvention.

As to the relatively useless question of why Laperriere’s replacements were better than he was, they were not playing hurt.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 05:55 PM ET

Avatar

The Flyers can send most of these players to the minors instead of put them on injured reserve.

Pretty sure you can’t send down an injured player (or at least one who is on a one-way NHL contract).

Posted by Garth on 10/16/11 at 06:26 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Garth

The issue here which you have missed a couple times is when is a player injured vs. a routine case of playing hurt.  In Philadelphia, he is injured whenever it suits the salary cap situation.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 06:29 PM ET

CMo44's avatar

Most of what I wanted to say has already been said (especially the point about the players going on LTIR, rather than retiring, benefits them just as much as the team). 

However, I would just add that for my money, nobody does “creative accounting” with the salary cap like Lou Lamoriello and the NJ Devils.  He’s been doing it since way before the Kovalchuk situation and seems to be the pioneer of many of the cap-skirting techniques that are now widely used in the NHL.

Posted by CMo44 on 10/16/11 at 06:49 PM ET

Avatar

The issue here which you have missed a couple times is when is a player injured vs. a routine case of playing hurt.  In Philadelphia, he is injured whenever it suits the salary cap situation.

That’s a pretty god damn bold accusation to be making.  I hope you have more the (absolutely no) evidence you provided in your article to back you up.  You’ve provided absolutely no evidence that they aren’t legitimately injured, and if they are then there is no circumvention at play.  What evidence do you have that Blair Betts, who THE LEAGUE returned to Philly because he was deemed to be UNFIT TO PLAY, doesn’t have a legitimate injury?  PLEASE provide some sort of evidence or your argument hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

Posted by Garth on 10/16/11 at 07:24 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Garth

If you ever played serious hockley in your life for any period of time, you are used to playing hurt.  Is the injury so serious that you cannot play?  For the most part that is a judgement call.

Evidence that it was a judgment call in these cases is that in every case the player involved played games after his “injury” occurred and then stopped playing when the salary cap situation called for it.  That includes the Betts case.  The Flyers were content with him playing hurt, but he was waived and claimed by Montreal.  Montreal decided he was too hurt and therefore injured.  That is another judgement call.

Philadelphia makes the judgement calls such that it benefits their salary cap situation.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 07:32 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

It’s clear to me that the cause of this phenomenon is that a player suffers the original injury and then he ages.

By the time he’s ready to be put on IR, he is older than he was when he suffered the injury. The necessity to go on IR is driven by this.

Age causes injuries.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/16/11 at 09:05 PM ET

SnLO's avatar

It’s not cap circumvention because the rules allow for it. Sending players to the minors is not circumvention; placing players on the IR is not circumvention. The players are not playing for the team with the cap, nor are they on its active roster, so they do/are not contribute to the teams performance.

Posted by SnLO from beyond the M-1 on 10/16/11 at 09:44 PM ET

Avatar

It’s clear to me that the cause of this phenomenon is that a player suffers the original injury and then he ages.

By the time he’s ready to be put on IR, he is older than he was when he suffered the injury. The necessity to go on IR is driven by this.

Age causes injuries.

That is a phenomenal rebuttal. Well played, sir.

Posted by Iggy_Rules on 10/16/11 at 10:18 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Iggy_Rules

It is stupid.  So stupid I wasn’t going to even respond, until somebody came in to cheerlead the stupid.

There is a correlation between higher age of a player and injury.  Each of these longterm injured players are in their 30s.  Nearly (I am not sure if this word is necessary) every player who reaches that age in the NHL is playing with some recurring problem in some body part.  These are examples of such players who use those recurring, nagging problems as reasons to permanently go onto the IR.  This is an example of older players getting hurt.  It is amazing that has to be pointed out at all.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 10:22 PM ET

Avatar

TPSH You you have more than a few similar post recently but I am still a little baffled. You keep pointing to cap circumvention but I don’t see that. Perhaps you could sum up what you think cap circumvention is?

So Philly shelves some guy on LTIR - they comes out of their budget. Philly not Phoenix but at the same time they ain’t Toronto either. That’s money not spent on scouts or what not… The rules are the rules circumvention would seem to imply a guy is injured but seen running a triathlon, or they have secret cripto-contracts with prospects in the KHL.

Injury is tricky because at the end of the day even doctor A says you know I think Player B is OK, fine -  now what if another says the player is risking his future potential career without a full year off. I suppose maybe you could argue that there should be some endowed panel of medical experts with the free budget authority to bring in more experts as needed to review very long term LTIR claims, but that sounds like one more thing small money losing markets are going to expect profitable teams to pay for.

Posted by paulklos on 10/16/11 at 10:52 PM ET

Avatar

TPSH the problem with the Age/Injury correlation is that you have never established it as all that significant or overwhelming in the very small subset of the population that is NHL players vs all other potential variables.

Posted by paulklos on 10/16/11 at 10:56 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The current average age of a player on Yahoo’s injury list is about 26.5 years.

27 of 95 injured players have reached their 30th birthday. That is 28%

There is a correlation between higher age of a player and injury.

All I’m asking is that you show me. If you’re going to use statistical words like correlation, I want to know how much of a correlation there is.

If you’re going to use statistical measures like 30 years of age, I want to see data to support what, on its face, should be an obvious claim.

What precisely is the correlation between being over 30 and being injured enough to miss games?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/16/11 at 11:09 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

JJ

Numbers have been produced in the comments of our various threads - but I will admit they are not 100% definiitive.  If you want the number so badly, find me a convenient source of all the man games lost by various players last year.  I haven’t ever found a convenient source for that information and have never had the desire to try to produce one of my own.

If somebody finds me that info in a way I can use, I will crunch some numbers.  Until then, I will argue it is obvious that a correlation exists and use this among other things as evidence for my claim.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/16/11 at 11:19 PM ET

awould's avatar

What you call evidence for your claim has been picked apart by several commenters in this thread, all who offer other, more innocent explanations. You don’t really dispute any of it except to imply that your theory is somehow just right because. I do not feel that you’ve provided any real proof of anything. You’ve simply pointed out some behavior, chose to see a pattern and then attributed that pattern to your own conclusion. Others have pointed out that it is hardly a pattern and even if it were, there are other explanations.  To me, these arguments are at least as solid as your own.

Starting out by complaining that others are bringing “outside” facts into the discussion didn’t help….

Posted by awould on 10/16/11 at 11:41 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Hahahaha.

“The numbers are too hard to find and I’m not motivated to look them up. Since nobody else has done it, I’m safe to make unsubstantiated claims, accept anecdotal evidence which would support my position, and ignore evidence to the contrary!”

Yeah, that sounds about right.

But hey, I’m the stupid one…

Every single player’s SB Nation profile page has their entire career’s worth of transaction (including games missed with injuries. For instance, you can see from Ian Laperriere’s profile page (right sidebar, under scouting report) that he suffered a concussion on April 22nd against the New Jersey Devils in their series-clinching game. The Flyers reported on the following Tuesday, the 27th that he had suffered a concussion. Laperriere would miss the next 10 playoff games with this injury. He returned May 22nd in game 4 of the Montreal series and played the remainder of the playoffs.

To take it from here, I’ll let John’s previous comment speak for itself:

Lappy missed the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the playoffs.  He lied to the training staff/doctors and played when he shouldn’t have in the Finals.  He wanted to play because it was the Finals.

Over the summer when he was training for the 2010-11 season he had to stop because he was still having headaches and a sensitivity to light.

I’d love to hear your brilliant analysis as to why the Flyers were more beneficial with his replacements of Wellwood/Nodl/Holmstrom/Carcillo/Powe instead of Lappy.  The Flyers would much prefer a healthy Lappy to any of those other options.

So yes, John was technically incorrect in that Laperriere only missed the 2nd round and MOST of the 3rd round, but that’s a pedantic point which does nothing to defeat the purpose of his argument.

What you’ve insinuated here in the article and in the comments is that the Flyers decided that Laperriere was not fit to play in the summer of 2010 and that their decision to do this was based MAINLY on their desire to have his $1.166MM cap space handy and not on the status of an injury that it’s apparently easy to deem that Laperriere could otherwise “just play through.” You have defended this position with the claim that all players over 30 are consistently injured to some extent or another and therefore a traumatic brain injury to Laperriere is something that he could otherwise live with throughout an 82-game season (since that is the same kind of hockey which leads to the same kind of “toughing out injuries” as conference and Stanley Cup finals series). After all, if Laperriere can just play through a concussion in game three of the Stanley Cup finals, then he can just as easily just play through a concussion in a meaningless October game. Furthermore, Laperriere kept up the ruse for the entire season and didn’t play a single game in the next season’s playoffs because he had a *wink wink nudge nudge* agreement with the Flyers to not tough out enough of the season to qualify to play in the playoffs because he wanted so badly to help their cap situation.

To further this insinuation, you have to imply that the Flyers did not want Laperriere to be healthy enough to play hockey and that they had their team doctors commit what was at least a dishonest assessment of a concussed player’s condition because this gave them the freedom to spend more money that, for some reason they felt like spending despite having a player on their roster who (as John pointed out) would have been a better option than any of the players the Flyers used to replace him.

They did all of this for $1.166MM in cap space.

Beyond that, Laperriere accepted that he was now suddenly not fit to play (despite your insinuation that he could have toughed out his traumatic brain injury) and, despite having a guaranteed contract and a career’s history worth of showing the willingness to do whatever it took to make sure he could play hockey, he had suddenly and somehow lost the fire to compete for a position playing hockey.  When the Flyers told him to take a seat and placed him on IR, he acquiesced without so much as asking Paul Holmgren if he might even put Laperriere on the trade block or put him through waivers to give him the opportunity to play elsewhere (since the Flyer’s motivation here was his cap space, not his health status). 

Because these are the conditions which MUST be met in order for this to be a circumvention of the salary cap (the word “circumvention” being important here with the widely-accepted definition that it means the Flyers did something with the intent of abusing the rules of the CBA in order to allow them to somehow gain a competitive advantage). In order for this to be circumvention, the Flyers would have to have known that Laperriere’s brain injury was fine, they would have to have wanted to replace his salary and roster spot, and they would have to have somehow convinced Laperriere to not make a stink about not being allowed to at least compete for his roster spot or get a chance to go elsewhere.

Otherwise, it’s the Flyers using a rule for the exact purpose it was written and you’re blustering about nothing.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/17/11 at 12:12 AM ET

Avatar

Philadelphia makes the judgement calls such that it benefits their salary cap situation.

I asked for evidence.

Posted by Garth on 10/17/11 at 12:43 AM ET

Avatar

JJ just crushed it.

Posted by Anon from G.R. on 10/17/11 at 01:02 AM ET

 1 2 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About The Puck Stops Here

imageThe Puck Stops Here was founded during the 2004/05 lockout as a place to rant about hockey. The original site contains over 1000 posts, some of which were also published on FoxSports.com.

Who am I? A diehard hockey fan.

Why am I blogging? I want to.

Why are you reading it? ???

Email: y2kfhl@hotmail.com