An injury of convenience

by James Mirtle on Jan 21, 2009 3:12 PM CST Comment 30 comments

It appears the Flyers will delay Danny Briere's return from a groin injury - and it may have just as much to do with the salary-cap situation as it does the center's health.

"It's a little bit of both, to be honest," Briere said after yesterday's practice at the Skate Zone in Voorhees.

"I'm not sure about that," general manager Paul Holmgren said when relayed Briere's assessment. "He doesn't feel 100 percent just yet."

— Philadelphia Inquirer

After some time in the minors, the player says he feels fine, ready to return to earn his gaudy pay cheque. But the GM?

"No you're not."

The fact of the matter is that the Flyers can't activate Briere and, frankly, they don't really want to. He's the biggest boat anchor contract (complete with a no-trade clause) on a team incredibly close to the salary cap, and has only played nine games this season. The team has won only two games with him in the lineup and has been just fine, battling for top spot in their division, without him, and it's going to take a somewhat major move to make room.

While Briere was away, Holmgren spent those dollars, bringing in defenceman Matt Carle's $3.44-million contract in early November. Carle's been a solid contributer, filling in that No. 3 role on the blueline and playing 22 minutes, so he's not going anywhere.

The rumoured names on the way out are Joffrey Lupul and Randy Jones, and neither will be easy to deal (especially in this climate). Lupul has struggled and has an asinine contract, $17-million over the next four years beginning next season, while Jones is making close to $3-million to play close to 20 minutes a night and gives the Flyers some needed depth on the blueline.

Since starting the season with six losses in a row, the Flyers have been pretty good (24-9-6) — one of the best teams in the league, in fact — and they obviously don't want to dismantle what's working to fit in what hasn't. That said, the NHL needs to intervene in instances like this, where a team is allowing a star to play in the AHL on a conditioning stint without activating him but then conveniently feels he's not recovered enough to play in the big leagues.

The team's explanation doesn't wash, not when they're this close to being over the cap, and the Flyers shouldn't be allowed to take on payroll and hop through loopholes like this at will.

Otherwise, why have a salary cap?

UPDATE The Flyers have now announced, apparently after more discussion with the team's medical staff, that Briere is actually going to have more surgery and will be out another two weeks.

That will certainly give Holmgren some more time to figure out the cap machinations of Briere coming back. (And so much for the team holding out an uninjured player... )

0 recs | Comment 30 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree. Although I think the salary cap should be altered slightly to make it more usable for GMs.
I think the cap of players that are injured extensively should be averaged over the entire season, so that one can go over the cap when the injured player returns, just as long as the team doesn’t spend more than the salary cap over the entire year.

This should only apply to player who admit themselves they are not ready to play. Otherwise you could still keep a player on IR for an extended period of time.

26 Card Jet

by Tommelot on Jan 21, 2009 3:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Amen to this. How is it that GMs are still running up against the cap in mid-season? How do you put yourself in a situation where the return of your highest-paid player puts you over the cap? Did someone miss the pre-season memo about TPS reports?

Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.

by Dominik on Jan 21, 2009 3:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The problem was there wasn’t the new cover sheet on those TPS reports.

The population of Pominville keeps rising!

by Blackcapricorn on Jan 21, 2009 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What did everyone expect?

Only the totally naive thought that teams wouldn’t manipulate the cap when necessary. The only mystery was maybe how they would do it.

If the Flyers want to pay Danny Briere $7M a year to wash Ed Snider’s car, who cares?

The teams with money aren’t going to complain about it. The players are unlikely to complain. If the team is winning, fans aren’t going to complain.

Who’s the aggrieved party?

by Dr Van Nostrum on Jan 21, 2009 3:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

As long as Briere counts against the cap, they can make him do whatever they want.

Some teams are playing it straight, and staying under the cap or leaving room in case of injuries. Others aren’t and should incur penalties.

by James Mirtle on Jan 21, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bang on James!

Who was it who signed Briere, Lupul, Jones, et cetera to those salary cap threatening contracts? It was Paul, wasn’t it? If so, “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” (Hey, a biblical reference — who says pro sport is isolated from the real world?)

But if they’re doing just fine without Briere, they could do even better with consistent goaltending — oh no, a trade rumour, at the All Star break yet!

by Bob Roberts on Jan 22, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Who’s the aggrieved party?

I suppose the team that would have paid Danny Briere $6M a year to play NHL hockey.

Also, I would argue that I’d be better off watching a league where the most talented players got to play, regardless of salary-cap-cheating schemes. I’m not better off watching a league that sends guys like Mogilny and Briere to the minors, not because of talent, but rather to make things look cheaper on paper.

http://www.battleofcali.com/

by Earl Sleek on Jan 21, 2009 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s more than ever the case, as there are tons of guys in the minors making major cake.

by James Mirtle on Jan 21, 2009 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well its not all bad. The ticket prices in the minors are pretty good so I am seeing these guys at a discount!

The population of Pominville keeps rising!

by Blackcapricorn on Jan 21, 2009 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Ducks fan doesn’t mention Bobby Ryan’s needless six-week stint in Iowa? For shame.

by Doogie2K on Jan 22, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but that’s a different angle, I’d say. Bobby Ryan hadn’t earned the right to be an NHLer at that point — not every kid drafted needs to be rushed into the league, and heck — I’m not sure Ryan had eclipsed 20 career points by that point — hard to call him a guy who necessarily needed to be in the NHL.

Briere, Mogilny — these are different cases, I’d say.

http://www.battleofcali.com/

by Earl Sleek on Jan 22, 2009 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The impression I was given was that he was good enough out of camp, but had to go down for cap reasons. He’s certainly looked good enough since coming up.

by Doogie2K on Jan 22, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“Who’s the Aggrieved party?”

Every other GM who makes reasonable contract offers.

The Flyers overpaid for Briere and they should be forced to deal with the consequences. The other aggrieved party are the teams that do good cost accounting and are poised to extract concessions from the Flyers. Remember how the well-managed Sharks picked up an extra 1st round draft pick to make the Devils cap problems go away? Some GM is probably sitting out there waiting for Holmgren to come begging.

by The Falconer on Jan 21, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was suspucious...

… that Danny wouldn’t be playing tonight because Holmgren was stalling, trying to make some sort of a trade to get under the cap. But it seems that Danny really is injured.

He’ll miss two weeks after undergoing surgery, again, tomorrow.

Broad And Pattison - A Philadelphia Flyers Blog
Because the Broad Street Subway is orange for a reason.

by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2009 4:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

When your right, your right...

The NHL Salary Cap is not that great of an idea. When Bettman said it was for the fans, he was dead wrong. But its not surprising really that clubs will make as much of an effort as they did to find loop holes. It is a sad thing that Briere wont get to play again because of this. He was a great player when he played for Buffalo. Came to rise up after Drury left. But what people have to understand is that teams have to make changes when they make mistakes with no legal course. Especially when this close to the Salary Cap. This has affected many teams like Philadelphia. The Rangers could not get Mats Sundin because of the Cap and Shanahan could not return either. Just hope that it doesn’t affect more greats in the way it has.

Alex

by ale1556 on Jan 21, 2009 4:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

If memory serves me right, Briere and Drury left during the same summer.

by Habs on Jan 22, 2009 8:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, I’d like to comment on the misconception that it’s going to take a major move to get the Flyers under the cap when Briere comes back. If you put Josh Gratton and Jon Kalinski on LTIR, while sending Luca Sbisa back to juniors, Claude Giroux back to the Phantoms, and Lasse Kukkonen back to waivers.

That gets the Flyers under the cap without a significant move, and you have a roster that looks like this:

Gagne – Richards – Knuble
Hartnell – Carter – Lupul
Upshall – Metropolit – Briere
Cote – Powe – Asham

Timonen – Vaananen
Coburn – Carle
Alberts – Jones

Obviously, Briere isn’t going to be on the third line when he returns, but you get my point. No trade necessary. I’d like to see Sbisa stay with the team and Jones go, honestly, but the Flyers don’t HAVE to go that route to get under, if my math is correct.

Broad And Pattison - A Philadelphia Flyers Blog
Because the Broad Street Subway is orange for a reason.

by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2009 4:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Can Sbisa even be sent back to juniors?

I’m not sure of the rules on that, that’s why I ask.

by Afino on Jan 21, 2009 8:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, you can send an eligible player back to juniors any time. It’s just that after 10 games the first year of the entry-level deal is used, therefore requiring a second contract earlier and lowering the free agency age.

by Malurous on Jan 22, 2009 6:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I knew about the 10 game thing, but I wasn’t sure if there was a different rule since he’s been up, well, much longer than that.

by Afino on Jan 22, 2009 6:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I figured that you asked because of that. It’s a quite common misunderstanding because teams very rarely send players back after ten games as it’s not very prudent to let the contract kick in without using the player. That’s why you don’t normally see that part of the rules in action.

by Malurous on Jan 22, 2009 6:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Sabres will probably have to do that now with Tyler Myers since Tallinder just went down last night too.

All their AHL d-men are hurt too, so they can’t even call up any of them. I’m just praying he’ll be up here less than 10 games…..but knowing the cheap Sabres, I don’t doubt it.

by Afino on Jan 22, 2009 7:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The last junior eligible player I remember this happening to (sent down after the 10 game mark) was Steve Eminger in 2002-03, but I could be wrong.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Jan 22, 2009 8:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bah! And I thought I was being covert in picking him up from waivers. Le sigh.

Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com

by FrankD on Jan 21, 2009 5:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Flames taking advantage of CBA loop-holes too!

Rhett Warrener has been ‘injured’ all season with what is essentially wear and tear collected over his 13 years as a pro. He has a cap hit of 2.35M

Marcus Nilson has been ‘assigned’ to Yaroslavl Locomitiv of the KHL while the team pays him his 1 Million Rubles without a cap hit.

Anders Erikson is playing in Quad Cities (AHL) after playing 140 games in the NHL over the past two seasons. His 1.5 Million isn’t against the cap either.

All 3 players passed through waivers in the off-season, and many thought the Flames would be stuck with their inflated salaries. They have still had to pay them, but there is no resulting cap hit from the 3 players.

That’s 4.85 Million Mayor Darryl Sutter has saved against the cap with some creative problem solving.

If it ain’t against the rules – no complaints. If it should be against the rules then change the rules.

"It's a great day for hockey" - BBJ

by jealous broadcaster on Jan 21, 2009 5:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Nilson and Eriksson have one big difference to guys like Briere and Mogilny: they have demonstrated in the last couple of seasons that they aren’t NHL level players. Therefore, they shouldn’t be in the league and if they aren’t in the league, the team shouldn’t have to have them count against their cap. If you couldn’t dump minor leaguers few teams would be under the cap.

Warrener was bad last year, but I think he’d be more in the Matvichuk/Gauthier/McGillis category of players who used to be good, whose best days are behind them but who don’t deserve this type of treatment. Ok, Warrener is injured, Matvichuk was injured, but Gauthier and McGillis could have played in the NHL if they had smaller salaries. Seeing how those guys’ careers have progressed since, I guess being buried in the minors at such a stage is a kiss of death.

In a perfect world, teams would take the cap hit for players who are NHL level (regardless of where they play) and avoid it for those who aren’t. Sadly, who is and who isn’t is completely subjective.

by Malurous on Jan 21, 2009 7:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Another difference

Those guys had to pass through waivers in order to be sent down. Briere was exempt; otherwise, someone would have claimed him.

Incidentally, isn’t Mogilny too hurt to play anymore? I thought the loophole was that he’s staying on LTIR instead of retiring – in the latter case his salary would count against the cap.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jan 21, 2009 7:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, Mogilny retired in 2006. I (and Earl, I suppose) referred to that season. I don’t think that’s the case with him, I believe he completed his contract in the AHL. The problem is mainly that an allstar-caliber player finished his career in the minors not because of his play (remember, he was on pace for 60 points and almost 30 goals when sent down) but because of his contract. Kind of made you hope that renegotiating was a possibility.

by Malurous on Jan 22, 2009 6:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

1) It does seem a bit fortunate that Briere needs additional surgery. What kind of procedure will only require missing 2 weeks? A wisdom tooth extraction? LOL
2) As long as BOTH the players and owners are not hurt with these ‘loopholes’ we’ll probably not see any repercussions/changes. Too many other teams are in the same boat as the Flyers right now

by Fauxrumors on Jan 22, 2009 7:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The players are hurt in a way

Because the total amount of actual salaries received must be fixed (linked to revenue), the fewer the injuries, the better for those players that would be in the lineup without the injuries, which are the majority. Each time a callup is made, an additional person is sharing the pie.

by SJKel on Jan 22, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs