HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Vancouver Canucks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   The Luongo Thread - Razor Ramon Edition (MOD WARNING POST #922) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1378365)

Tiranis 03-17-2013 02:18 PM

The Luongo Thread - Razor Ramon Edition (MOD WARNING POST #922)
 
Found our title! -RC

http://i.imgur.com/ayXT2bo.png


Lucbourdon 03-17-2013 02:21 PM

This is the luuu that doesn't end, it's going on and on my friend, some people started singing it not knowing what it was, so they continue singing it forever just because.

This is the luuu that doesn't end, it's going on and on my friend, some people started singing it not knowing what it was, so they continue singing it forever just because.

Cogburn 03-17-2013 02:23 PM

Well I still say we keep Lu and move Schneider. Luongo's been the better goalie this season...both have blemishes and triumphs, but the return versus future wins...I feel like Lu till has a lot of hockey left in him.

opendoor 03-17-2013 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 61842381)
You completely made those numbers up based on your own assumptions. If Luongo plays out his entire contract then there is no cap penalty.

Luongo isn't going to play until he's 43. And there's nothing made up about those numbers; they're set in stone presuming Luongo plays the first 8 years of his deal and retires prior to age 43.


Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidSnake (Post 61842595)
Isn't the cap penalty calculated based on the highest salary hit minus the lowest annual salary in any remaining year?

To calculate it you take all the years where the salary is higher than the cap hit and add together the difference in each year. So here's how Luongo's is calculated by year:

1: $4.67M ($10M minus $5.33M)
2: $1.38M ($6.71M minus $5.33M)
3: $1.38M
4: $1.38M
5: $1.38M
6: $1.38M
7: $1.38M
8: $1.38M


If they keep him to the end of the year the Canucks will have accrued $7.43M (though that'll likely be adjusted slightly downward because of the lockout) and then there's $6.9M more over the next 5 years. If the Canucks keep him they get saddled with that additional penalty. If they trade him they don't.

LiquidSnake 03-17-2013 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor (Post 61843365)
Luongo isn't going to play until he's 43. And there's nothing made up about those numbers; they're set in stone presuming Luongo plays the first 8 years of his deal and retires prior to age 43.




To calculate it you take all the years where the salary is higher than the cap hit and add together the difference in each year. So here's how Luongo's is calculated by year:

1: $4.67M ($10M minus $5.33M)
2: $1.38M ($6.71M minus $5.33M)
3: $1.38M
4: $1.38M
5: $1.38M
6: $1.38M
7: $1.38M
8: $1.38M


If they keep him to the end of the year the Canucks will have accrued $7.43M (though that'll likely be adjusted slightly downward because of the lockout) and then there's $6.9M more over the next 5 years. If the Canucks keep him they get saddled with that additional penalty. If they trade him they don't.

Wow. That is so terrible :laugh:

LiquidSnake 03-17-2013 02:28 PM

Luongo has allowed 9 goals in the past 2 games.

Lucbourdon 03-17-2013 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidSnake (Post 61843497)
Luongo has allowed 9 goals in the past 2 games.

Preach it brother snake! preach it!

y2kcanucks 03-17-2013 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor (Post 61843365)
Luongo isn't going to play until he's 43. And there's nothing made up about those numbers; they're set in stone presuming Luongo plays the first 8 years of his deal and retires prior to age 43.




To calculate it you take all the years where the salary is higher than the cap hit and add together the difference in each year. So here's how Luongo's is calculated by year:

1: $4.67M ($10M minus $5.33M)
2: $1.38M ($6.71M minus $5.33M)
3: $1.38M
4: $1.38M
5: $1.38M
6: $1.38M
7: $1.38M
8: $1.38M


If they keep him to the end of the year the Canucks will have accrued $7.43M (though that'll likely be adjusted slightly downward because of the lockout) and then there's $6.9M more over the next 5 years. If the Canucks keep him they get saddled with that additional penalty. If they trade him they don't.

Sounds like a lot of assumptions on your part.

opendoor 03-17-2013 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 61843761)
Sounds like a lot of assumptions on your part.

Not really. I'm just assuming he won't play until age 43 because no goalie in the modern NHL has done that. Pretty safe bet.

The assumption of him playing the first 8 years of his deal is also pretty safe, but even if he doesn't the Canucks will still get hit with the penalty they've already accrued.

y2kcanucks 03-17-2013 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor (Post 61843889)
Not really. I'm just assuming he won't play until age 43 because no goalie in the modern NHL has done that. Pretty safe bet.

The assumption of him playing the first 8 years of his deal is also pretty safe, but even if he doesn't the Canucks will still get hit with the penalty they've already accrued.

The Canucks will not get hit with a penalty if Luongo plays out his entire contract. Even if Luongo is on LTIR by the end of his contract the Canucks get hit with $0 cap penalty. There are ways around the penalty.

Proto 03-17-2013 02:39 PM

Well... when the Canucks had their hot first 10 games, I came on here and said the goalies were going to regress dramatically at ES (even if they maintained a league leading position). Then I said the Canucks power play would have to step up or the team was going to step back in a huge way.

So I can't say I'm surprised by any of this, but I am surprised that the Canucks d-zone coverage has been so bad. Usually they at least cover guys and fail to clear rebounds, but now they're not really doing either. It's one thing to go into a defensive shell when you have the lead, but it's entirely something else to do it and play poor defense at the same time. Just an ugly team to watch right now.

I think some people were blinded by the Preds game, but I didn't think it was a notable effort. They scored on every chance they had early, then took their foot off the pedal and gave up a ton of wide open looks from in front of the net. How does that happen to this team so often? When was the last time a Canucks got a pass in front of the net from behind the net and had nobody covering him? When was the last time it happened two, three, or four times in a game? It'd just standard for this team right now.

The issue as I see it is this: having both goalies is largely pointless. Now that the season is underway, bad teams that need goaltending help won't want it now, as they'd rather tank for a pick. Good teams are most likely comfortable with their goaltending. And Tampa and Washington are run by imbeciles.

Given the constraints put on Gillis by "The Luongo Rule", I'm not sure he'll get close to fair value. It might be time to entertain moving Schneider when you tally up all the assets. I can't even say anymore. I can say that the two-goalie system doesn't appear to be working this year, though, and neither guy looks comfortable.

Proto 03-17-2013 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor (Post 61843889)
Not really. I'm just assuming he won't play until age 43 because no goalie in the modern NHL has done that. Pretty safe bet.

The assumption of him playing the first 8 years of his deal is also pretty safe, but even if he doesn't the Canucks will still get hit with the penalty they've already accrued.

Right, but he could be traded, refuse to report, and be suspended like Tim Thomas was, could he not? He might not care if he was planning on retiring anyway.

Or the structure of this rule could change when the next CBA is negotiated. Who knows, really. It does seem to hurt the trade value, though.

Bgav 03-17-2013 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidSnake (Post 61843497)
Luongo has allowed 9 goals in the past 2 games.

Oh lord jesus its a fire

opendoor 03-17-2013 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proto (Post 61844159)
Right, but he could be traded, refuse to report, and be suspended like Tim Thomas was, could he not? He might not care if he was planning on retiring anyway.

Nope. If a player isn't playing and isn't receiving salary the recapture kicks in.

Quote:

Or the structure of this rule could change when the next CBA is negotiated. Who knows, really. It does seem to hurt the trade value, though.
It might, but Luongo will be 41 at the earliest termination point of the current CBA and his contract will have expired already by the end of the 10 year length of the agreement. So I'm not sure anyone can count on that providing relief.

opendoor 03-17-2013 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 61843989)
The Canucks will not get hit with a penalty if Luongo plays out his entire contract. Even if Luongo is on LTIR by the end of his contract the Canucks get hit with $0 cap penalty. There are ways around the penalty.

If you were given even odds, would you bet Luongo was going to still be playing at age 43? And you can't just throw guys on LTIR without scrutiny. If the NHL suspects any impropriety they would have him examined by an independent physician as they've done in the past.

So basically you're pinning your hopes on Luongo either being the oldest goalie in modern NHL history while making pocket change, or him suffering a clearly identifiable career ending injury.

y2kcanucks 03-17-2013 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor (Post 61844763)
If you were given even odds, would you bet Luongo was going to still be playing at age 43? And you can't just throw guys on LTIR without scrutiny. If the NHL suspects any impropriety they would have him examined by an independent physician as they've done in the past.

So basically you're pinning your hopes on Luongo either being the oldest goalie in modern NHL history while making pocket change, or him suffering a clearly identifiable career ending injury.

Or Luongo gets bought out. Or Luongo gets a slight injury (not unheard of at that age) and is placed on LTIR for the entire season.

tantalum 03-17-2013 03:09 PM

So basically as has been said over and over the cap penalty isn't a big deal. By the time the penalty is applied it will be far less onerous then, say, putting a $4 mil a year D-man in the press box, or having a $3-4 mil winger or center in the bottom 6 or whatever. All things most teams already do. A less than $2 mil penalty will be nothing at that time, especially as the cap will likely be in the 90 mil range.

CanaFan 03-17-2013 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 61844973)
Or Luongo gets bought out. Or Luongo gets a slight injury (not unheard of at that age) and is placed on LTIR for the entire season.


Sounds like a lot of "ifs" on your part.

Dado 03-17-2013 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 61843989)
Even if Luongo is on LTIR by the end of his contract the Canucks get hit with $0 cap penalty. There are ways around the penalty.

There are *possible* ways. LTIR would have to go through league-approved medical.

It is at least as possible we don't find a way around it and get stuck with it.

JanBulisPiggyBack 03-17-2013 03:18 PM

9 goals

Ain't nobody got time for that

opendoor 03-17-2013 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tantalum (Post 61845471)
So basically as has been said over and over the cap penalty isn't a big deal. By the time the penalty is applied it will be far less onerous then, say, putting a $4 mil a year D-man in the press box, or having a $3-4 mil winger or center in the bottom 6 or whatever. All things most teams already do. A less than $2 mil penalty will be nothing at that time, especially as the cap will likely be in the 90 mil range.

It won't be less than $2M if they don't trade him. It'd be one of the following assuming he plays the first 8 years:

4 years at $3.6M
3 years at $4.8M
2 years at $7.2M
1 year at $14.3M

Those aren't inconsiderable sums. The cap will be higher in the future, the penalty is still going to hurt the team. The Canucks are wasting space right now and they're suffering for it. Having Ballard and a $5M backup goalie more than erases the advantage of the entire total of the Canucks' good contracts.

ayoshi 03-17-2013 03:23 PM

Gillis f***ed up this whole situation.

We need centres. We have two "#1s". One of which is on an insane contract Gillis signed him to.

Ugh

LiquidSnake 03-17-2013 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucbourdon (Post 61843621)
Preach it brother snake! preach it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bgav (Post 61844229)
Oh lord jesus its a fire

:laugh: well done guys

DJOpus 03-17-2013 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ayoshi (Post 61846115)
Gillis f***ed up this whole situation.

We need centres. We have two "#1s". One of which is on an insane contract Gillis signed him to.

Ugh

We need centres because we have two centres injured and Hodgson had problems with our org, probably in large part based on how our coach handled his major injury.

Having two starting level goalies isn't a bad thing, not sure why people think it is...

There is no shortage of cap space, so having two goalies isn't stopping us from getting a centre. You could argue that we should trade a goalie for a centre but it takes having another GM willing to trade a centre for a goalie for that to happen and we haven't seen that yet.

tantalum 03-17-2013 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor (Post 61846077)
It won't be less than $2M if they don't trade him. It'd be one of the following assuming he plays the first 8 years:

4 years at $3.6M
3 years at $4.8M
2 years at $7.2M
1 year at $14.3M

Those aren't inconsiderable sums. The cap will be higher in the future, the penalty is still going to hurt the team. The Canucks are wasting space right now and they're suffering for it. Having Ballard and a $5M backup goalie more than erases the advantage of the entire total of the Canucks' good contracts.

Yeah they pretty much are when you take into account cap growth and the NHLPA use of the cap inflator which still exists from everything I've seen. The one year remaining one may not be comfortable (it's doable) but the other ones aren't that big of a deal.

More to the point no GM is really that concerned about 6+ years from now. If they are you have the wrong GM.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.