View Single Post
12-30-2012, 08:13 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,857
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Whale View Post
It makes no difference whatsoever to the team taking the contract. All this provision does is punish us. At no point, ever, has a team been responsible for paying a player after he has retired. Until now, maybe.

I feel like I have had to explain this over and over. Why do people keep dreaming up this scenario where the length of the contract is an issue? The only way that could happen would be if he insisted on playing - somehow - and the team he was playing for was somehow 'forced' to put him into the lineup even though they didn't want to. Who the hell would want to do that? If he's no longer effective he will retire and not cost a penny to whatever team we trade him to.

You don't think Lou would retire rather than tarnish his career with that kind of bush league nonsense?

The proposed CBA provision with regard to long contracts only hurts us, it is of no added benefit to teams looking to acquire him.
The CBA isn't agreed upon yet, so we don't know if the provision will make it's way into the CBA, or know for sure if it will apply to whatever team has him, or to the original signing team.

On the one hand, if it applies to the signing team, the provision punishes the Canucks down the road with wasted cap space. On the other, if it only applies to the signing team and not the acquiring team, it takes the risk away from acquiring teams, increasing his trade value. It could all be a moot point though, if the CBA is 6 years and Luongo is 39 and hasn't retired yet. Who knows if that provision gets carried over to the next CBA circa 2019? Also, Luongo's contract obviously did depress his trade value pre-CBA because any team looking to acquire him wouldn't know if the cap-recapture formula would apply to them, or the team that originally signed the deal.

Hammer79 is offline   Reply With Quote