HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

NHL may reject KOVY and Luongo deals. Issues Ultimatium.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-01-2010, 10:27 PM
  #51
AmazingNuck
Registered User
 
AmazingNuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbjerrisgaard View Post
Not really

They don't count the last year, so it's a 10 year contract at 56 mil.
Oh wait, so they don't count the years and thus artificially increase the cap hit? So if I were to sign a 39 year old to a 10 year contract with a cap hit of .5m each, it would count as a 5m cap hit?

AmazingNuck is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:28 PM
  #52
Risotto
Registered User
 
Risotto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck View Post
I can't say I understand the logic

Is it:

If you accept these terms, the contracts are OK (presumably following the rules)
If you don't accept these terms for future contracts, the 3 contracts are somehow breaking rules now

?

Someone please shed some light. I don't see how one thing (accepting these terms for future contracts) has any bearing on the other (the 3 contracts). I don't really have a problem with them investigating/disapproving the 3 contracts, just don't see how the contingent thing makes sense.
the way i am reading it, they will say the Kovalchuk, Hossa and Luongo contracts are ok, if the PA agrees to those conditions. then those conditions will apply to all future contracts.

to me, it seems the NHL wants to rewrite the CBA.

Risotto is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:28 PM
  #53
SDig14
Registered User
 
SDig14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck View Post
I can't say I understand the logic

Is it:

If you accept these terms, the contracts are OK (presumably following the rules)
If you don't accept these terms for future contracts, the 3 contracts are somehow breaking rules now

?

Someone please shed some light. I don't see how one thing (accepting these terms for future contracts) has any bearing on the other (the 3 contracts). I don't really have a problem with them investigating/disapproving the 3 contracts, just don't see how the contingent thing makes sense.
It has no bearing on those 3 contracts, assuming they agree to the terms...basically saying, if you agree to the new rules we will all all contracts up to this point to be valid, but none afterwards

SDig14 is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:28 PM
  #54
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: EVIL EMPIRE
Country: United Nations
Posts: 60,553
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by btn View Post
I think this a very direct challenge to Fehr from the NHL. It will be interesting to see how this plays out
there is no doubt in my mind the NHL wants to put Fehr in his place early

if I can find a legit source I will post it--but on twitter a few blogges are saying that the NHL picked friday 5pm for a reason

it will give the NHL and the NHLPA the weakend to get things done and if they don't--nhl not only will rekect the second contact--but will retro-actively void up to 7 contracts monday morning at 9am

__________________
"If the Detroit Red Wings are defying gravity" by consistently contending without the benefit of high draft picks, "the Edmonton Oilers are defying lift.

Welcome to Edmonton Connor McDavid--the rest of you HA HA HA HA HA HA
jumptheshark is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:28 PM
  #55
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FleetFoxes View Post





I will tell you this because I assume you are a Canucks fan: You do not want Luongo's contract to be vetoed. Why? Because we're here to win NOW. What happens in ten years DOES NOT MATTER. Luongo at 5.333m is a great hit for us. Having to re-sign him to a 6m contract would cause us more cap problems. Letting him walk? Do you know what that leaves us with? A BARE GOALTENDING MARKET and Corey Schneider and he is not the starting goaltender on a playoff team.

Does this make any sense to you or do I need to draw you a picture?
YOU are here to win now. I DO care what happens to this team in 10 years, do you get the picture?

5 years, 30 million.

I mean for christ sakes, the man stops rubber pucks with foam pads. He isn't finding cures for cancer. If he wants more, walk.

MISC* is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:29 PM
  #56
Epsilon
#TeamRaccoon
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 39,751
vCash: 500
Calling this an "ultimatum" and making it sound like the NHL can just do whatever they please is probably exaggeration on the part of Brooks.

1. Rejecting the Kovalchuk deal again could produce another round of arbitration.

2. Trying to retroactively reject Luongo's deal would definitely result in some sort of arbitration, probably with the NHLPA claiming that an Article 26 investigation is required first.

3. "Formally invetigating" Hossa's deal doesn't mean anything would necessarily happen to it, since that would again require an arbitration ruling under Article 26.

Certain writers like to make it sound like Article 26 investigations are just going to be rubber stamps for the NHL, which is not at all what the procedure entails.

Epsilon is online now  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:29 PM
  #57
AmazingNuck
Registered User
 
AmazingNuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby604 View Post
YOU are here to win now. I DO care what happens to this team in 10 years, do you get the picture?

5 years, 30 million.

I mean for christ sakes, the man stops rubber pucks with foam pads. He isn't finding cures for cancer. If he wants more, walk.
Fans content with mediocrity.

That's why the Canucks are losers.

AmazingNuck is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:30 PM
  #58
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 12,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbjerrisgaard View Post
Not really

They don't count the last year, so it's a 10 year contract at 56 mil.
Quote:
1. That the cap hit on future multi-year contracts will not count any seasons that end with the player over 40 years of age. The cap hit would be calculated on the average of the salary up through age 40 only.
The way I read that, it's the salary up until age 40

bluesfan94 is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:31 PM
  #59
Moore Money
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,910
vCash: 500

Moore Money is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:32 PM
  #60
DingoAteMyBaby
Registered User
 
DingoAteMyBaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,440
vCash: 500
Bull crap.

If Luongo gets his contract rejected...

Then Hossa, Zetterberg, Franzen, etc... Should also get reviewed.

But I understand since we're a Canadian team.


DingoAteMyBaby is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:32 PM
  #61
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FleetFoxes View Post
Fans content with mediocrity.

That's why the Canucks are losers.
Yes, it's me. I'm the reason the Canucks lose.

Any more brilliant ideas you got?

MISC* is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:36 PM
  #62
Prototype1x
Registered User
 
Prototype1x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby604 View Post
YOU are here to win now. I DO care what happens to this team in 10 years, do you get the picture?

5 years, 30 million.

I mean for christ sakes, the man stops rubber pucks with foam pads. He isn't finding cures for cancer. If he wants more, walk.
40 years....
40 years the canucks have been mediocre/bad
we have a chance to be one of the better teams in the leauge, arguably the best (the rest of our fans on HF sure do)

and walking one of the better goalies is a viable option?\
do you understand hockey? what a championship is?

Prototype1x is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:36 PM
  #63
Epsilon
#TeamRaccoon
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 39,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
The way I read that, it's the salary up until age 40
That's obviously worded poorly (but then again this is Brooks we are talking about). One guess as to what the intended idea is:

-Cap hit for pre-40 years is calculated by averaging only those years
-Cap hit for post-40 years is calculated by averaging only those years, or just calculated year-to-year.

So for instance, a player with the following contract (age in parentheses)

3 million (37)
3 million (38)
3 million (39)
7 million (40)
9 million (41)

would have a cap hit of 3 million for the first 3 seasons, then a cap hit of 8 million (or 7 and 9) for the last 2 seasons.

Epsilon is online now  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:37 PM
  #64
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbjerrisgaard View Post
Not really

They don't count the last year, so it's a 10 year contract at 56 mil.
And the top paying years will carry more weight in the average. We just don't know the actual formula.

Too bad no one thought of this 5 years ago.

People aren't giving enough weight to the arbitrator's decision on the first Kovalchuk contract. That decision will carry a lot of weight in future arbitration.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:38 PM
  #65
JABEE
Registered User
 
JABEE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,654
vCash: 500
If they do void Hossa's deal wouldn't that make him ineligible for all games last year? They'd ahve to forfeit the cup. No way they'd do that.

JABEE is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:39 PM
  #66
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prototype1x View Post
40 years....
40 years the canucks have been mediocre/bad
we have a chance to be one of the better teams in the leauge, arguably the best (the rest of our fans on HF sure do)

and walking one of the better goalies is a viable option?\
do you understand hockey? what a championship is?
Of course, I do.

Do you think paying a goaltender 6 million dollars a year for 5 years is unreasonable?

It would be a godsend to get Luongo's deal rejected.

Also, how many other competitive teams could afford him right now? 2 weeks before preseason?

5 years, 30 mill.

MISC* is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:39 PM
  #67
AmazingNuck
Registered User
 
AmazingNuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
The way I read that, it's the salary up until age 40
I disregarded the second clause so the contract I proposed would weigh the top 5 more heavily, so until we find out exactly how it will be weighted (if there is a set procedure), there won't be a way to get around it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby604 View Post
Yes, it's me. I'm the reason the Canucks lose.

Any more brilliant ideas you got?
You and all the other fans that failed to hold ownership accountable for mediocrity.

Quote:
Of course, I do.

Do you think paying a goaltender 6 million dollars a year for 5 years is unreasonable?

It would be a godsend to get Luongo's deal rejected.

Also, how many other competitive teams could afford him right now? 2 weeks before preseason?

5 years, 30 mill.
Fantasy and reality are two very different things. In fantasy, Luongo accepts a 30m/5 year contract. In reality.. well, it remains to be seen.

Chicago.

AmazingNuck is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:40 PM
  #68
gongshowmonkey
Registered User
 
gongshowmonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country:
Posts: 1,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby604 View Post
Of course, I do.

Do you think paying a goaltender 6 million dollars a year for 5 years is unreasonable?

It would be a godsend to get Luongo's deal rejected.

Also, how many other competitive teams could afford him right now? 2 weeks before preseason?

5 years, 30 mill.
Colorado Crapalanche can snap him up and get to the cap floor

gongshowmonkey is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:41 PM
  #69
VelvetJones
Registered User
 
VelvetJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,416
vCash: 500
I hope this is true.

VelvetJones is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:41 PM
  #70
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FleetFoxes View Post


You and all the other fans that failed to hold ownership accountable for mediocrity.
What have you done that's twisted the arms of the owners?

In fact by saying you've wanted the team to win so bad for so long, you admit you're the actual problem you blame me to be.

MISC* is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:41 PM
  #71
DingoAteMyBaby
Registered User
 
DingoAteMyBaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby604 View Post
Of course, I do.

Do you think paying a goaltender 6 million dollars a year for 5 years is unreasonable?

It would be a godsend to get Luongo's deal rejected.

Also, how many other competitive teams could afford him right now? 2 weeks before preseason?

5 years, 30 mill.
He only costs us $5.333 (cap hit). Its not that bad...

DingoAteMyBaby is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:41 PM
  #72
gongshowmonkey
Registered User
 
gongshowmonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country:
Posts: 1,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VelvetJones View Post
I hope this is true.
why hello thar oilers fan

gongshowmonkey is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:42 PM
  #73
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
That's obviously worded poorly (but then again this is Brooks we are talking about). One guess as to what the intended idea is:

-Cap hit for pre-40 years is calculated by averaging only those years
-Cap hit for post-40 years is calculated by averaging only those years, or just calculated year-to-year.

So for instance, a player with the following contract (age in parentheses)

3 million (37)
3 million (38)
3 million (39)
7 million (40)
9 million (41)

would have a cap hit of 3 million for the first 3 seasons, then a cap hit of 8 million (or 7 and 9) for the last 2 seasons.
The cap hit would be $3 million, but how many 37 year old players would get that contract from an NHL team? They would just sign them to a 3 year deal for $9 million.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:43 PM
  #74
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by warmplate View Post
He only costs us $5.333 (cap hit). Its not that bad...
it's the length that bothers me. 12 years is ridiculous.

MISC* is offline  
Old
09-01-2010, 10:44 PM
  #75
DingoAteMyBaby
Registered User
 
DingoAteMyBaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby604 View Post
it's the length that bothers me. 12 years is ridiculous.
I'm happy with it.

We have an elite goalie locked up for a longtime.

DingoAteMyBaby is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.