Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
It won't be a risk, because they wouldn't bank on him retiring. This goes back to my previous post. No GM is going to valuate Luongo on the premise that he's going to retire in 6-7 years. They're going to look at the contract, and valuate Luongo based on the entire term. If Luongo retires years after they trade for him, then depending on the goaltending situation, it could either be a very good or very bad thing (Lidstrom is a good example).
Any team looking to negotiate a trade for Luongo is going into those negotiations under the premise that he will be playing out his whole contract not only for leverage, but because there is nothing written that states he must or will retire. This is why this argument is invalid.
I don't think GMs will put on blinders to the reality of a situation when they know, like everyone else, that Luongo most likely will not play out his term. Everyone knows it, but no one can say anything.
Just like Sami Salo being injury prone probably played a big reason why we weren't willing to give him a 2 year contract. Is it "fair" to evaluate a player's contract based on what you believe likely to happen? Maybe not, but it's certainly prudent.
Any competent GM who would be interested in acquiring Luongo would want to speak to him directly before making any trades. This is a veteran player with a NTC, and a big contract commitment, any GM who has any interest would be foolish not to talk to him about playing on their team, in their city. And any competent GM would discuss his contracts, future plans and retirement with him.
This is close to $50 mill asset you're buying. In most cases, I'd assume that ownership would speak to him directly before pulling the trigger on any trade.
You don't make such trades based on assumptions. I can't see any NHL level GM, or ownership group for that matter, not having a one-on-one with Luongo and get as much information on his future intentions as possible. That will factor into his overall value to them, and the return the Canucks could get.
I think it's been reported somewhere that Tallon has already had a one-on-one with Luongo...
I disagree. I think the clause was added to punish teams who signed players to these cap circumventing deals during the last CBA. The cap circumventing contracts made Bettman look foolish. Now he's getting his revenge.
Bettman works for the owners who own the teams.
You're suggesting that they're getting revenge on themselves.
Just Heard Doug Mclean on team1040 saying that he heard the leafs will go hard after Luongo when CBA is sorted as they believe they can get him cheaper than in the summer.
Just Heard Doug Mclean on team1040 saying that he heard the leafs will go hard after Luongo when CBA is sorted as they believe they can get him cheaper than in the summer.
So not Luke Schenn + 5th overall, but JVR + 1st in 2013...
I hear the new CBA may force teams to have a players cap hit count towards the cap even after they are retired. If this is the case, I don't think GM's will want Luongo at all, Burke included.
I hear the new CBA may force teams to have a players cap hit count towards the cap even after they are retired. If this is the case, I don't think GM's will want Luongo at all, Burke included.
Read back a page or two. Vancouver would be on the hook if Luongo retired early.
You're suggesting that they're getting revenge on themselves.
Pretty much yes.
I know it sounds silly at first, but Bettman appears to be a proud man. I really do get the feeling that Bettman wants to punish a few of the people who employ him.
I think he has strong enough control over the owners to get away with it too.
Just Heard Doug Mclean on team1040 saying that he heard the leafs will go hard after Luongo when CBA is sorted as they believe they can get him cheaper than in the summer.
He won't be cheaper, rather, he'll be more expensive if Vancouver will be on the hook when he retires.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
I know it sounds silly at first, but Bettman appears to be a proud man. I really do get the feeling that Bettman wants to punish a few of the people who employ him.
I think he has strong enough control over the owners to get away with it too.
I think it's more likely he's trying to address Fehr's stance that it's the owners' responsibility for handing out the contracts... It doesn't make much sense to have this clause, with short contract limits (5 years)... So, when the NHL agrees to a higher contract limit (like they will need to do, IMO), this mechanism is in there to help prevent cap circumvention in future long term contracts...
I'd bet that existing contracts get grandfathered in... We'll see (hopefully, pretty soon)...
I think it's more likely he's trying to address Fehr's stance that it's the owners' responsibility for handing out the contracts... It doesn't make much sense to have this clause, with short contract limits (5 years)... So, when the NHL agrees to a higher contract limit (like they will need to do, IMO), this mechanism is in there to help prevent cap circumvention in future long term contracts...
I'd bet that existing contracts get grandfathered in... We'll see (hopefully, pretty soon)...
It doesn't make any sense to grandfather the existing contracts in. Hopefully I can explain myself clearly here.
1. CBA states no contracts can be longer than 5 years
2. CBA states any contracts that are longer than 5 years are subject to special provisions
If you put both those statements in AND grandfather any previous contracts over 5 years, you just made #2 completely meaningless.
It doesn't make any sense to grandfather the existing contracts in. Hopefully I can explain myself clearly here.
1. CBA states no contracts can be longer than 5 years
2. CBA states any contracts that are longer than 5 years are subject to special provisions
If you put both those statements in AND grandfather any previous contracts over 5 years, you just made #2 completely meaningless.
Exactly, so if you're going to put #2 into your proposal, the only thing you can attach it to is existing contracts... The NHL isn't going to concede long term contracts right off the bat, on new deals, going forward...
Do you think the NHL can get low cap hit + low contract length relatively quickly and easily? Is it worth another locked out year for? IMO, the NHL is willing to concede long term contracts (5 years is a starting point)... and #2 being the safety net against cap circumvention long term contracts... The way to get this mechanism into the proposal though, is to attach it to existing contracts... The NHL can't say 5 years, but we would be open to going all the way to 12 year contracts (as an example)... Ultimately, the existing contracts get grandfathered in, IMHO... I can't see Bettman biting the hand that feeds him... All owners can get behind #2 going forward... Not all owners can get behind #2 on existing contracts... And yet, all owners can get behind the threat of #2 on existing contracts during early negotiations...
Ultimately, I think that contracts end up being as long as negotiated (no year limit), but longer than X years, then they are subject to special provisions...
Last edited by I in the Eye: 10-17-2012 at 07:30 PM.
he might become a top 3 goalie in the nhl at some point in his career but i would be surprised. im not even sure luongo was ever a top 3 goalie in his career and i think most people would be pretty excited if they had a goalie who has had the career luongo has had.
Are you kidding me? Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? Luongo has been one of the best goalies of the past 10 years.
In the past 8 years:
4x Vezina Trophy Finalist
Olympic Gold Medal
Jennings Trophy
Hart Trophy Finalist
2x Pearson Trophy Finalist
First goalie captain in over 50 years
7 straight 30+ win seasons
World Cup of Hockey Gold Medal
World Championships Gold Medal
Are you kidding me? Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? Luongo has been one of the best goalies of the past 10 years.
In the past 8 years:
4x Vezina Trophy Finalist
Olympic Gold Medal
Jennings Trophy
Hart Trophy Finalist
2x Pearson Trophy Finalist First goalie captain in over 50 years
7 straight 30+ win seasons
World Cup of Hockey Gold Medal
World Championships Gold Medal
yeah... he's never been top 3
at talking about him having the c--that will go down as one of the silliest things in the last 50 years
Luongo has been one of the top goalies in the NHL but he has played a lot of games and at some point in time the wheels will fall off. He has played 50+ games for 10 years 70+games many times as well.
One of my concerns is his wheels falling off sooner then later, but that is the gamble when dealing with goalies
__________________
trying to fend off exwife number 2
45000/010113
GO SHARKS GO
at talking about him having the c--that will go down as one of the silliest things in the last 50 years
Luongo has been one of the top goalies in the NHL but he has played a lot of games and at some point in time the wheels will fall off. He has played 50+ games for 10 years 70+games many times as well.
One of my concerns is his wheels falling off sooner then later, but that is the gamble when dealing with goalies
At the end of the day it didn't work out, you're right. But it still speaks volumes about his character and what type of person he is for the coaching staff to empower him like that. You're lacking objectivity if you can't see that side of the fence.
Exactly, so if you're going to put #2 into your proposal, the only thing you can attach it to is existing contracts... The NHL isn't going to concede long term contracts right off the bat, on new deals, going forward...
Do you think the NHL can get low cap hit + low contract length relatively quickly and easily? Is it worth another locked out year for? IMO, the NHL is willing to concede long term contracts (5 years is a starting point)... and #2 being the safety net against cap circumvention long term contracts... The way to get this mechanism into the proposal though, is to attach it to existing contracts... The NHL can't say 5 years, but we would be open to going all the way to 12 year contracts (as an example)... Ultimately, the existing contracts get grandfathered in, IMHO... I can't see Bettman biting the hand that feeds him... All owners can get behind #2 going forward... Not all owners can get behind #2 on existing contracts... And yet, all owners can get behind the threat of #2 on existing contracts during early negotiations...
Ultimately, I think that contracts end up being as long as negotiated (no year limit), but longer than X years, then they are subject to special provisions...
I think the 5 year contract limit is something the NHL side won't fight too hard for. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 7 year limit on any new contracts. I can see Bettman "biting the hand that feeds him". I'm firmly in the "Bettman is still mad about the cap circumventing contracts and he will get his revenge on those who used them" camp.
Bettman killed an entire season to get his cap. Then some teams started blatantly circumventing the cap that Bettman fought so hard for. So yes, I think Bettman took that personally. And no I don't think Bettman is worried if he angers a couple owners. Bettman is going to pull so much money back from the players that the owners he angers regarding the cap circumventing contracts will forget about it.
"I'm super angry that I'm getting PlayerX's cap hit back when he retires from the contract we knew he had no intension on actually playing out"
At the end of the day it didn't work out, you're right. But it still speaks volumes about his character and what type of person he is for the coaching staff to empower him like that. You're lacking objectivity if you can't see that side of the fence.
Just on a practical level giving your goalie a C never made sense.
It's not like Luongo was going to skate out to the penalty box to talk to the ref between whistles.
My apologies, unlike you I'm not glued to HFBoards 24 hours a day.
It's more that it's kind of annoying when people drop in a thread saying Luongo has no value due to x reason or y reason when they have no idea what they're talking about. Just read a bit of the thread before making unsubstantiated comments.
It's more that it's kind of annoying when people drop in a thread saying Luongo has no value due to x reason or y reason when they have no idea what they're talking about. Just read a bit of the thread before making unsubstantiated comments.
Frankly I don't care if you think my comment was annoying, I'm not on here to please you. My comment was not unsubstantiated, I heard on the fan590 today that the new CBA deal may include a clause which keeps cap hits on the books after retirement, which would apply to a potential Luongo deal. If this is the case then GM's would be very hesitant about taking Luongo's contact, and would eliminate the whole "don't worry, he'll retire in 6 years" argument.
At the end of the day it didn't work out, you're right. But it still speaks volumes about his character and what type of person he is for the coaching staff to empower him like that. You're lacking objectivity if you can't see that side of the fence.
that is what they may have been saying in Vancouver--but many other places found it more amusing then anything and thought it said more about the state of Vancouver leadership or lack there of. I remember listening to the late sports talk out of ottawa and the talking head predicted then that it would last year and giving the C to Luongo was a statement about the lack of leadership on the nucks.
Frankly I don't care if you think my comment was annoying, I'm not on here to please you. My comment was not unsubstantiated, I heard on the fan590 today that the new CBA deal may include a clause which keeps cap hits on the books after retirement, which would apply to a potential Luongo deal. If this is the case then GM's would be very hesitant about taking Luongo's contact, and would eliminate the whole "don't worry, he'll retire in 6 years" argument.
Except you conveniently ignored the part about the cap hit returning to the team that signed the contract (ie. Vancouver). If this is the case then GM's would not be hesitant about taking Luongo's contract.
