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 contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

More Luongo Talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 03:55 PM
  #201
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
Theres still a lot of people who insist 5.3 is a huge caphit.

The length is another argument, but im pretty sick of the whole "contract sucks vs you clearly know nothing" debates.
5.3 for a number one goalie is very fair. The length combined with age is the issue, plus the inability that contracts cant be burried and the insurance costs to name just a few major concerns. Anyone who takes on that contract is taking a big risk, make no mistake about it, if there is anyone willing to take it that is.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:01 PM
  #202
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
Common sense also says you don't acquire a star player for peanuts.
Again, only seeing what you want to see. No one said Lou isnt a star, but you keep overlooking all the issues, cost and risk. I suppose aquiring a star player that has an uninsurable contract, long term cap hit, and no ability to bury that contract if his play declines or doesnt live up to his contractual agreement has no negative value? Good luck with that, i hope the Nucks keep him. The notion of a cap floor team taking on that contract, and term, and not being able to insure that contract makes financial sense? You guys crack me up.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:03 PM
  #203
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
5.3 for a number one goalie is very fair. The length combined with age is the issue, plus the inability that contracts cant be burried and the insurance costs to name just a few major concerns. Anyone who takes on that contract is taking a big risk, make no mistake about it, if there is anyone willing to take it that is.
I dont understand the concerns with insurance $'s ... You would pay the same for Lu as you would for Phaneuf (or players making similar #'s).

The inability to bury contracts isnt a for sure thing... Still speculative... So I dont know why we use that to detract his current value?

Based off of current rules there is little to no risk. Until we get a new CBA we can only guess what might happen.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:05 PM
  #204
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
Again, only seeing what you want to see. No one said Lou isnt a star, but you keep overlooking all the issues, cost and risk. I suppose aquiring a star player that has an uninsurable contract, long term cap hit, and no ability to bury that contract if his play declines or doesnt live up to his contractual agreement has no negative value? Good luck with that, i hope the Nucks keep him. The notion of a cap floor team taking on that contract, and term, and not being able to insure that contract makes financial sense? You guys crack me up.
Only seeing what I want to see?

Your referencing to a fictional CBA...

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:06 PM
  #205
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,278
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
It seems you have been too busy pretending to be an NHL GM trying to consumate fictitous trade proposals that have no bearing on real life. It was tabled and insisted that besides teams no longer having the option to put players in the minors (burying their contract), but minor league contracts will count against the cap. This excercise is to ensure no more cap cirumvention by NHL teams. You also probably didnt realize the insistance of the NHL owners on having 5 year max contracts and very little to no variation in the percentage of salary increase year over year on that contract. Its contracts like Lou, Richards and others that they are going to do everything to ensure this doesnt happen again. Keep Lou and enjoy the long term cap hit, to expect a team to bail out the Nucks and give up plenty of assets, and no cap hit in return is beyond the realm of common sense. The other issue that Nucks fans seem to like to overlook is the fact of insurance of the contract. To my understanding contracts extending 7 years cannot be insured, even the cost of a 7 year contract is very expensive and not something all teams can afford, let alone the fact Lou likely wont play out the length of the term, adding more risk to the cost. Combine that with the likelyhood teams will be unable to bury contracts in the new cba with an overall lower CBA, limits the suitors dramatically.
I don't understand what this has to do with my post. Yes there have been discussions, but it's hardly a sure thing, and it's not like everyone wants all minor league contracts to count against the cap. I could also stand here saying if the NHLPA decertifies then there won't be a salary cap, and Luongo's value would skyrocket. You can't just make assumptions about what will happen and assume everything that does happen will lower the value of an elite player that your team happens to be interested in. You would have to assume all of the following:

1) Luongo does not wish to retire when his actual salary sharply decreases at 39.
2) That Luongo's play does significantly decline and he doesn't play well later(having two lockouts reduces his wear and tear)
3) There are no cap floor teams interested in reaching the cap floor while paying less actual money
4) The new CBA disallows contracts from being buried in the minors.
5) Luongo's contract will not be grandfathered in.
6) That Luongo would prefer playing in the minors for $1 million, purposely screwing over the team that has him, to retiring without tarnishing his pride.

Every single one of these points must go wrong in order for Luongo's contract to become an albatross. See why I think it's unlikely?

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:08 PM
  #206
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
5.3 for a number one goalie is very fair. The length combined with age is the issue, plus the inability that contracts cant be burried and the insurance costs to name just a few major concerns. Anyone who takes on that contract is taking a big risk, make no mistake about it, if there is anyone willing to take it that is.



The risks are largely mitigated. So much so that Tallon, managing the budget conscious panthers, received approval from ownership to take it on. From reports, Burke has also shown clear interest. As has Tambellini... The risks, in this case, have been well accounted for and GMs continue to bid.


On another note: I'm contemplating digging through older threads and amalgamating the best offers agreed upon by fans of different teams. Maybe that will quiet some of the posters here who doubt the interest? The only reason TO is heavily present in this thread is because their need is ever apparent and they have been the most recently rumoured to not only increase their offer over EDM's own but also had pieces speculated on by Millard.


Oh and lastly, still waiting for someone, even Vankiller Whale, to agree to an offer from DG93. C'mon guys, it's past time that someone does this. He needs it.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:14 PM
  #207
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
Only seeing what I want to see?

Your referencing to a fictional CBA...
So these points have not been discussed, and tabled in CBA discusions? There are many quotes from major media soources on these points. If you want to hold out hope that this things will not be part of the CBA, then good luck to you. If you dont believe for one minute, cost certainty, a reduction in over all cap, reduction of contract length and variance in cap hit will not be addessed then you havent been paying attention. I look forward to your post once that CBA has been released, but by all means hold on to false hope if it helps you sleep at night, and not acknowledge the facts.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:22 PM
  #208
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I don't understand what this has to do with my post. Yes there have been discussions, but it's hardly a sure thing, and it's not like everyone wants all minor league contracts to count against the cap. I could also stand here saying if the NHLPA decertifies then there won't be a salary cap, and Luongo's value would skyrocket. You can't just make assumptions about what will happen and assume everything that does happen will lower the value of an elite player that your team happens to be interested in. You would have to assume all of the following:

1) Luongo does not wish to retire when his actual salary sharply decreases at 39.
2) That Luongo's play does significantly decline and he doesn't play well later(having two lockouts reduces his wear and tear)
3) There are no cap floor teams interested in reaching the cap floor while paying less actual money
4) The new CBA disallows contracts from being buried in the minors.
5) Luongo's contract will not be grandfathered in.
6) That Luongo would prefer playing in the minors for $1 million, purposely screwing over the team that has him, to retiring without tarnishing his pride.

Every single one of these points must go wrong in order for Luongo's contract to become an albatross. See why I think it's unlikely?
What it all boils down to, yet again, is some Nucks fans only seeing what they want to see. So you really believe that players will still be able to be "demoted" to the minors to hide the cap hit? I'm not a betting man, but I will happily wager that will no longer be an option. It has been talked about at length by many people in the NHL, but because you cant stand the thought of not getting a premium for Lou, you ignore this fact. Again, you chose to ignore the inabilty to insure the contract by NHL teams, again, you see only what you want to see. Lets see how the CBA comes out.


Last edited by spiny norman: 12-08-2012 at 11:07 PM. Reason: not needed
New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:27 PM
  #209
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The risks are largely mitigated. So much so that Tallon, managing the budget conscious panthers, received approval from ownership to take it on. From reports, Burke has also shown clear interest. As has Tambellini... The risks, in this case, have been well accounted for and GMs continue to bid.


On another note: I'm contemplating digging through older threads and amalgamating the best offers agreed upon by fans of different teams. Maybe that will quiet some of the posters here who doubt the interest? The only reason TO is heavily present in this thread is because their need is ever apparent and they have been the most recently rumoured to not only increase their offer over EDM's own but also had pieces speculated on by Millard.


Oh and lastly, still waiting for someone, even Vankiller Whale, to agree to an offer from DG93. C'mon guys, it's past time that someone does this. He needs it.
How are these risks mitigated? The contract is insurable? An NHL team will not hold the cap hit for the entire term of his contract, and he is guaranteed to play to the end of his contract at the highest level? Thats pretty cool, can you verify and prove this to be true?

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:34 PM
  #210
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,278
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
What it all boils down to, yet again, is some Nucks fans only seeing what they want to see. So you really believe that players will still be able to be "demoted" to the minors to hide the cap hit? I'm not a betting man, but I will happily wager that will no longer be an option. It has been talked about at length by many people in the NHL, but because you cant stand the thought of not getting a premium for Lou, you ignore this fact. Again, you chose to ignore the inabilty to insure the contract by NHL teams, again, you see only what you want to see. Lets see how the CBA comes out.
Congratulations, you think one of the points is more likely to occur than not. I think it's far more likely that there will still be cap floor teams in 5 years time than not. Florida especially will be interested in bringing Luongo back at a cheap price as a former franchise player.

There are so many possibilities it's absurd to think Luongo will force himself on a team until he's 42 when he isn't wanted there.


Last edited by spiny norman: 12-08-2012 at 11:08 PM. Reason: qmep
Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:44 PM
  #211
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Don't understand why these threads have even open? CBA discussions have gone better

but really whats the use of arguing things WE have no clue about because there is no CBA in place? Seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.

Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:49 PM
  #212
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale;56374723[B
]Congratulations, you think one of the points is more likely to occur than not. [/B] I think it's far more likely that there will still be cap floor teams in 5 years time than not. Florida especially will be interested in bringing Luongo back at a cheap price as a former franchise player.

There are so many possibilities it's absurd to think Luongo will force himself on a team until he's 42 when he isn't wanted there.
Last time, you havent been paying attention. What happens with the CBA has nothing to do with what you or I want, what I believe will happen, is what has been discussed and brought up several times, and that is teams will no longer be able to bury contracts. Its that simple. How and why you think that a team that takes that contract, the cap hit will magically disapear when Lou no longer wants to play or declines is baffling. So you also believe that cost conscious teams will take on Lou's contract to meet the cap, while not having that contract insured on a player who is likely on the decline at that time, and give up significant assets in the process? You honestly dont think that do you? I mean seriously.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:58 PM
  #213
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
Don't understand why these threads have even open? CBA discussions have gone better

but really whats the use of arguing things WE have no clue about because there is no CBA in place? Seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
What many here seem to forget, possibly living too long in this make believe world of being an NHL GM, and pretending to make trades, is that there is costs and financial considerations and commitments made when a team aquires a player. The truth if the matter is there is a new CBA coming sooner or later; that seems to suprise quite a few people for whatever reason. Leading up to the CBA, and being discussed at length, by many many people involved, are several key items, one being reduction in contract length, variance in percentage of salary and the inability to hide cap hits in the minors. It is your perogative to chose to ignore these things , but they are of the utmost importance to many, and the days of long contracts, with changes in dollars for the term to manipulate the cap is long over. Why anyone would think the CBA will continue to allow this behaviour, and demotion of contracts is ridiculous. If you want to wait for the CBA to come out first, by all means, but I will save you time, no teams will be able to demote players to circumvent the cap any longer.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 12-08-2012 at 08:06 PM. Reason: No.
New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:07 PM
  #214
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
I dont understand the concerns with insurance $'s ... You would pay the same for Lu as you would for Phaneuf (or players making similar #'s). The inability to bury contracts isnt a for sure thing... Still speculative... So I dont know why we use that to detract his current value?

Based off of current rules there is little to no risk. Until we get a new CBA we can only guess what might happen.
You thought all insurace companies would insure every NHL contract despite the length, and cost? You also realize that the contracts that can be insured there is a premium paid by the NHL teams, that is above and beyond the cost of the actual cap hit dont you? You still believe there will be a clause that allows NHL teams to demote players to hide the cap hit, after everything that has been said and discussed?

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:18 PM
  #215
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
So these points have not been discussed, and tabled in CBA discusions? There are many quotes from major media soources on these points. If you want to hold out hope that this things will not be part of the CBA, then good luck to you. If you dont believe for one minute, cost certainty, a reduction in over all cap, reduction of contract length and variance in cap hit will not be addessed then you havent been paying attention. I look forward to your post once that CBA has been released, but by all means hold on to false hope if it helps you sleep at night, and not acknowledge the facts.
If the new CBA does something to lower Luongos value I will fully acknowledge it.

But they cant even agree how many players/owners sit in a room at a given time... And yet you are certain they will do all the things you mentioned?

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:20 PM
  #216
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
You thought all insurace companies would insure every NHL contract despite the length, and cost? You also realize that the contracts that can be insured there is a premium paid by the NHL teams, that is above and beyond the cost of the actual cap hit dont you? You still believe there will be a clause that allows NHL teams to demote players to hide the cap hit, after everything that has been said and discussed?
Im agnostic to the idea of players not being able to be buried.. Again, the only thing we can take from these negotiations is that the 2 sides cant negotiate.

And do you honestly think the cost of insurance is going to stop Brian Burke from improving his team?
The only person who cares is the accountant.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:25 PM
  #217
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
If the new CBA does something to lower Luongos value I will fully acknowledge it. But they cant even agree how many players/owners sit in a room at a given time... And yet you are certain they will do all the things you mentioned?
You proved my point again. All you are concerned about is Lou and his value, the reality is how the new CBA will affect all teams and all players, not just Lou. Do I believe the new CBA will offer a lower overall cap to the NHL and contracts will no longer be burried in the minors, and there will be restrictions on contract length and cap hit? Absolutely. Dont take my word for it, wait till it comes out then feel free to make your comments. NHL teams that had money were able to bury contracts in the minors which not only circumvents the cap, but offers an advantage to some NHL teams while others dont have the financial abilities to do the same, offering an unfair advantage some teams have over others. You think this will be allowed to continue?

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:36 PM
  #218
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
Im agnostic to the idea of players not being able to be buried.. Again, the only thing we can take from these negotiations is that the 2 sides cant negotiate.

And do you honestly think the cost of insurance is going to stop Brian Burke from improving his team?
The only person who cares is the accountant.

Believe what you want to believe, but unless there is a loophole found in the new CBA, contracts willl no longer be permitted to be burried.

You missed the point about the cost of insurance, Lou's contract to my knowledge cannot be insured due to its length. That is just one issue. If you also believe that the contracts that are insurable, are not taken into consideration by NHL teams, despite their wealth, you're reaching. The cost of taking on a player by a team is much more than just their salary. What will stop Burke from aquiring Lou, is taking on a player with a very long contract, with a NTC, whose contract cant be insured, and likely unable to rid himself of the cap hit should he retire/decline, unless he gets bought out. Seems like a dream situation, with no risk, not to mention while many teams are going to try to get under the cap, Leafs take on all the risk, help the Nucks out with cap space, and give up plenty of assets? Complete denial; please keep him, and enjoy the cap hit and two very good goalies.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 06:06 PM
  #219
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
Believe what you want to believe, but unless there is a loophole found in the new CBA, contracts willl no longer be permitted to be burried.
I don't really know how this works, so maybe you can tell me. If a buried guy counts against the cap then doesn't that mean that there's less money in the pot for other players?

Wouldn't the PA be seriously against this?

DJOpus is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 06:10 PM
  #220
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,963
vCash: 13357
For the sake of argument, I say we assume the rules of the CBA will be some variant that was purposed let time, wherein the original team - Vancouver in this case - incurs any possibly backlash should Luongo retire. This way we have some basis to go on otherwise it leaves us with a straw man and discussions of a trade become even more pointless.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 06:14 PM
  #221
Ciccio1980
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 354
vCash: 500
Here's the thing goalies normally don't have high trade value top that with age bad contract = salary dump Connolly and bozak and 2nd
Is seams everyone knows the value is extremely low except you guys

Ciccio1980 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 06:20 PM
  #222
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,963
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciccio1980 View Post
Here's the thing goalies normally don't have high trade value top that with age bad contract = salary dump Connolly and bozak and 2nd
Is seams everyone knows the value is extremely low except you guys
Except he does not have a bad contract no matter the way you attempt to word it. While term may be lengthily, there are a number of options structured into the deal to make it more than manageable. As has been suggested repeatedly, trading him to a cap floor cap is probably one of the best. We have nothing else for us to "know" because we already know our options.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 06:24 PM
  #223
birddog*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
I dont understand the concerns with insurance $'s ... You would pay the same for Lu as you would for Phaneuf (or players making similar #'s).

The inability to bury contracts isnt a for sure thing... Still speculative... So I dont know why we use that to detract his current value?

Based off of current rules there is little to no risk. Until we get a new CBA we can only guess what might happen
.
Might as well close the thread until then.

birddog* is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 06:39 PM
  #224
topchowda
Registered User
 
topchowda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,553
vCash: 500
Kessel for Luongo str8 up, HF then explodes

topchowda is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 06:44 PM
  #225
Tom ServoMST3K
I am Catbug
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,878
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by topchowda View Post
Kessel for Luongo str8 up, HF then explodes
Well that would at least be entertaining

Tom ServoMST3K 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 03:04 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.