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
12-22-2012, 02:44 PM
  #476
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
I believe it was the 5th Over all, Frattin and Bozak.
Yup...and that is why Luongo is still a Canuck.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 03:13 PM
  #477
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedubn1 View Post
from LeBrun's blog yesterday regarding the main CBA issues :



Sounds like one way or another the cap hit will remain once the player retires, it just doesn't mention who would pay it. If the team acquiring Luongo has to pay it then you can expect Luongo's value to plummet.





Five factors actually supercede this ruling, even _if_ it is ever passed:


1) The length of the current CBA is a factor. If there is an 7-8 year opt out, I doubt it changes much at all with regards to Lu's contract. Could be the clause is removed in the next one before it even affects Luongo's status.


2) Grandfathering in contracts. It remains to be seen if this will affect existing contracts or just those that teams attempt to sign after this CBA has been ratified.


3) Waivers. If they are not changing Waiver rules to affect such contracts, then it doesn't matter if Luongo retires. His contract can still be waived and a rich team can pay his now much reduced salary in the minors. No cap-hit on the parent club. If he is prevented from retiring in the minors, then it means something.


4) Buyouts. Not one time amnesty buyouts, but the regular kind. If he can be bought out prior to retiring, his cap-hit is halved at 2.6m --> Hardly a salary cap breaking value.


5) LTIR rules. Teams have been known to "cap-cussion" onerous contracts, see PHI Flyers. This would be no different. For a team that plays to the cap often (VAN), the best course of action would be to give Luongo an "injury" late into his career where he can spend time "re-habbing" while VAN fills his cap space with another useful asset. Seems only prudent to do so.



There are _always_ options.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 03:37 PM
  #478
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
1) The length of the current CBA is a factor. If there is an 7-8 year opt out, I doubt it changes much at all with regards to Lu's contract. Could be the clause is removed in the next one before it even affects Luongo's status.


2) Grandfathering in contracts. It remains to be seen if this will affect existing contracts or just those that teams attempt to sign after this CBA has been ratified.


3) Waivers. If they are not changing Waiver rules to affect such contracts, then it doesn't matter if Luongo retires. His contract can still be waived and a rich team can pay his now much reduced salary in the minors. No cap-hit on the parent club. If he is prevented from retiring in the minors, then it means something.


4) Buyouts. Not one time amnesty buyouts, but the regular kind. If he can be bought out prior to retiring, his cap-hit is halved at 2.6m --> Hardly a salary cap breaking value.


5) LTIR rules. Teams have been known to "cap-cussion" onerous contracts, see PHI Flyers. This would be no different. For a team that plays to the cap often (VAN), the best course of action would be to give Luongo an "injury" late into his career where he can spend time "re-habbing" while VAN fills his cap space with another useful asset. Seems only prudent to do so.
If that's how buyouts work then I've had an incorrect understanding of them for ages now. Also, I don't think it would be possible to give a player an imaginary injury for seasons on end. AFAIK the Flyers haven't done this either, as both Lapierriere and Pronger were seriously hurt, and still had some gas left in the tank before hanging it up.

I also don't buy the 'grandfathering in' argument. From discussions on the subject by the NHL talking heads I've gathered that it's intended to be a punitive clause as much as a preventative one. I really only think #3 is a legitimate possibility, although the rest are certainly fair talking points.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 03:44 PM
  #479
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Gardiner or Rielly for Luongo would never happen. If those guys were on the table we would be looking for Schneider.

As for the second guy, you are hilarious. Gardiner ++ is good value for 33 year old goalie with a contract that runs well into his 40s?

Also, Luongo is that ONLY guy who could possibly bring the Toronto Maple Leafs "back to relevancy"? Hyperbole much? Can you even see where you are going with those homer glasses on?
Would you consider something around Schneider Edler for Gardiner Kadri Connolly n 1st

Leafs move salary and futures for a slightly unproven starter with good credentials and a high quality Dman with a proven track record of putting up good points. Leafs get better in goal and on D, n with Eddie n Dion on the back end you guys wouldn't need a high scoring center between Kessel and Lupul. Just imagine the 4 of them on a PP together.

Canucks grab youth but stick with Luongo in goal while shoring up some areas of concern for depth. A 3rd line 2nd PP centre who may be over priced but can produce in a more sheltered role. Two high quality prospects/rookies who will keep Van competitive longer while we keep a cost controlled D corps together. Also grabbing a pick is always good.


Both teams grab value and both teams get better in respective ways.

mstad101 is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 04:15 PM
  #480
ProstheticConscience
Kunst
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
Would you consider something around Schneider Edler for Gardiner Kadri Connolly n 1st

Leafs move salary and futures for a slightly unproven starter with good credentials and a high quality Dman with a proven track record of putting up good points. Leafs get better in goal and on D, n with Eddie n Dion on the back end you guys wouldn't need a high scoring center between Kessel and Lupul. Just imagine the 4 of them on a PP together.

Canucks grab youth but stick with Luongo in goal while shoring up some areas of concern for depth. A 3rd line 2nd PP centre who may be over priced but can produce in a more sheltered role. Two high quality prospects/rookies who will keep Van competitive longer while we keep a cost controlled D corps together. Also grabbing a pick is always good.


Both teams grab value and both teams get better in respective ways.
Yet another quality for quantity proposal that does not make the Canucks better. Not even remotely. The entire reason behind the endless Luongo saga is that Schneider has developed to the point where Luongo can go at all. Gardiner's good, but he's a long way from Edler. Good players > Young, cheap players.

ProstheticConscience is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 04:39 PM
  #481
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringerBell View Post
If that's how buyouts work then I've had an incorrect understanding of them for ages now. Also, I don't think it would be possible to give a player an imaginary injury for seasons on end. AFAIK the Flyers haven't done this either, as both Lapierriere and Pronger were seriously hurt, and still had some gas left in the tank before hanging it up.


Buyouts, by my understanding, is half the salary value over twice the term. But to be more accurate, here: http://www.capgeek.com/buyout-calcul...06&buyout_d=15



Flyers did this with Hatcher and one other defender (forget his name at the moment). Lappy and Pronger were hurt though I agree.




Quote:
I also don't buy the 'grandfathering in' argument. From discussions on the subject by the NHL talking heads I've gathered that it's intended to be a punitive clause as much as a preventative one. I really only think #3 is a legitimate possibility, although the rest are certainly fair talking points.



The punitive aspect is an indictment on Gary Bettman himself for OK'ing said contracts in the first place. Would he be admitting he was wrong here? There's also the fact that the certain owners will be "punished" in the process, creating more ill-will towards Gary in house. CHI, PHI, DET, MIN, NSH will all be feeling the effects of this. Still, remove both of those aspects from the process, and you still have the NHLPA that hates this measure as it prevents owners for lining the pockets of players... It's not going to be easy for them to retro-actively punish those teams IMO.




I'm not sure how they adjust waiver rules to counter-act the BDCs. Should be interesting. Then there's the length of the CBA itself. We could all be here talking about Lu's contract and BDCs during the _next_ lockout.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 04:43 PM
  #482
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
Would you consider something around Schneider Edler for Gardiner Kadri Connolly n 1st

Leafs move salary and futures for a slightly unproven starter with good credentials and a high quality Dman with a proven track record of putting up good points. Leafs get better in goal and on D, n with Eddie n Dion on the back end you guys wouldn't need a high scoring center between Kessel and Lupul. Just imagine the 4 of them on a PP together.

Canucks grab youth but stick with Luongo in goal while shoring up some areas of concern for depth. A 3rd line 2nd PP centre who may be over priced but can produce in a more sheltered role. Two high quality prospects/rookies who will keep Van competitive longer while we keep a cost controlled D corps together. Also grabbing a pick is always good.


Both teams grab value and both teams get better in respective ways.
If edler was signed longer than he is i would only consider that for him alone let alone add Schneider so even if edler doesn't have an extension in place the difference still isn't Schneider most I would add back is a 2nd and mid prospect

Ched Brosky is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 05:01 PM
  #483
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringerBell View Post
If that's how buyouts work then I've had an incorrect understanding of them for ages now. Also, I don't think it would be possible to give a player an imaginary injury for seasons on end. AFAIK the Flyers haven't done this either, as both Lapierriere and Pronger were seriously hurt, and still had some gas left in the tank before hanging it up.

I also don't buy the 'grandfathering in' argument. From discussions on the subject by the NHL talking heads I've gathered that it's intended to be a punitive clause as much as a preventative one. I really only think #3 is a legitimate possibility, although the rest are certainly fair talking points.
The NHLPA wants them to be grandfathered in, make no mistake. The issue is still up in the air, to guess either way is just that a guess.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 08:13 PM
  #484
Vancouver_2010
Go Canucks & Oilers
 
Vancouver_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Yup...and that is why Luongo is still a Canuck.
I agree, what an underpayment for Luongo!

Vancouver_2010 is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 09:12 PM
  #485
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Five factors actually supercede this ruling, even _if_ it is ever passed:


1) The length of the current CBA is a factor. If there is an 7-8 year opt out, I doubt it changes much at all with regards to Lu's contract. Could be the clause is removed in the next one before it even affects Luongo's status.


2) Grandfathering in contracts. It remains to be seen if this will affect existing contracts or just those that teams attempt to sign after this CBA has been ratified.


3) Waivers. If they are not changing Waiver rules to affect such contracts, then it doesn't matter if Luongo retires. His contract can still be waived and a rich team can pay his now much reduced salary in the minors. No cap-hit on the parent club. If he is prevented from retiring in the minors, then it means something.


4) Buyouts. Not one time amnesty buyouts, but the regular kind. If he can be bought out prior to retiring, his cap-hit is halved at 2.6m --> Hardly a salary cap breaking value.


5) LTIR rules. Teams have been known to "cap-cussion" onerous contracts, see PHI Flyers. This would be no different. For a team that plays to the cap often (VAN), the best course of action would be to give Luongo an "injury" late into his career where he can spend time "re-habbing" while VAN fills his cap space with another useful asset. Seems only prudent to do so.



There are _always_ options.
Lots of if's and buts from suprisingly, another Cannuck fan trying to justify high worth, with a dog contract. Make no mistake about it, contracts will no longer be permitted to be burried in the minors; why this is even talked about is beyond reasonable. Most if not all your suggestions revolve around cap circumvention, and finding ways around the contract. It has been beyond clear, these types of contracts will no longer be allowed, and the notion of a "rich team" taking on the contract because they have money is a very unrealistic thought process, especially as it relates to real life business. There is a real tangible risk with his contract, not just monetarilly, but from a long term cap standpoint. It's quite funny actually reading all these Nucks fans, dancing around the issues, and not acknowledgeing the actual facts. Continue putting lip stick on that pig of a contract/cap hit, because its still what it is, regardless of how much you try to put on.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 09:17 PM
  #486
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Buyouts, by my understanding, is half the salary value over twice the term. But to be more accurate, here: http://www.capgeek.com/buyout-calcul...06&buyout_d=15



Flyers did this with Hatcher and one other defender (forget his name at the moment). Lappy and Pronger were hurt though I agree.









The punitive aspect is an indictment on Gary Bettman himself for OK'ing said contracts in the first place. Would he be admitting he was wrong here? There's also the fact that the certain owners will be "punished" in the process, creating more ill-will towards Gary in house. CHI, PHI, DET, MIN, NSH will all be feeling the effects of this. Still, remove both of those aspects from the process, and you still have the NHLPA that hates this measure as it prevents owners for lining the pockets of players... It's not going to be easy for them to retro-actively punish those teams IMO.




I'm not sure how they adjust waiver rules to counter-act the BDCs. Should be interesting. Then there's the length of the CBA itself. We could all be here talking about Lu's contract and BDCs during the _next_ lockout.
This is an absolute load of crap. Another reach yet again. Teams circumvented the CBA, plain and simple. They were able to find a loop hole and exploit it. There was nothing tanginble in the CBA to indentify this and to condemn and penalize teams for doing so. This has nothing to do with ego or Gary or his realtionship with teams and owners. These contracts are not good for the NHL, and it has been discussed by Bettman and others that this will no longer continue. Suggesting Gary did wrong is a joke, he was a part of a CBA process, that the owners found a way around it and exploited it. Plain and simple.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 09:22 PM
  #487
LPH
[hello] :)
 
LPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 41,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
Lots of if's and buts from suprisingly, another Cannuck fan trying to justify high worth, with a dog contract. Make no mistake about it, contracts will no longer be permitted to be burried in the minors; why this is even talked about is beyond reasonable. Most if not all your suggestions revolve around cap circumvention, and finding ways around the contract. It has been beyond clear, these types of contracts will no longer be allowed, and the notion of a "rich team" taking on the contract because they have money is a very unrealistic thought process, especially as it relates to real life business. There is a real tangible risk with his contract, not just monetarilly, but from a long term cap standpoint. It's quite funny actually reading all these Nucks fans, dancing around the issues, and not acknowledgeing the actual facts. Continue putting lip stick on that pig of a contract/cap hit, because its still what it is, regardless of how much you try to put on.
you replace what ifs with assumptions

nice

LPH is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 03:08 AM
  #488
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Yup...and that is why Luongo is still a Canuck.
And having no CBA in place....

Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 07:51 AM
  #489
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
And having no CBA in place....
If the price was not so crazy, Luongo would have been traded at the draft. Both Tallon and Burke were asking, so the CBA wasn't the issue.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 07:52 AM
  #490
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver_2010 View Post
I agree, what an underpayment for Luongo!
If that is truly how Gillis feels, Luongo will be playing out his contract in Vancouver.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 08:57 AM
  #491
ZKassian9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
If that is truly how Gillis feels, Luongo will be playing out his contract in Vancouver.
I disagree. Teams were worried about the CBA and there was no pressure for trades, which is why there was very few last summer. If the season starts up January it will be a sprint to the end. All the Canucks need is 2 teams in need of a goaltender and I like Mike Gillis' odds. If Burke doesn't want to give up quality to get a guaranteed starting goalie in the last year of his contract, I'm pretty sure everyone can predict where they will be finishing, again. Burke has yet to live by his own mentra of building from the goaltender out. Chi, TB, CLB, Philly, Florida, TO, NYI, Ott, Wash, Win, Minn, Edm, SJ and Col all have young or questionable goaltending. Odds are, a couple of those teams will need a goalie.

ZKassian9 is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 10:38 AM
  #492
The Pucks
Registered User
 
The Pucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,586
vCash: 500
I havn't opened up one of these threads in 2 months. Guess what? Nothing has changed. Pretty much all copy and paste BS from last summer.

The Pucks is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 10:48 AM
  #493
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by live playoff hockey View Post
you replace what ifs with assumptions

nice
How is an assumption made when it has been quoted, on major media outlets througout the CBA negotiation that they have discussed addressing all of these issues. Clearly you havent been paying attention to CBA negotiations. Difference being, you and many others are continuing to push your agenda's stating that cap circumvention will be permited to contrinue, to justify Lou's contract and value. Amazing how so many seem to prefer fantasy than the real world.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 10:49 AM
  #494
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skywarp75 View Post
Luongo is basically guaranteed to give you 5-6 years of elite play.
Not only is this not "basically guaranteed" it's in fact, an extremely long shot. I would say the odds of Luongo having a 15 goal 25 assist season in the next 5-6 years is about as likely as him delivering 5-6 years of elite goaltending.

FerrisRox is online now  
Old
12-23-2012, 10:51 AM
  #495
catbiz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 18
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pucks View Post
I havn't opened up one of these threads in 2 months. Guess what? Nothing has changed. Pretty much all copy and paste BS from last summer.
I'm a panthers fan from day 1 and always liked Lou. We just don't have a pressing need for him at this time . Since Vancouver s wiling to trade him to Florida for less than what they would accept from Toronto, could Florida trade for him then flip him to Toronto for a package of somesorts that makes every team have improvement?

catbiz is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 11:08 AM
  #496
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ag925 View Post
Care to tell us where Florida ranked league-wide in GAA at the end of the '12-'13 regular season? How about you walk us through Theodore and Clemmensen's fine goaltending performances in the final 6 games of the '11-'12 regular season.
Perhaps you could walk us through Robert Luongo's playoff history? Care to tell us how many times he's been pulled in a playoff game when it matters the most? Maybe you can let us know how many times Vancouver's back up goalie has started a playoff game following a horrible Luongo effort? Maybe you can share a list of goalies who turn around a reputation for not getting it done after they turned 33? Or you could perhaps let us know where Jakob Markstrom ranks among all the goaltending prospects in the league? Maybe you can put Theodore and Luongo's numbers side by side from last year and illuminate us in terms of how Roberto represents an upgrade worth using even one of Florida's better prospects to acquire him?

FerrisRox is online now  
Old
12-23-2012, 12:26 PM
  #497
ZKassian9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
Perhaps you could walk us through Robert Luongo's playoff history? Care to tell us how many times he's been pulled in a playoff game when it matters the most? Maybe you can let us know how many times Vancouver's back up goalie has started a playoff game following a horrible Luongo effort? Maybe you can share a list of goalies who turn around a reputation for not getting it done after they turned 33? Or you could perhaps let us know where Jakob Markstrom ranks among all the goaltending prospects in the league? Maybe you can put Theodore and Luongo's numbers side by side from last year and illuminate us in terms of how Roberto represents an upgrade worth using even one of Florida's better prospects to acquire him?
Agreed Florida isn't the best trade partner (though Markstrom hasn't looked good in the AHL this year) but Lu's daughter could start for the Leafs.

ZKassian9 is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 12:26 PM
  #498
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
Perhaps you could walk us through Robert Luongo's playoff history? Care to tell us how many times he's been pulled in a playoff game when it matters the most? Maybe you can let us know how many times Vancouver's back up goalie has started a playoff game following a horrible Luongo effort? Maybe you can share a list of goalies who turn around a reputation for not getting it done after they turned 33? Or you could perhaps let us know where Jakob Markstrom ranks among all the goaltending prospects in the league? Maybe you can put Theodore and Luongo's numbers side by side from last year and illuminate us in terms of how Roberto represents an upgrade worth using even one of Florida's better prospects to acquire him?
In 2011, playoffs, he was pulled 1 more game then Tim Thomas, so do you also think think he is crap? Actually the two were very similar, and both were talked about as odds on favorite to win the Con Smythe if their teams won that year. But don't let that bother you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
Not only is this not "basically guaranteed" it's in fact, an extremely long shot. I would say the odds of Luongo having a 15 goal 25 assist season in the next 5-6 years is about as likely as him delivering 5-6 years of elite goaltending.
Again judging by history, of goalies in Lui's class there is actually on above average chance he plays at his curent rate until 38, then falls off to average until 40. This has been discussed to death. Examples were given with comparables. I would say odds are more like 70-30 for playing well until 40 going by history. Unlike your factless opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
This is an absolute load of crap. Another reach yet again. Teams circumvented the CBA, plain and simple. They were able to find a loop hole and exploit it. There was nothing tanginble in the CBA to indentify this and to condemn and penalize teams for doing so. This has nothing to do with ego or Gary or his realtionship with teams and owners. These contracts are not good for the NHL, and it has been discussed by Bettman and others that this will no longer continue. Suggesting Gary did wrong is a joke, he was a part of a CBA process, that the owners found a way around it and exploited it. Plain and simple.
More things just plain wrong. I am not going to sit here and tell you what a new CBA is going to look like, but I can tell you the players will fight anything that could take away possible future earnings. Putting money in the minors where it is not counting on the cap is actually good for them.

Also you do understand why these contracts are trying to be outlawed right? Because they are so good and are being called cheater contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
Lots of if's and buts from suprisingly, another Cannuck fan trying to justify high worth, with a dog contract. Make no mistake about it, contracts will no longer be permitted to be burried in the minors; why this is even talked about is beyond reasonable. Most if not all your suggestions revolve around cap circumvention, and finding ways around the contract. It has been beyond clear, these types of contracts will no longer be allowed, and the notion of a "rich team" taking on the contract because they have money is a very unrealistic thought process, especially as it relates to real life business. There is a real tangible risk with his contract, not just monetarilly, but from a long term cap standpoint. It's quite funny actually reading all these Nucks fans, dancing around the issues, and not acknowledgeing the actual facts. Continue putting lip stick on that pig of a contract/cap hit, because its still what it is, regardless of how much you try to put on.
First read above for putting a contract in the minors. Nothing is clear at the moment. Also is I am not mistaken, you are actually wrong and the players were given the right to put contracts in the minors. The only thing the owners were currently seeking was 5 year term, and 5% change per year. People are guessing they will be ok at 8 year term, if they get their 10 year deal. Personally I think go for 7 as that is the longest a contract can be insured for at one time.

Also no matter what you think is going to happen his cap hit is amazing. find ten goalies you would take with their cap hits above him. It's just not going to happen.

If you don't want him, thats fine, I will not push him on you, but stopping telling us how terrible everything to do with him is, and then saying take this crap for him. If you want him, offer something real. Most of us do understand that at the age of 33 he is not worth what he would have been at 27. But that doesn't mean he is worth crap.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 12:28 PM
  #499
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
TOGuy14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZKassian9 View Post
I disagree. Teams were worried about the CBA and there was no pressure for trades, which is why there was very few last summer. If the season starts up January it will be a sprint to the end. All the Canucks need is 2 teams in need of a goaltender and I like Mike Gillis' odds. If Burke doesn't want to give up quality to get a guaranteed starting goalie in the last year of his contract, I'm pretty sure everyone can predict where they will be finishing, again. Burke has yet to live by his own mentra of building from the goaltender out. Chi, TB, CLB, Philly, Florida, TO, NYI, Ott, Wash, Win, Minn, Edm, SJ and Col all have young or questionable goaltending. Odds are, a couple of those teams will need a goalie.
Luongo has a NTC and so far has shown only an interest in Florida, and potentially Toronto, so it really doesn't matter who has questionable goaltending

TOGuy14 is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 12:29 PM
  #500
veedubn1
Registered User
 
veedubn1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,627
vCash: 500
Certain people in this thread are not reading what LeBrun wrote correctly.. so I'll post it again and clarify:

Quote:
4. "Cap Benefit Recapture" formula -- This is the Roberto Luongo back-diving contract rule, penalizing teams with cap hits even if a player retires before the end of his contract. The NHL has different versions of how it works, but regardless, all of the NHLís versions apply to all existing contacts of five years or more; the NHLPA applies only to remaining terms of seven years or more.
LeBrun is saying that both sides are in agreement that contracts will not be grandfathered in. It doesn't sound like this was even an issue and both sides knew these loopholes needed to be closed.

The NHL wants this rule to apply to all current contracts that were originally signed for five years or greater, the NHLPA only wants this rule to affect current contracts that still have 7 years or more to go before they expire... regardless of original contract length.

The NHL's version would affect a lot of NHL players.. the NHLPA's version would affect only a handful.

Certain teams like Buffalo who have locked up Tyler Myers to 7+ year contracts don't have to worry because it's extremely unlikely that Myers will think about retiring before his deal is complete... other teams should definitely be nervous.

veedubn1 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 07:36 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.