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.
Are you actually not understanding what that poster is saying?
No, I'm being 100% serious. There was a claim of an out-clause in Luongo's contract, AFAIK there are no such things in CBA. So I assumed that the outclause was Luongo retiring. Or maybe it was sending Luongo to AHL.
Just wanted to know what the poster meant.
Also I'd like to hear what the "10m owed to to Luongo when he retires" is? Again, it's not something that's in the CBA.
Last edited by spiny norman: 01-05-2013 at 11:17 AM.
Reason: qmep
1 is a big assumption, 2 might not work in terms of $ given what is being discussed in the CBA.
1 is not really a big assumption, how many players play past 40, and then exclude guys like Jagr, Selanne, and Brodeur, who are still serviceable at that age.
While the new CBA might make contracts buried in the minors count against the cap, do you really think Luongo would rather ride the bus for 1 million dollars while screwing over whichever team he's on rather than retire?
And I don't see how the new CBA could possibly eliminate a cap floor.
The "60 million cap" argument isn't a for sure thing, one, and two, looking back, it was like a 41.7 million dollar cap we had running with a 6.75 Luongo and even the cheapest of cheap goalies made that 7.25 at the time. 7.25/41.7 is more then 9.33/60. In fact, that's 2 percent cheaper, for two much, much better talents filling the role of back up and starter, then just one starter and who ever happens to need a job. We won a few playoff series with that structure the same as Philly or Ottawa or any other team that hasn't won yet. I mean our goalies would be making (conceivably) less then Ovechkin for two high level talents, yet no one is saying Ovechkin needs to go...because he's a top 3 or 4 player in the game.
It should be noted, that the value for Schneider is higher, for me at least, simply because the people asking knock Lu's age, contract status and....well that's it. Schneider is the anti-Luongo, 3 year term at 4 million, but he doesn't have the NHL track record Lu has. Highest save % for the number of games he's played of any goalie, and a beautiful record in College and the AHL and all other levels, but not the NHL. If you won't pay full price for the reasons listed for Lu, no one can in the right mind, then expect to get Schneider cheaper.
Anyway, some of us may be good trading him, others aren't, it comes with the territory. I'd want Gardiner+JVR for Schneider with an addition like a second and Raymond or something, in other words it's not happening (I'm not looking for a flamewar on this, I know Toronto doesn't want to pay this, and to most Toronto fans having "maybes" not work out, I understand wholly, that is purely as a Canucks fan that I am saying that, you shouldn't pay that price IMO). I'm open to offers, but I still insist that Toronto and Vancouver are a poor match out side of "needs goalie" and "has goalie to spare".
I agree with the second paragraph in it's entirely however.
My demand would not be as high; something like Gardiner + Lupul + Conditional 1st in 2014 based on if resigns or not. Gardiner provides us a huge opportunity to address needs through trade. If Lupul did walk, we could replace him using assets obtained in a subsequent Gardiner trade. Edmonton, Detroit and Chicago would love Gardiner and have precisely what we'd like to acquire in trade.
Of course, this all hinges on the cap being within a $65-67M bracket, which I do believe it will be. So I suppose, I'll ask. Toronto fans, would you add to Gardiner for Schneider? And yes, we could add too.
Where does that "10M owed to Luongo when he retires" come from?
It is the approximate salary that would be owed by the owners... In a worst case scenario. Good chance they might not have to pay it to, just a worst case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11
1 is a big assumption, 2 might not work in terms of $ given what is being discussed in the CBA.
The assumption is that he would probably rather retire than play in the minors for 1 mil, also still foggy if his cap hit would count, as his actually salary would be under the threshold to be allowed in the minors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11
That's a big "if".
FLA
TO
SJS
CHI
EDM
CBJ
Mystery team
That is 7. All have been reported by sportsnet or TSN. Check earlier threads. I guess that IF was big because its probably more...
It is the approximate salary that would be owed by the owners... In a worst case scenario. Good chance they might not have to pay it to, just a worst case.
The assumption is that he would probably rather retire than play in the minors for 1 mil, also still foggy if his cap hit would count, as his actually salary would be under the threshold to be allowed in the minors.
FLA TO
SJS 12-13 cap=65,241,667 with 4 UFA's.
CHI 12-13 cap=64,445,128 with 3 UFA's (and other obvious reasons)
EDM 12-13 cap=61,433,333 with no UFA's. (Luongo's NTC)
CBJ (Luongo's NTC)
Mystery team
That is 7. All have been reported by sportsnet or TSN. Check earlier threads. I guess that IF was big because its probably more...
IMO, the bolded yes. If the cap lowers to 60-64 mil, you can see why some don't work. Each team i've listed do have UFA's in 13-14, but they will need to fill out their roster before considering another 5.3 on top.
Essentially, it will all depend on the cap in 13-14. That will determine who is a player for Luongo.
As John Adams stated: "Facts are stubborn things."
Lou is a former top goalie who is 33 years old with concerns regarding a groin injury who was benched last season during the play-offs and replaced by a rising, young star who is now seen as the team's starter after being signed to a long term $4 million contract.
I'll assume that by your quote you were intending to present the facts? Let's look at them shall we?
- Former top goalie based on what metric or analysis? Groundless.
- Concerns over his groin injury in Sept. 2010? Is it a fact to infer concern?
- "Benched" or replaced? Each have a different meaning.
Quote:
Prior to the lock out, the Nucks tried unsuccessfully to trade Lou, but were unable to make a deal largely it seems because of his contract which runs another 10 years with a $5.33 million cap hit, but which pays Lou $6.7 million per year through age 40 before tailing off. Canuck fans say that that his buy - out price ( assumed to be in the $40-50 million range under the proposed amnesty terms of the new CBA) is too high and no one would pay it.
- Tried unsuccessfully? Is every team unsuccessful prior to dealing a player?
- How do you know it was because of his contract?
- There's also Canucks fans that don't think it will ever get to a buy-out point. Regardless of the contract.
Quote:
Assuming that there is a 2012-13 partial season at a$70 million cap, the Nucks for the balance of the season can afford to keep and pay Lou to ride the pines assuming that Schneider plays consistently well. If Schneider plays inconsistently, then there is an instant goalie controversy. If Schneider cannot handle the starters job with the added pressure of Lou looking over his shoulder and associated locker room distractions, then Lou resumes the starters role with unknown results ranging from paying very well to playing poorly.
Now onto 2013-14, with the new CBA in effect, the Nucks will have $9.3 million tied up in 2 goalies. Schneider has proven to be a solid starter (likely) or crapped out (possible) or somewhere in between. Lou has proven to be solid in spot duty( likely) or returned as a starter with unknown results and is now 34 years old.
I suggest that, in a shortened season with a looming cap reduction, that few major trades will occur during the balance of 2012 - 13, but will await the off-season. Since prior efforts to trade Lou have failed, it is even less likely that he gets moved. That takes us to the off season, when the wealthy teams over the $60 million cap will all be scrambling to shed players and salary,including the Nucks. The teams with cap space will presumably be bargain shopping, which may include other veteran goalies among the cap casualties.
- Less likely he gets moved = Supposition, not fact.
- Cap space teams bargain shopping = Assumption. There are some that operate only to the floor, which is less than 60m. These teams will likely stay to the floor, wherever it should be, OR stay at their current budget which is still less than 60m. It is an assumption on your part to speculate that every team with space will be spending to the cap.
Quote:
Btw, a growing trend among some teams in the NHL has been towards lower priced goalies, in part due to the success of the Red Wing model and in part because of some flop signings (ask the Flyers).
It is now the off season, please identify for me the teams that are lining up to trade value for a 34 year old, second string goalie with a 9-year contract that many Nucks fans say is way too rich to amnesty if he craps out.
And Btw that is the best case scenario for the Nucks because it assumes that Schneider proved to be the man. The alternative is that they keep Lou and trade/ cut Schneider. In which case, I agree that Lou will not be amestied.
- Please show this trend of cheaper goalies in an objective analysis. If you can't, you are again fabricating information.
- It is not _now_ the offseason. It is the __lockout__ now, where GMs are not allowed to trade assets. The offseason ended in October.
Here's a question for you: If the intention of a cap-circumvention contract is to artificially lower the cap-hit beyond what it should be, illegally, is such a deal more favourable to teams in a reduced cap environment, or less? And since I know it will be brought up, assume that there will be someway for teams to remove 1way contracts from their roster, as was the case in the last CBA.
My demand would not be as high; something like Gardiner + Lupul + Conditional 1st in 2014 based on if resigns or not. Gardiner provides us a huge opportunity to address needs through trade. If Lupul did walk, we could replace him using assets obtained in a subsequent Gardiner trade. Edmonton, Detroit and Chicago would love Gardiner and have precisely what we'd like to acquire in trade.
Of course, this all hinges on the cap being within a $65-67M bracket, which I do believe it will be. So I suppose, I'll ask. Toronto fans, would you add to Gardiner for Schneider? And yes, we could add too.
Yes, I am a little more demanding then you'd be, mostly because of the number of people who claim Luongo has no value due to his contract. Schneider has none of the contract issues, is signed for cheaper, and while not super short term, 3 years is plenty to make sure they like what they've recieved, and while I'd want Gardiner, Lupul or a 1st I don't think would address the same weaknesses JVR would, whether or not he'd be available (I suspect strongly it's a non-starter, perhaps as much as Gardiner). But it's not that I am completely unreasonable on this matter, it's just every time someone knocks Luongo's value, it seems they are building up the value of Schneider, who many think wouldn't be available.
I think you're demands for Schneider are more reasonable, but I don't think any Gardiner vs. Schneider trade will fly, tbh, because of the number of times Toronto has been burned by goalies who have been all but a sure thing.
I'll assume that by your quote you were intending to present the facts? Let's look at them shall we?
- Former top goalie based on what metric or analysis? Groundless.
- Concerns over his groin injury in Sept. 2010? Is it a fact to infer concern?
- "Benched" or replaced? Each have a different meaning.
- Tried unsuccessfully? Is every team unsuccessful prior to dealing a player?
- How do you know it was because of his contract?
- There's also Canucks fans that don't think it will ever get to a buy-out point. Regardless of the contract.
- Less likely he gets moved = Supposition, not fact.
- Cap space teams bargain shopping = Assumption. There are some that operate only to the floor, which is less than 60m. These teams will likely stay to the floor, wherever it should be, OR stay at their current budget which is still less than 60m. It is an assumption on your part to speculate that every team with space will be spending to the cap.
- Please show this trend of cheaper goalies in an objective analysis. If you can't, you are again fabricating information.
- It is not _now_ the offseason. It is the __lockout__ now, where GMs are not allowed to trade assets. The offseason ended in October.
Here's a question for you: If the intention of a cap-circumvention contract is to artificially lower the cap-hit beyond what it should be, illegally, is such a deal more favourable to teams in a reduced cap environment, or less? And since I know it will be brought up, assume that there will be someway for teams to remove 1way contracts from their roster, as was the case in the last CBA.
The problem Bleach, IF...and i say IF the new CBA brings the cap down to the dreaded 60mil, how many teams do you feel will be able to add 5.3 (as good as that is) and still fill out a roster?
IMO, the bolded yes. If the cap lowers to 60-64 mil, you can see why some don't work. Each team i've listed do have UFA's in 13-14, but they will need to fill out their roster before considering another 5.3 on top.
Essentially, it will all depend on the cap in 13-14. That will determine who is a player for Luongo.
I disagree. The cap is a factor, but it is not the determinant. As you and I know, EDM is rumoured in on Lu, and they have two huge raises coming to Hall and Eberle.
The fact is, some teams recognize that Luongo is a player you add first, and then you fill out the roster. No different than how Nonis saw him when giving him 6.75m in a 41m~ cap. The cap will not cement anything here.
1 is not really a big assumption, how many players play past 40, and then exclude guys like Jagr, Selanne, and Brodeur, who are still serviceable at that age.
While the new CBA might make contracts buried in the minors count against the cap, do you really think Luongo would rather ride the bus for 1 million dollars while screwing over whichever team he's on rather than retire?
And I don't see how the new CBA could possibly eliminate a cap floor.
Yes, I am a little more demanding then you'd be, mostly because of the number of people who claim Luongo has no value due to his contract. Schneider has none of the contract issues, is signed for cheaper, and while not super short term, 3 years is plenty to make sure they like what they've recieved, and while I'd want Gardiner, Lupul or a 1st I don't think would address the same weaknesses JVR would, whether or not he'd be available (I suspect strongly it's a non-starter, perhaps as much as Gardiner). But it's not that I am completely unreasonable on this matter, it's just every time someone knocks Luongo's value, it seems they are building up the value of Schneider, who many think wouldn't be available.
I think you're demands for Schneider are more reasonable, but I don't think any Gardiner vs. Schneider trade will fly, tbh, because of the number of times Toronto has been burned by goalies who have been all but a sure thing.
Bingo. I think Schnieder is going to be great, but on such a short sample size i would be leary. Andrew Raycroft...Vesa Toskala...Jonas Gustafsson....all guys that were "supposed" to be good. (here is were Bleach comes in and berates Burke's ability to judge goalies)
The problem Bleach, IF...and i say IF the new CBA brings the cap down to the dreaded 60mil, how many teams do you feel will be able to add 5.3 (as good as that is) and still fill out a roster?
60m isn't that dreaded. People are acting like it is, but it isn't.
It wouldn't matter if Luongo's contract is 5.3m or 6m or 6.5m. Any team he goes to will treat him as a core piece moving forward. So those teams would add his 5.3m to the core and then worry about supplementing the roster outside of him, not treat Luongo as the supplement.
Bingo. I think Schnieder is going to be great, but on such a short sample size i would be leary. Andrew Raycroft...Vesa Toskala...Jonas Gustafsson....all guys that were "supposed" to be good. (here is were Bleach comes in and berates Burke's ability to judge goalies)
Well that aside, none of them have "stolen" the starting position from their verified star player counterpart, but no, I totally understand what that would be hard for Leaf fans to swallow.
I would agree with Bleach, but I would also remind him, Nonis is there too, and as much as I hate the guy....Luongo....
Last edited by Cogburn: 01-05-2013 at 11:57 AM.
Reason: there, not here....I'm not in Toronto, silly...
I disagree. The cap is a factor, but it is not the determinant. As you and I know, EDM is rumoured in on Lu, and they have two huge raises coming to Hall and Eberle.
The fact is, some teams recognize that Luongo is a player you add first, and then you fill out the roster. No different than how Nonis saw him when giving him 6.75m in a 41m~ cap. The cap will not cement anything here.
How can you say that? There are teams that are at 64 million with16 players signed. If the cap comes down to 60 mil...explain how it isn't a factor.
Bingo. I think Schnieder is going to be great, but on such a short sample size i would be leary. Andrew Raycroft...Vesa Toskala...Jonas Gustafsson....all guys that were "supposed" to be good. (here is were Bleach comes in and berates Burke's ability to judge goalies)
I've been berating Burke's ability to find good goaltending since he was here in VAN. Our team got worked, the WCE era stifled, because he kept the goaltending wonderwheel going. There is history here even before he got to TOR. Don't take it personal.
The assumption is that he would probably rather retire than play in the minors for 1 mil, also still foggy if his cap hit would count, as his actually salary would be under the threshold to be allowed in the minors.
It in fact might count and there is also a limit to salary in the A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe
FLA
TO
SJS
CHI
EDM
CBJ
Mystery team
That is 7. All have been reported by sportsnet or TSN. Check earlier threads. I guess that IF was big because its probably more...
They report a lot of stuff. The majority is either untrue or never happens.
It is the approximate salary that would be owed by the owners... In a worst case scenario. Good chance they might not have to pay it to, just a worst case.
Please clarify this.
When Luongo retires, why does he get any money from the owners?? Once you retire, you don't get any salary.
IMO, the bolded yes. If the cap lowers to 60-64 mil, you can see why some don't work. Each team i've listed do have UFA's in 13-14, but they will need to fill out their roster before considering another 5.3 on top.
Essentially, it will all depend on the cap in 13-14. That will determine who is a player for Luongo.
Cap concerns, IF things go the worst case, and we get a 60 mil cap, another team can still send us salary to be bought out under the amnesty. So I think IF anything it could help his value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11
It in fact might count and there is also a limit to salary in the A.
They report a lot of stuff. The majority is either untrue or never happens.
The threshold talked about was 1.5 mil last I heard, it may change, but Luongo gets paid under that. It has not been talked about the cap hit as far as I know, that also still does nothing for my second point.
60m isn't that dreaded. People are acting like it is, but it isn't.
It wouldn't matter if Luongo's contract is 5.3m or 6m or 6.5m. Any team he goes to will treat him as a core piece moving forward. So those teams would add his 5.3m to the core and then worry about supplementing the roster outside of him, not treat Luongo as the supplement.
I'm going to use EDM as an example. In 13-14 they have 14 players signed....48,450,000 tied up in cap. RNH and Schultz are on their last years of ELC's. One can assume RNH will get 6,000,000 (same as Hall/Eberle), and Shultz at least 5,000,000. We are now at 51,925,000. Add Luongo's 5.3 and we are at 57,225,000 with 15 players signed. NOW, if the cap is 60 mil, they have 2,775,000 to fill out the roster....doable?
No, I'm being 100% serious. There was a claim of an out-clause in Luongo's contract, AFAIK there are no such things in CBA. So I assumed that the outclause was Luongo retiring. Or maybe it was sending Luongo to AHL.
Just wanted to know what the poster meant.
Also I'd like to hear what the "10m owed to to Luongo when he retires" is? Again, it's not something that's in the CBA.
No, I'm being 100% serious. There was a claim of an out-clause in Luongo's contract, AFAIK there are no such things in CBA. So I assumed that the outclause was Luongo retiring. Or maybe it was sending Luongo to AHL.
Just wanted to know what the poster meant.
There is an opt-out clause that Luongo can exercise after year 6, when the Sedin twins contract expires. It was put in so he could evaluate the direction the team was heading without the Sedins, and he could opt out of the contract if they were rebuilding and he did not want to.
Or something like that, but there is definitely an opt out clause after year 6
They report a lot of stuff. The majority is either untrue or never happens.
missed this oops
The reason why it never happens is there can only ever be one outcome. If FLA gets Lui, does that mean it wasn't true the leafs were not interested? or any other team for that matter?
I think with any report, you must look at the source, and go from there, with multiple sources here I tend to believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Please clarify this.
When Luongo retires, why does he get any money from the owners?? Once you retire, you don't get any salary.
There's no such thing in the CBA.
Currently there is no CBA, under what may be the new one who knows, I was trying to show a worst case scenario, in which absolute worst case, 40 mil>10mil. If things stay the same as the last CBA, my case only gets better as 40 mil > 0$.
I'm going to use EDM as an example. In 13-14 they have 14 players signed....48,450,000 tied up in cap. RNH and Schultz are on their last years of ELC's. One can assume RNH will get 6,000,000 (same as Hall/Eberle), and Shultz at least 5,000,000. We are now at 51,925,000. Add Luongo's 5.3 and we are at 57,225,000 with 15 players signed. NOW, if the cap is 60 mil, they have 2,775,000 to fill out the roster....doable?
Doable. Do you think Horcoff and Hemsky, who combine for 10.5m in cap-hit, will be on the team when Hemsky has been rumoured in trade for 2 years (mostly linked with DET) and Horcoff is called mega-overpaid by even the most staunch EDM media analyst (Spector comes to mind)? I don't. He's 50/50 for a buyout IMO. The cap is just not the death knell you are trying to make it out to be.
Edit: Oh, and RNH and Shultz are at .925k _during_ the 13-14 season. That's the season the cap is 60m. After that season, who knows what it will be? So I'm not sure why their raises are relevant in that year?
Last edited by Bleach Clean: 01-05-2013 at 12:36 PM.
I've been berating Burke's ability to find good goaltending since he was here in VAN. Our team got worked, the WCE era stifled, because he kept the goaltending wonderwheel going. There is history here even before he got to TOR. Don't take it personal.
