HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Luongo Talk: The Final Countdown...?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 09:58 AM
  #151
SpecialK139
Bo Hor-fat
 
SpecialK139's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Burnaby
Country: Canada
Posts: 203
vCash: 500
Forgive me if this has been brought up already, but is trading Lu such a good idea in a compressed sprint to the finish kind of season like what the Canucks are facing this year? With so many games in so little time wouldn't it be better for the boys in blue to have two reliable goalies they can roll with for an even split of games to keep them fresh for the playoff? I don't doubt that Schneider is a good goalie, and admittedly I'm personally a huge Lu fan, but it seems like handing the reins to Schneider to prove himself in a short season with less room for error than a typical season may not be the best course of action, especially with the scraps we appear to be offered from other teams (though admittedly HF is not real life, and GMs may be willing to pay more than Leafs fans). I would rather see us keep both goalies for the shortened year, hopefully boost both of their values through strong play down the stretch (where other teams may have issues with their starters) and then trade one in the summer around the draft to get under the cap.

There are obviously some cap implications in this path (and a nasty Lu vs Schneids argument that I don't want to get into ) but are there any reasons that we shouldn't keep both for the shortened season? Let's be honest, if the best piece we're getting back is Bozak, wouldn't everyone here rather have a reliable net presence (especially while AV figures out defence pairings) than a new third line centre? With all these amnesty buyouts we might even be able to pick up a 3C through free agency for cheap...

SpecialK139 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 10:01 AM
  #152
keslerburrows
Registered User
 
keslerburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vernon, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
@FarhanLaljiTSN: #Luongo skating in Coral Springs today. Still wearing a #canucks jersey @strombone1 #tsn http://t.co/4EyiBaft

keslerburrows is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 10:02 AM
  #153
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Thanks for reminding me that Vigneault is still our coach, I had forgotten for the past 8 months...

How did exchanging Hodgson for defensive mastermind Pahlson turn out? We lack natural goal scorers in our top 6 as is, so to just completely ignore dressing skill players on the 3rd line is extremely stupid - but Im not surprised AV advocates that.
Who are you going to put out in shut-down situations then, the 4th line that usually only sees 7 mins on a good night? The western conference has plenty of teams that just sit on leads, or if it's tied, sit back, don't take chances offensively and just wait for the other team to make a mistake. If we have 3 offensive lines, chances are higher that we are going to make that mistake while trying to create offense, especially from the third line which would have been centered by a rookie. If the top two lines aren't producing, the team is already in trouble.

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 10:11 AM
  #154
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,387
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
Who are you going to put out in shut-down situations then, the 4th line that usually only sees 7 mins on a good night? The western conference has plenty of teams that just sit on leads, or if it's tied, sit back, don't take chances offensively and just wait for the other team to make a mistake. If we have 3 offensive lines, chances are higher that we are going to make that mistake while trying to create offense, especially from the third line which would have been centered by a rookie. If the top two lines aren't producing, the team is already in trouble.
That's why having a top goalie is very valuable because they can bail you out every now and then when this happens. As long as you are able to score and give him some offensive support you should be fine. For some reason we are taking a different approach which hasn't been successful in the playoffs.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 10:12 AM
  #155
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpecialK139 View Post
Forgive me if this has been brought up already, but is trading Lu such a good idea in a compressed sprint to the finish kind of season like what the Canucks are facing this year? With so many games in so little time wouldn't it be better for the boys in blue to have two reliable goalies they can roll with for an even split of games to keep them fresh for the playoff? I don't doubt that Schneider is a good goalie, and admittedly I'm personally a huge Lu fan, but it seems like handing the reins to Schneider to prove himself in a short season with less room for error than a typical season may not be the best course of action, especially with the scraps we appear to be offered from other teams (though admittedly HF is not real life, and GMs may be willing to pay more than Leafs fans). I would rather see us keep both goalies for the shortened year, hopefully boost both of their values through strong play down the stretch (where other teams may have issues with their starters) and then trade one in the summer around the draft to get under the cap.

There are obviously some cap implications in this path (and a nasty Lu vs Schneids argument that I don't want to get into ) but are there any reasons that we shouldn't keep both for the shortened season? Let's be honest, if the best piece we're getting back is Bozak, wouldn't everyone here rather have a reliable net presence (especially while AV figures out defence pairings) than a new third line centre? With all these amnesty buyouts we might even be able to pick up a 3C through free agency for cheap...
Lack has had a poor year as well. There aren't any good back-up options right now in the system, and the UFA market is very weak for goaltenders. I wouldn't be surprised if Luongo is still a Canuck through the end of the season, but I would be surprised if we have both Luongo/Schneider for the 2013-2014 season.

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:05 AM
  #156
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
I don't think Kadri is any worse than Schroeder defensively and AV may not have the luxury to wait forever for the younger guys. With a tighter salary cap, you have to get meaningful contributions from guys on entry level contracts. Once Kesler returns, Kadri could be moved to the wing where he has less defensive responsibility.

Our last 2 playoff series were similar in that our offense sputtered and died with injuries to key front line players. Some offensive scoring depth might have got us past the Kings in the first round last year.




I've watched some Marlies and Wolves games, and this is not the impression I got. Schroeder is _much_ better than Kadri defensively. Can you explain why you think they are equal?



And, again, from what I have seen, Kadri will not be a C in the NHL. Strictly a winger IMO.


That said, Bozak + Kadri + 1st is what I'm expecting, given the leak from Millard earlier, so I agree that Kadri is coming back in the deal.









On an unrelated note: How do you think GMs value potential lottery picks now that where you finish isn't necessarily the range in which you will pick. Does it make a GM like Burke more or less brazen in trading a 1st?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:09 AM
  #157
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,330
vCash: 500
Screw it, I want to keep Lu. You know he is going to be incredibly motivated to prove his reputation and I sort of want to kick the Leaf fans in the shin. Him on another cup run would do precisely that. Call it petty but the sudden barrage of "he sucks LOLOL" that has manifested in that trade thread is enough to annoy anyone.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:15 AM
  #158
Samzilla
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Samzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Screw it, I want to keep Lu. You know he is going to be incredibly motivated to prove his reputation and I sort of want to kick the Leaf fans in the shin. Him on another cup run would do precisely that. Call it petty but the sudden barrage of "he sucks LOLOL" that has manifested in that trade thread is enough to annoy anyone.
So much this.

Samzilla is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:19 AM
  #159
trbr86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,833
vCash: 500
From James Mirtle's twitter: Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years."

So, assuming that this is the same cap benefit recapture that had originally been mooted, then the Canucks will ultimately be on the hook for Luongo's cap hit if he ever decides to retire prior to his contract expiring.

If anything, it takes the risk away from acquiring such a long-term contract and puts it back on the Canucks. This raises his trade value in that sense.

trbr86 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:19 AM
  #160
Biggest Canuck Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Kelowna, BC
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Biggest Canuck Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Screw it, I want to keep Lu. You know he is going to be incredibly motivated to prove his reputation and I sort of want to kick the Leaf fans in the shin. Him on another cup run would do precisely that. Call it petty but the sudden barrage of "he sucks LOLOL" that has manifested in that trade thread is enough to annoy anyone.
I agree with this. I just think we are going to regret this move... Something tells me he has one run left in him, and I want it to be with us, not the Leafs.

Biggest Canuck Fan is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:21 AM
  #161
Vote for Rory
Registered User
 
Vote for Rory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,055
vCash: 500
Rob Longley ‏@longleysunsport
#Luongo says he has given #Canucks GM Mike Gillis the "green light" to do whatever he needs."
Retweeted by Hosea Cheung

Vote for Rory is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:26 AM
  #162
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
From James Mirtle's twitter: Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years."

So, assuming that this is the same cap benefit recapture that had originally been mooted, then the Canucks will ultimately be on the hook for Luongo's cap hit if he ever decides to retire prior to his contract expiring.

If anything, it takes the risk away from acquiring such a long-term contract and puts it back on the Canucks. This raises his trade value in that sense.


Can you list the Cap Benefit Recapture formula?



There is a clause where teams can pay for a part of the existing contract for a player, so as to not burden the destination team with a portion of the deal, but this is an option to the Canucks, not a detriment.










From a past Mirtle: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle6251627/


Quote:
“We are proposing that all years of existing long-term contracts in excess of five (5) years be counted against a Club's Cap regardless of whether or where a Player is playing. While such contracts (and Cap charges) can be traded during their terms, in the event a Player subsequently retires or ceases to play, the effective Cap charge would revert to the Club that originally entered into the contract.”


Ruh roh. Canucks stuck with the back end of Luongo's deal.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:29 AM
  #163
trbr86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Can you list the Cap Benefit Recapture formula?



There is a clause where teams can pay for a part of the existing contract for a player, so as to not burden the destination team with a portion of the deal, but this is an option to the Canucks, not a detriment.
I just tweeted Mirtle and asked him to expand on what he knows. If I recall, the original formula proposed by the NHL was fairly rigid: if a "cap-circumvention" player retired, the team that signed him to that contract would be on the hook automatically.

trbr86 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:31 AM
  #164
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
I just tweeted Mirtle and asked him to expand on what he knows. If I recall, the original formula proposed by the NHL was fairly rigid: if a "cap-circumvention" player retired, the team that signed him to that contract would be on the hook automatically.


Lovely.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:33 AM
  #165
trbr86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Ruh roh. Canucks stuck with the back end of Luongo's deal.
In the grand scheme of things though, imagine if the relationship between Vancouver and Luongo was still great and he finished his career here prior to his contract ending. The Canucks were always anticipating that they would be paying for his "retirement years" against the cap.

It seems like the Canucks will likely be in the same situation now, except with a different set of players on our roster instead of Luongo.

And let's say he doesn't retire until 2019-2020. By then the salary cap could be north of 80m for the subsequent seasons. For all we know, his 5.3m cap will be small potatoes in the grand scheme of the salary cap.

trbr86 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:38 AM
  #166
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
In the grand scheme of things though, imagine if the relationship between Vancouver and Luongo was still great and he finished his career here prior to his contract ending. The Canucks were always anticipating that they would be paying for his "retirement years" against the cap.

It seems like the Canucks will likely be in the same situation now, except with a different set of players on our roster instead of Luongo.

And let's say he doesn't retire until 2019-2020. By then the salary cap could be north of 80m for the subsequent seasons. For all we know, his 5.3m cap will be small potatoes in the grand scheme of the salary cap.



The best way to get around this is to trade back for him and LTIR him. I wonder how PHI is going to feel about this?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:40 AM
  #167
Nick the Viking
Registered User
 
Nick the Viking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Republic of Colwood
Country: Canada
Posts: 420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
In the grand scheme of things though, imagine if the relationship between Vancouver and Luongo was still great and he finished his career here prior to his contract ending. The Canucks were always anticipating that they would be paying for his "retirement years" against the cap.

It seems like the Canucks will likely be in the same situation now, except with a different set of players on our roster instead of Luongo.

And let's say he doesn't retire until 2019-2020. By then the salary cap could be north of 80m for the subsequent seasons. For all we know, his 5.3m cap will be small potatoes in the grand scheme of the salary cap.
Never thought of it that way. That makes a ton of sense

Nick the Viking is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:41 AM
  #168
PRNuck
Retain Kevin Lowe
 
PRNuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Can you list the Cap Benefit Recapture formula?



There is a clause where teams can pay for a part of the existing contract for a player, so as to not burden the destination team with a portion of the deal, but this is an option to the Canucks, not a detriment.

From a past Mirtle: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle6251627/

Ruh roh. Canucks stuck with the back end of Luongo's deal.
Could be worse, as a goalie he'll likely be hanging around for a while. Think of some of the forwards out there with contracts like that, I don't think they'll last that long.

PRNuck is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:43 AM
  #169
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The best way to get around this is to trade back for him and LTIR him. I wonder how PHI is going to feel about this?
Sure makes him more valuable than Bozak + Kadri + 1st, if HE has nothing to do with you're cap when he retires.

Now his contract has NO INFLUENCE on the deal for the acquiring team, so silly Toronto fans....how you going to drive his value down now?

arsmaster is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:45 AM
  #170
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,714
vCash: 500
So reading up on this some more: The CBR formula is actually the PA's answer to the NHL's more draconian measure of just tacking on the remaining cap-hit to the original team. Here are it's details (From same Mirtle article):





Quote:
In response to the league’s call for such an alteration, the NHLPA devised something called a “cap benefit recapture formula,” which would punish teams with players who retired early on long-term deals by putting the money they saved over the term of the deal on their cap after they’ve retired.

This notion has been around for a while, but the change that came last week was that the PA offered to apply this formula to any new contracts that are seven years or longer OR existing deals with seven years or more remaining.

Another change to the PA's previous proposal is that instead of allowing the post-retirement cap penalty to be spread over twice the length remaining on the deal it can only be spread over the number of years that the player didn't play.



So what is the "money saved over the term of the deal"? And how do they apply it to the cap?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:48 AM
  #171
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
In the grand scheme of things though, imagine if the relationship between Vancouver and Luongo was still great and he finished his career here prior to his contract ending. The Canucks were always anticipating that they would be paying for his "retirement years" against the cap.

It seems like the Canucks will likely be in the same situation now, except with a different set of players on our roster instead of Luongo.

And let's say he doesn't retire until 2019-2020. By then the salary cap could be north of 80m for the subsequent seasons. For all we know, his 5.3m cap will be small potatoes in the grand scheme of the salary cap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Boy View Post
Never thought of it that way. That makes a ton of sense
Disagree.

They 'retirement years' were to lower the hit, that $5.3 was never going to count against the cap under the last CBA. I don't believe the Canucks anticipated paying a 43 year old goalie $5.3 million of cap space. i think they anticipated him retiring at 39.

In reality though, it helps us get better value now, and if he performs well through his final year of $6.7m salary, the buyout would be PEANUTS on the cap, especially if the league revenues grow like they did pre-2012 lockout.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:52 AM
  #172
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Disagree.

They 'retirement years' were to lower the hit, that $5.3 was never going to count against the cap under the last CBA. I don't believe the Canucks anticipated paying a 43 year old goalie $5.3 million of cap space. i think they anticipated him retiring at 39.

In reality though, it helps us get better value now, and if he performs well through his final year of $6.7m salary, the buyout would be PEANUTS on the cap, especially if the league revenues grow like they did pre-2012 lockout.


What buyout? If he's no longer a Canuck at that point, how can he be bought out?



I guess I am not fully understanding the full implications of the PA proposed CBR formula.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:54 AM
  #173
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,729
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Sure makes him more valuable than Bozak + Kadri + 1st, if HE has nothing to do with you're cap when he retires.

Now his contract has NO INFLUENCE on the deal for the acquiring team, so silly Toronto fans....how you going to drive his value down now?
Exactly! Unless I am missing something this all but eliminates his contract from any negative remarks regarding a Luongo deal. With a $5.3M cap hit for a legit elite goalie and no outside risks to a team acquiring him I feel the price just went way up.

MikeK is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:56 AM
  #174
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 500
So....we're screwed (Luongo), NYI is screwed (DiPietro), Chicago is screwed (Hossa, I think Sharp), New Jersey is screwed (Kovalchuk), Nashville is screwed, and I'd think Philadelphia has consequences as well (Weber), Philadelphia is screwed anyway (Hartnell and Pronger), Boston is screwed (Chara, Savard), Minnesota could be screwed (Parise and Suter) and Detroit is super screwed (Zetterberg, Franzen and Kronwall).

I mean, this is just off the top of my head, but that is 8 teams in a similar or worse boat then us, and I know there are more.

Cogburn is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:58 AM
  #175
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
What buyout? If he's no longer a Canuck at that point, how can he be bought out?



I guess I am not fully understanding the full implications of the PA proposed CBR formula.
So if he retires after 2017-2018 (last year at 6.7), there would be 4 years left on the deal that would count against Vancouver's cap.

In my head, I believe he'd be owed $7 million over the last 4 years of the deal. Vancouver in a sense 'owns his contract' so they could buy it out for 2/3's of $7 million ($4.7m) and spread that over 4 years ($1.1725 cap hit for those 4 years, since they took away the buyout period being spread out over twice the amount of years).

Does that make sense?

arsmaster 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 05:23 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.