HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Luongo Talk: The Final Countdown...?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 11:00 AM
  #176
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
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.


PHI has Carter and Richards too I think...


"Screwed" may be an overstatement depending on what value they tack onto the original team. If it is the "money saved", does that account to the 1.4m~ artificially lowered value of Luongo's cap-hit? And for what duration? OR is it the remaining years at 5.3m? From the time of his retirement to the end of his contract?

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:03 AM
  #177
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
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.
I wonder what happens with the Carter and Richards deals? I know they are young and unlikely to retire (barring injury) while under those contracts but who's potentially on the hook for them? Philly again?

crazycanuck is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:03 AM
  #178
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
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?


It does, if it's actual salary. Then, it's too insignificant to matter really. However, I was thinking that it could be the actual 5.3m cap-hit that is the number we are working with. If it's not, cool.



So really, fretting over nothing it seems.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:05 AM
  #179
trbr86
Registered User
 
trbr86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
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):

So what is the "money saved over the term of the deal"? And how do they apply it to the cap?
Using this formula, I made a quick excel which I believe shows the cap penalty that the Canucks would face if Luongo retires prior to his contract ending:



http://imgur.com/hFnqd

trbr86 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:07 AM
  #180
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,264
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
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):










So what is the "money saved over the term of the deal"? And how do they apply it to the cap?
I am wondering if this means they will recalculate what his cap hit should have been based on the contract structure, and penalize the team for the difference?

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:08 AM
  #181
Elbows of Bure
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
Using this formula, I made a quick excel which I believe shows the cap penalty that the Canucks would face if Luongo retires prior to his contract ending:



http://imgur.com/hFnqd
This looks sooo much better than my MACbook calculator job. But we arrived to the same numbers. I imagine the Canucks will be stuck with the 4~ million cap hit too. I don't think it's a huge concern to Gillis. And in seven years, chances are he isn't even the GM.

Elbows of Bure is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:13 AM
  #182
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,102
vCash: 500
Honestly I don't think it's a huge concern for the canucks. It would certainly suck but I think 7 years or so from now that cap hit charge isn't going to be that bad given the cap will have likely increased significantly by then.

From the way Mirtle described it:

If Luongo were to retire before the final three years of his contract he would have been paid $60.4 mil of his $64 mil contract. That averages to $6.71 mil a year for those first 9 years of the deal.

The cap hit for Luongo is ~$5.3 mil for the entirety of his contract thanks to the backdiving years.

THe recapture formula would take the money saved over the first 9 years as:

Money saved = 9* (6.71mil - 5.3 mil) = 9*1.38mil = $12.42 mil

This would be spread over the remaining years of the contract that weren't played or a $4.14 cap hit to the canucks those years.

Essentially it would be like carrying a deadweight like Ballard. Well really given the increased cap by that time it would be like a useless $2.5-3 mil player. It hurts but it isn't terrible.

Note: this was based on the example Mirtle gave in December. I do not know how the formular may have changed or if he was correct.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle6251627/


edit: looks like I was late to the party but we all have the smae ~4 mil cap hit.

tantalum is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:14 AM
  #183
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
It does, if it's actual salary. Then, it's too insignificant to matter really. However, I was thinking that it could be the actual 5.3m cap-hit that is the number we are working with. If it's not, cool.



So really, fretting over nothing it seems.
Yeah, I think it's fretting over nothing do, since we 'own' the contract, instead of him retiring, we just buy his contract out for real dollars, instead of a retirement recapture blah blah.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:14 AM
  #184
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
Using this formula, I made a quick excel which I believe shows the cap penalty that the Canucks would face if Luongo retires prior to his contract ending:



http://imgur.com/hFnqd


Umm that's not good. But the question remains who is stuck? Is it TOR? The CBR formula is unclear in that regard. Also, what does cap-hit actual account for? Could you use it to spend to the cap, and then proceed to enact LTIR? If so, not a big deal at all.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:16 AM
  #185
xtra
Registered User
 
xtra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbows of Bure View Post
This looks sooo much better than my MACbook calculator job. But we arrived to the same numbers. I imagine the Canucks will be stuck with the 4~ million cap hit too. I don't think it's a huge concern to Gillis. And in seven years, chances are he isn't even the GM.
So would it be 4 mil for the remainder of the contract? i don't quite understand that....

assuming he retires with 3 years left then we would have a ~4 mil cap hit for the last 3 years.

xtra is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:17 AM
  #186
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Honestly I don't think it's a huge concern for the canucks. It would certainly suck but I think 7 years or so from now that cap hit charge isn't going to be that bad given the cap will have likely increased significantly by then.

From the way Mirtle described it:

If Luongo were to retire before the final three years of his contract he would have been paid $60.4 mil of his $64 mil contract. That averages to $6.71 mil a year for those first 9 years of the deal.

The cap hit for Luongo is ~$5.3 mil for the entirety of his contract thanks to the backdiving years.

THe recapture formula would take the money saved over the first 9 years as:

Money saved = 9* (6.71mil - 5.3 mil) = 9*1.38mil = $12.42 mil

This would be spread over the remaining years of the contract that weren't played or a $4.14 cap hit to the canucks those years.

Essentially it would be like carrying a deadweight like Ballard. Well really given the increased cap by that time it would be like a useless $2.5-3 mil player. It hurts but it isn't terrible.

Note: this was based on the example Mirtle gave in December. I do not know how the formular may have changed or if he was correct.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle6251627/


edit: looks like I was late to the party but we all have the smae ~4 mil cap hit.



But if you "own" the contract as arsmaster describes, why not buy it out? Or like I said, use it to bump up against the cap and then proceed to take advantage of LTIR?

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:17 AM
  #187
trbr86
Registered User
 
trbr86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Umm that's not good. But the question remains who is stuck? Is it TOR? The CBR formula is unclear in that regard. Also, what does cap-hit actual account for? Could you use it to spend to the cap, and then proceed to enact LTIR? If so, not a big deal at all.
Yeah, that's where I imagine things could get really tricky. The Canucks could argue that they shouldn't be liable for his cap hit because (theoretically) he retired because of injury. It sounds like it could become some sort of legal challenge.

trbr86 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:17 AM
  #188
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,661
vCash: 8000
I actually hope it is Vancouver who is on the hook simply because Luongo will probably play late into the deal. It would also give maximum return for him trade wise.

MikeK is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:22 AM
  #189
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
Yeah, that's where I imagine things could get really tricky. The Canucks could argue that they shouldn't be liable for his cap hit because (theoretically) he retired because of injury. It sounds like it could become some sort of legal challenge.
they are very strict on injuries...wither your injured or your not ...ie doctors etc........

if he is actually injured then his cap hit will remain and he will be on LTIR.....which in my understanding would remain with his current employer......and whether insurance or that team foots the bill....he will be paid...and most likely wont retire to receive benfits...ie like pronger...will never retire due to injury and getting paid while injured.

crazyforhockey is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:23 AM
  #190
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
Yeah, that's where I imagine things could get really tricky. The Canucks could argue that they shouldn't be liable for his cap hit because (theoretically) he retired because of injury. It sounds like it could become some sort of legal challenge.


Yeah, very tricky indeed. How it is argued can affect it's interpretation. He can be bought out and LTIR'd if the Canucks "own" the deal. Which they would. As long as that's the case, I think we're good.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:23 AM
  #191
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
Yeah, that's where I imagine things could get really tricky. The Canucks could argue that they shouldn't be liable for his cap hit because (theoretically) he retired because of injury. It sounds like it could become some sort of legal challenge.
Yeah, and what happens if the acquiring team no longer wants him and sends him to the minors or benches him forcing him to retire?

Doesn't seem fair that the Canucks would have to "pay" for another teams poor handling of an asset.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:28 AM
  #192
trbr86
Registered User
 
trbr86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
Using this formula, I made a quick excel which I believe shows the cap penalty that the Canucks would face if Luongo retires prior to his contract ending:



http://imgur.com/hFnqd
Just to make that clear, the number in the far right column would be the annual cap hit for every subsequent season.

Example 1: if Luongo retired prior to the 2017-2018 season, his cap-hit for the following five seasons would be 2.59m (12.96m divided by five seasons).

Example 2: If he retired prior to the 2020-2021 season, his cap hit would be 4.34m (8.67m divided by two seasons).

The cap hit would not change for each individual season after he retired.

trbr86 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:28 AM
  #193
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,661
vCash: 8000
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Yeah, and what happens if the acquiring team no longer wants him and sends him to the minors or benches him forcing him to retire?

Doesn't seem fair that the Canucks would have to "pay" for another teams poor handling of an asset.
Luongo likely won't retire before 2019 simply because of salary. Once he drops down to $1.whatever million then I can see him walking away. When that time comes it's really pocket change for the Canucks.

MikeK is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:31 AM
  #194
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,396
vCash: 500
Only in the NHL would they decide to use the new CBA to punish contracts signed under the old CBA, but here we are!

At worst it's 2-3 years of a 4 million dollar cap penalty then right?, really not the end of the world.

Reign Nateo is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:31 AM
  #195
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
Just to make that clear, the number in the far right column would be the annual cap hit for every subsequent season.

Example 1: if Luongo retired prior to the 2017-2018 season, his cap-hit for the following five seasons would be 2.59m (12.96m divided by five seasons).

Example 2: If he retired prior to the 2020-2021 season, his cap hit would be 4.34m (8.67m divided by two seasons).

The cap hit would not change for each individual season after he retired.


I think you need to make that clear on the main boards. Some (like I had) might interpret it to mean that the corresponding cap-hit listed would be the "penalty" value.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:33 AM
  #196
Whale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK View Post
I actually hope it is Vancouver who is on the hook simply because Luongo will probably play late into the deal. It would also give maximum return for him trade wise.
I am going to explain AGAIN that this has absolutely no bearing on any team we trade Luongo to.

Expenses to team that trades for Luongo after he retires:

Before change:

$0

After change

$0

What is that so hard to understand about that? All this does is punish us for doing something that was approved by the league, they didn't like it, but they approved it.

We should be pissed. This is horrible and it has the finger prints of ****ing Burkie all over it.

Whale is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:37 AM
  #197
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,661
vCash: 8000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whale View Post
I am going to explain AGAIN that this has absolutely no bearing on any team we trade Luongo to.

Expenses to team that trades for Luongo after he retires:

Before change:

$0

After change

$0

What is that so hard to understand about that? All this does is punish us for doing something that was approved by the league, they didn't like it, but they approved it.

We should be pissed. This is horrible and it has the finger prints of ****ing Burkie all over it.
I think you need to take a chill pill and realize how ridiculous you come across. You either misunderstood the post or have no idea what you're talking about.

MikeK is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:39 AM
  #198
pdefenestrator
Registered User
 
pdefenestrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 535
vCash: 50
I'm willing to bet that, by 2018 or whenever the Canucks need to do it, a way to circumvent the recapture clause that is fully within the rules of the CBA will be figured out. At a minimum Luongo could be reacquired via trade and assigned to the ECHL or some beer league somewhere--get the 4m in cap space back for 1m in salary.

pdefenestrator is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:40 AM
  #199
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whale View Post
I am going to explain AGAIN that this has absolutely no bearing on any team we trade Luongo to.

Expenses to team that trades for Luongo after he retires:

Before change:

$0

After change

$0

What is that so hard to understand about that? All this does is punish us for doing something that was approved by the league, they didn't like it, but they approved it.

We should be pissed. This is horrible and it has the finger prints of ****ing Burkie all over it.
If this is true there are going to be a bunch of teams gunning for Gary's head (in combination with three lockouts in his tenure). There is absolutely no benefit to the league for this, nor the PA. They approved the deals and they wrote the CBA. All the teams did was act in accordance with the rules in place. There is no support for violation of the spirit of the cap. Bettman and Burke violated that all the time with their heavy suasion for collusive behaviour amongst teams (Decrying RFA offer sheets for example)

ginner classic is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:40 AM
  #200
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
Only in the NHL would they decide to use the new CBA to punish contracts signed under the old CBA, but here we are!
Probably a reason why the lockout was as long as it was - certain 'hard-line' owners had at least one long-term contract.

Barney Gumble 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 07:14 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.