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.
My other suggestion was Van eating some cap as part of the deal (eg they eat 500k/year of cap to offset the future penalty). Im sure MG/BB have something planned out already.
Apparently this penalty was BB's idea so I doubt its inclusion in the CBA caught him off guard.
If MG and Burke dis have a deal in place(as some believe) this was probably already a consideration.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was Burke's idea he was quite vocal about the cap circumvention deals being wrong and caught alot of crap from our fanbase for not doing 1. As for the return for Lu I have stated my opinion and you have stated your and I guess we will see how was right. For months now many member of your fan base have talked about Lu's contract as a positive increasing his value but now that the benefit of that contract is being removed most dont seem to be willing to accept it hurts his value.
Who know maybe my opinion will change as I have time to digest this better.
It can have a negative effect. It depends on the team he's traded to. FLA may not mind the dead cap space that could potentially help them reach the cap floor for example.
Florida pays him the same amount of money. They have dead cap space later but have to pay him extra now to get it but it is exactly the same amount of money. just spread out on the cap differently.
At what point is 5.3M for an elite starting goalie an overpayment? Canucks had Luongo @6.75M cap hit on a 40-50M cap and still iced very competitive teams.
If the cap drops substantially Burke should become more worried about Grabovski @5.5M or Phaneuf @6.8M first.
Its not the cap hit that bothers me. Its the cap penalty for years after he retires.
At what point is 5.3M for an elite starting goalie an overpayment? Canucks had Luongo @6.75M cap hit on a 40-50M cap and still iced very competitive teams.
If the cap drops substantially Burke should become more worried about Grabovski @5.5M or Phaneuf @6.8M first.
The point when he decides to retire and your paying 2-3million a year for 3 or 4 years.
Anyway folks I have to work in the morning so it bed time for me.
At-least we are getting hockey back and these threads are getting fun again. Despite how frustrating they are.
Its not the cap hit that bothers me. Its the cap penalty for years after he retires.
Why? The way the cap has increased $2M will likely be pocket change in 7/8 years. Besides, most GM's don't make trades to help improve their current roster with the distant future in mind, especially when the worst case scenario is a couple million in dead cap space.
Why? The way the cap has increased $2M will likely be pocket change in 7/8 years. Besides, most GM's don't make trades to help improve their current roster with the distant future in mind, especially when the worst case scenario is a couple million in dead cap space.
Well if he retires earlier, then the cap hit is even higher. 2M was just an example.
Clearly an issue. We can speculate where the cap will be at by then and when he will retire but the risk of the contract just went up.
2M cap penalty 10 years from now vs elite goaltending now?
Leafs fans perplex me.
Try 7 years and what's to stop him from retiring a year earlier at say 40. The penalty will increase dollar value will increase and you can tack another year onto it. You perplex me, how can this not be a consideration.
2M cap penalty 10 years from now vs elite goaltending now?
Leafs fans perplex me.
How many years of elite goaltending can we really expect. He already seems to be slightly on the decline. So 5 years at best and maybe only 3. And for that we will have to pay him for the next 10 years.
Despite that I would be willing to take the risk and do it, I just wouldn't be willing to pay a high price to take that risk.
How many years of elite goaltending can we really expect. He already seems to be slightly on the decline. So 5 years at best and maybe only 3. And for that we will have to pay him for the next 10 years.
Where are you getting Luongo declining from?
I can't say how much longer Luongo stays elite for, but goalies of his calibre have shown very good play til 38+. 3-5 is a good ballpark.
How many years of elite goaltending can we really expect. He already seems to be slightly on the decline. So 5 years at best and maybe only 3. And for that we will have to pay him for the next 10 years.
Despite that I would be willing to take the risk and do it, I just wouldn't be willing to pay a high price to take that risk.
You didn't watch Canuck games last year... did you?
Its amazing what a winning environment can do for your prospects & team's reputation around the league. Maybe acquiring a guy like Luongo would help you acquire that Centre you guys have been looking for?
Exactly. So 3-5 years of paying for 3-5 years of production.
I can Luongo regress into a top 20 starting goalie much like Brodeur has. In the latter part of his career he's transitioned from an athletic to a much more positionally sound style.
Just curious if any Canuck fans have come off the stance "Luongo is actually signed to an excellent contract"... since one way or another Vancouver will have a cap hit on Luongo after he retires AND the team that acquires him. Hell, even those who think Gillis is an excellent GM?
Where's Bleach Clean when you need him?
Right here.
It's still an excellent contract. Only now whatever team get stuck with re-capture has to have a shrewd GM to manage the cap. Is that Burke?
How can anyone read that article and not think that lounges value doesn't go down.... Hope that Kongo gets hurt and goes on ltir... Really?
LTIR is only one option. He can still be bought-out.
I think EF is commenting on how miniscule the actual "hit" is if Luongo is traded, which he will be. 2m per over 3 years is a pittance. Technically lower value? Sure, but at such a low rate so as to not matter. No need to chicken little the re-capture formula, it's a slap on the wrist at best.
LTIR is only one option. He can still be bought-out.
I think EF is commenting on how miniscule the actual "hit" is if Luongo is traded, which he will be. 2m per over 3 years is a pittance. Technically lower value? Sure, but at such a low rate so as to not matter. No need to chicken little the re-capture formula, it's a slap on the wrist at best.
Ding ding ding we have a winner! Now that the contract has been debunked again...
Last edited by spiny norman: 01-08-2013 at 12:31 AM.
Reason: corrected [/QUOTE]
