Florida fans have consistently stated that Huberdeau is more likely to play LW than C, and both Bjugstad and Grimaldi are prospects. The notion that Florida would try to compete in a shortened season with both top 6 centres having zero NHL experience... wat.
Sure, they could tank, but why the **** would they trade for Lu if that was their goal.
Now after getting our hands on more details of the agreement from a source, we bring you more:
RETAINING SALARY IN TRADES
This was Brian Burke’s baby, an idea he pushed for years at GM meetings. Under the old CBA, teams could not absorb any part of a salary from a player they were trading -- unlike baseball for example.
But in this new agreement, teams will be able to do that.
Here are the main parameters of the rule: A club cannot absorb more than 50 percent of the players’ annual cap hit/salary in any trade. Any NHL club can only have up to three contracts on their payroll in which the contract was traded away under the retaining salary proviso. Also, only up to 15 percent of your upper limit cap amount can be used up by the money you have retained in trades.
For example, let’s say the Maple Leafs want to trade little-used blueliner Mike Komisarek and his $4.5-million cap hit ($3.5 million salary this year) to the New York Islanders (hypothetically). The Leafs could retain half the cap hit -- $2.25 million -- and half the salary -- $1.75 million -- in order to facilitate the deal. The Islanders would pay him the other half. This should facilitate more trades around the league, no question.
THE LUONGO RULE
This is another rule from the league aimed at hammering current back-diving deals (front-loaded, "cheat deals"). However, this has changed from its original form when the NHL first proposed it in October.
In the original formula, if a player like Roberto Luongo was traded and retired before the end of his deal, the Canucks (the team who signed him to the contract) would assume his remaining $5.33-million cap early hit in retirement. The new rule in this tentative agreement is different. Now, for any contract in excess of six years, both teams involved in a trade on a contract like Luongo’s would be penalized if he retired before the end of his deal.
To wit: let’s say the Canucks trade Luongo soon. Luongo has played two years of his 12-year contract, the Canucks paying him $16.716 million in salary but only absorbing a $5.33 million cap hit each year. That’s a cap savings of $6.056 million over two years so far for Vancouver. Under this new rule, should the Canucks trade him now and he retires with three years left on his contract, Vancouver would be charged that $6.056 million in cap savings over the final three years left on his deal from 2019 to 2022. However, let’s say for argument’s sake Luongo gets traded to Toronto, the Maple Leafs also would be subject to cap penalties if Luongo retires before the end of his deal.
To wit, part 2: If Luongo were to play the next seven years of his deal in Toronto before retiring, the Leafs would be paying him $43.666 million in salary but only counting $37.31 million against the cap over those seven years, a cap savings of $6.356 million. So if Luongo retires with three years left on his deal (because his salary falls to $1.618 million in the 10th year and then $1 million in the last two years of the deal), the Leafs would get charged that $6.356 million on their cap spread evenly over the remaining three years of his deal.
And obviously, if players under these back-diving deals are never traded, but retire before the end of their deals (Marian Hossa in Chicago), their current teams get charged the cap savings spread evenly over the remaining years of the deal.
Florida fans have consistently stated that Huberdeau is more likely to play LW than C, and both Bjugstad and Grimaldi are prospects. The notion that Florida would try to compete in a shortened season with both top 6 centres having zero NHL experience... wat.
Sure, they could tank, but why the **** would they trade for Lu if that was their goal.
I addressed this in my post, (a few before yours, i edited it before you posted with the same comments and concerns about flordias center situation) and the only thing I can think is they want to get an asset back. Although I dont know how badly they want lou or if that makes sense.
Lou would also be long term so they wouldnt necessarily be bringing lou in for a cup run this year.
I dont know i see your points and mentioned them as well. If your flordias gm and you know this guy is walking this summer what do you do? Keep him because you need him this year or trade him for an asset so you get something back? Although they might want to try to get a different asset back if they trade him, (a center), but I have no idea.
That is if he walks. We have no idea.
Last edited by Orca Smash: 01-08-2013 at 02:07 AM.
I addressed this in my post, (a few before yours, i edited it before you posted with the same comments and concerns about flordias center situation) and the only thing I can think is they want to get an asset back. Although I dont know how badly they want lou or if that makes sense.
Lou would also be long term so they wouldnt necessarily be bringing lou in for a cup run this year.
I dont know i see your points and mentioned them as well. If your flordias gm and you know this guy is walking this summer what do you do? Keep him because you need him this year or trade him for an asset so you get something back? Although they might want to try to get a different asset back if they trade him, (a center), but I have no idea.
That is if he walks. We have no idea.
Probably hold on to him until you know how your team looks. If they're a bubble team without much promise or worse, then it would be wise to move him for something while you can. Moving him now would send a pretty bad message to the Panther fanbase even if you bring back Luongo. They'd then have to move more pieces to replace Weiss if they wanted to ice a competitive team this season.
To be honest, i've grown attached to Lu over the years, and to see Leaf fans throwing out trade proposals involving nothing but scraps basically, i don't hold it against them, but it is kind of a slap in the face & i'd rather hold onto him for this year if there's nothing good coming back.
Will say that if he does end up in Toronto i will a much bigger Leafs fan.
I just don't understand how Leafs think they can rely on Riemer & Scrivens and feel good about their chances.
To be honest, i've grown attached to Lu over the years, and to see Leaf fans throwing out trade proposals involving nothing but scraps basically, i don't hold it against them, but it is kind of a slap in the face & i'd rather hold onto him for this year if there's nothing good coming back.
Will say that if he does end up in Toronto i will a much bigger Leafs fan.
I just don't understand how Leafs think they can rely on Riemers & Scrivens and feel good about their chances.
We might just have to, I honestly have no big problem with it, this is a shortened season and anything can happen. I love Luongo, and would love him on the leafs, but only if it works for both teams. If the Leafs miss the playoffs, so be it, as long as the core develops properly moving forward.
You'll find a lot of Leaf Fans that love Reimer, and if we could succeed with the guy, we'd definitely choose to. He's just an unbelievably nice person, you always want to see people like that succeed. He was stellar in his first years with the Leafs, and continued on that path his second season starting 4-0-1. However, that neck/concussion injury really did him in, and he couldn't recover, hopefully it's behind him.
One of the big reasons I want Luongo, is that he can help mentor a guy like Reimer, I'd love for Reimer to be the goalie of the future, he's a refreshing personality.
Now after getting our hands on more details of the agreement from a source, we bring you more:
RETAINING SALARY IN TRADES
This was Brian Burke’s baby, an idea he pushed for years at GM meetings. Under the old CBA, teams could not absorb any part of a salary from a player they were trading -- unlike baseball for example.
But in this new agreement, teams will be able to do that.
Here are the main parameters of the rule: A club cannot absorb more than 50 percent of the players’ annual cap hit/salary in any trade. Any NHL club can only have up to three contracts on their payroll in which the contract was traded away under the retaining salary proviso. Also, only up to 15 percent of your upper limit cap amount can be used up by the money you have retained in trades.
For example, let’s say the Maple Leafs want to trade little-used blueliner Mike Komisarek and his $4.5-million cap hit ($3.5 million salary this year) to the New York Islanders (hypothetically). The Leafs could retain half the cap hit -- $2.25 million -- and half the salary -- $1.75 million -- in order to facilitate the deal. The Islanders would pay him the other half. This should facilitate more trades around the league, no question.
THE LUONGO RULE
This is another rule from the league aimed at hammering current back-diving deals (front-loaded, "cheat deals"). However, this has changed from its original form when the NHL first proposed it in October.
In the original formula, if a player like Roberto Luongo was traded and retired before the end of his deal, the Canucks (the team who signed him to the contract) would assume his remaining $5.33-million cap early hit in retirement. The new rule in this tentative agreement is different. Now, for any contract in excess of six years, both teams involved in a trade on a contract like Luongo’s would be penalized if he retired before the end of his deal.
To wit: let’s say the Canucks trade Luongo soon. Luongo has played two years of his 12-year contract, the Canucks paying him $16.716 million in salary but only absorbing a $5.33 million cap hit each year. That’s a cap savings of $6.056 million over two years so far for Vancouver. Under this new rule, should the Canucks trade him now and he retires with three years left on his contract, Vancouver would be charged that $6.056 million in cap savings over the final three years left on his deal from 2019 to 2022. However, let’s say for argument’s sake Luongo gets traded to Toronto, the Maple Leafs also would be subject to cap penalties if Luongo retires before the end of his deal.
To wit, part 2: If Luongo were to play the next seven years of his deal in Toronto before retiring, the Leafs would be paying him $43.666 million in salary but only counting $37.31 million against the cap over those seven years, a cap savings of $6.356 million. So if Luongo retires with three years left on his deal (because his salary falls to $1.618 million in the 10th year and then $1 million in the last two years of the deal), the Leafs would get charged that $6.356 million on their cap spread evenly over the remaining three years of his deal.
And obviously, if players under these back-diving deals are never traded, but retire before the end of their deals (Marian Hossa in Chicago), their current teams get charged the cap savings spread evenly over the remaining years of the deal.
We might just have to, I honestly have no big problem with it, this is a shortened season and anything can happen. I love Luongo, and would love him on the leafs, but only if it works for both teams. If the Leafs miss the playoffs, so be it, as long as the core develops properly moving forward.
You'll find a lot of Leaf Fans that love Reimer, and if we could succeed with the guy, we'd definitely choose to. He's just an unbelievably nice person, you always want to see people like that succeed. He was stellar in his first years with the Leafs, and continued on that path his second season starting 4-0-1. However, that neck/concussion injury really did him in, and he couldn't recover, hopefully it's behind him.
One of the big reasons I want Luongo, is that he can help mentor a guy like Reimer, I'd love for Reimer to be the goalie of the future, he's a refreshing personality.
Question: Does Burke keep both Scrivens and Reimer if he acquires Luongo?
On the point of running with your existing goaltenders: What do you think happens if Reimer fails to deliver? Does it get that much harder to get another goaltender, knowing that other teams know you have a greater need?
Question: Does Burke keep both Scrivens and Reimer if he acquires Luongo?
On the point of running with your existing goaltenders: What do you think happens if Reimer fails to deliver? Does it get that much harder to get another goaltender, knowing that other teams know you have a greater need?
Valid question, and great point.
It's just a gamble the Leafs organization might just have to take. They've seen what Reimer is capable of, and it might workout for them again. Carlyle said it best, sometimes you have to make your system help a goalie if need be.
If the Leafs go with Reims, they have to help him as a team, because he's still a young goalie playing in a crazy market.
The thing is, I don't know what the Leafs can give the Canucks to satisfy them. There is no doubt that Toronto will be getting the best player in the trade, IF they are lucky enough to garner Luongo.
I think players like Bozak and Kadri are being underestimated by Canuck fans, Kadri especially. The kid is such a treat to watch, he draws penalties every game, his hands and play making ability are nuts and he's a chippy player that never shys away from physical play.
Bozak on the other hand might not be a 'sexy' name, but he's a good NHL player. He's definitely not a defensive liability like the guy on here keeps trying to say. He's quick, and has great hockey IQ, but I can understand why the Canucks want more. It's why he was kept with the Kessel line. If you look at the games Connolly started with that line, he's averaged just shy of a PPG, however Bozak is there to add defensive stability to the line.
It seems like an awkward trade to me, if the Leafs were further in their development they may have been a better trading partner with the Canucks. For example, I think a guy like Ashton, had he been more developed, be a player that makes more sense for the Canucks to obtain.
In the original formula, if a player like Roberto Luongo was traded and retired before the end of his deal, the Canucks (the team who signed him to the contract) would assume his remaining $5.33-million cap early hit in retirement. The new rule in this tentative agreement is different. Now, for any contract in excess of six years, both teams involved in a trade on a contract like Luongo’s would be penalized if he retired before the end of his deal.
let’s say the Canucks trade Luongo soon. Luongo has played two years of his 12-year contract, the Canucks paying him $16.716 million in salary but only absorbing a $5.33 million cap hit each year. That’s a cap savings of $6.056 million over two years so far for Vancouver. Under this new rule, should the Canucks trade him now and he retires with three years left on his contract, Vancouver would be charged that $6.056 million in cap savings over the final three years left on his deal from 2019 to 2022. However, let’s say for argument’s sake Luongo gets traded to Toronto, the Maple Leafs also would be subject to cap penalties if Luongo retires before the end of his deal.
If Luongo were to play the next seven years of his deal in Toronto before retiring, the Leafs would be paying him $43.666 million in salary but only counting $37.31 million against the cap over those seven years, a cap savings of $6.356 million. So if Luongo retires with three years left on his deal (because his salary falls to $1.618 million in the 10th year and then $1 million in the last two years of the deal), the Leafs would get charged that $6.356 million on their cap spread evenly over the remaining three years of his deal.
And obviously, if players under these back-diving deals are never traded, but retire before the end of their deals (Marian Hossa in Chicago), their current teams get charged the cap savings spread evenly over the remaining years of the deal.
There you have it, finally explained what happens to all these retirement contracts that were signed under the old CBA. Basically, any money a team has saved in the first years of the deal will come back to your cap once the player retires.
For example, we can assume that both Suter and Parise will retire after their year 10, when their salary drops to 2 million and then 1 million from 6 million. They have made 94 million in the first 10 years while in the cap the number has been at 75.4 million. That's a 18.6 million difference per player, and that amount times 2 will be added to the Wild salary cap for the last 3 years of their deals (this is assuming they retire after that year 10). Per year that is 18.6/3 = 6.2 million per player, meaning that for the seasons 22-23, 23-24 and 24-25, the Wild have 12.4 million of their salary cap used to Parise and Suter who have already retired.
For Detroit, if Zetterberg retires when his salary drops from 7 million to 3.35 million, similarly before the last 3 years of his contract, they would be on the hook for about 13.5 million (4.5 million cap hit per year) for those 3 years. If Franzen retires 3 years before his deal ends, the Red Wings would be on hook for ~2.6 million cap hit per year for the next 3 years. If he retired 4 years before his deal ended, the cap hit number would be at 2 million for the last 4 years. Kronwall's deal pays him 1.75 million in the last year and if we assume he doesn't play that year, Detroit will still have a cap hit of ~4 million for Kronwall for that year. If he played that year, the cap hit would be normal 4.75 that it is now. With Detroit, all these years overlap too, so they could be majorly screwed aswell, just not as much as Minnesota.
Philly is otherwise fine but Bryzgalov's contract is pretty bad. His salary drops for the last 2 years in the deal and if we assume he doesn't play those last 2 years, the Flyers would still have a cap hit of ~4.1 million in those last 2 years.
With Luongo, the Canucks are in similar place with Philly. If Luongo played his whole contract with the Canucks and retired when his salary drops to 3.4 million, the Canucks would have a cap hit of ~3.5 million for the next 4 years (from 18-19 to 21-22). If he played that year and retired after, when his salary drops to 1.6 million, the Canucks would have a cap hit of ~4 million for the next 3 years (from 19-20 to 21-22).
If Gillis can't trade Luongo this season, an additional ~1.4mil will be added to the current 6 million that the Canucks are on the hook for after Luongo retires. Not a huge deal, but still something.
Teams owe $1 cap hit for every real $1 paid while playing there. Teams must repay the difference if the player retires.
Teams may retain a % of a players cap/cash when trading.
Not too much to remember.
Well when you put it like that...
I still think we're going to hold on to Luongo longer than these analysts are saying. Gone before the season starts? I just don't see it. Bozak just doesn't excite me and isn't worth it.
I don't know about that. Depends I guess, I liked LeBrun's simply because it was shorter while still having all the same info if not more.
Quote:
I thought buyouts can't take place until after this season ends?
"Teams will be allowed up to two buyouts over the next two summers -- 2013 and 2014 -- either one in each summer or two in one summer and none in the other."
Tallon might also have another deal lined up to move Markstrom somewhere for help up front. Unlike most, I'm not sold on Markstrom, especially with the number of injuries he's had. If Florida can sell high, I don't think it's a bad move. I could look pretty bad on this one though...
To be honest, i've grown attached to Lu over the years, and to see Leaf fans throwing out trade proposals involving nothing but scraps basically, i don't hold it against them, but it is kind of a slap in the face & i'd rather hold onto him for this year if there's nothing good coming back.
Will say that if he does end up in Toronto i will a much bigger Leafs fan.
I just don't understand how Leafs think they can rely on Riemer & Scrivens and feelgood about their chances.
Most of us don't feel we have a good chance. We also don't feel that Luongo makes us a contender....better? Absolutely. But the cost to aquire Luongo is what has most of us shying away.
Most of us don't feel we have a good chance. We also don't feel that Luongo makes us a contender....better? Absolutely. But the cost to aquire Luongo is what has most of us shying away.
No 1 player is going to make the Leafs a contender, but if there is a player who will help get you into the playoffs it's Luongo. Therefore, he should be traded to the Panthers.
No 1 player is going to make the Leafs a contender, butif there is a player who will help get you into the playoffs it's Luongo. Therefore, he should be traded to the Panthers.
Let's say i agree, what price should Burke pay just to achieve a playoff spot but not contend?
