HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Luongo: Light at the end of the tunnel?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-08-2013, 01:49 AM
  #676
Keeping it Blue
Registered User
 
Keeping it Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Oh joy, now we get the renewed rhetoric of how a minor cap hit nearly a decade from now has enormous negative impact on Luongo's value.
Yeah, I agree, as long as you can tell me the following bits of info:

- what the cap will be in future years
- what year Lou is going to retire

Without knowing that, it's awfully hard to downplay it. What if the cap doesn't change? What if Lou retires earlier? Later?

It is something that has to be considered, for teams both acquiring and dealing Luongo or a player of any long term deal that would fall under a cap recapture rule. Failure to consider this is just not doing the job of a GM. This, without a shadow of a doubt, lowers the value for players with long contracts. It is an added risk the team obtaining the player has to accept.

Keeping it Blue is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 01:54 AM
  #677
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,713
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeping it Blue View Post
Yeah, I agree, as long as you can tell me the following bits of info:

- what the cap will be in future years
- what year Lou is going to retire

Without knowing that, it's awfully hard to downplay it. What if the cap doesn't change? What if Lou retires earlier? Later?

It is something that has to be considered, for teams both acquiring and dealing Luongo or a player of any long term deal that would fall under a cap recapture rule. Failure to consider this is just not doing the job of a GM. This, without a shadow of a doubt, lowers the value for players with long contracts. It is an added risk the team obtaining the player has to accept.
So we're back to this? Cap going up or down affects all teams. Not even Luongo knows when he will retire.

Now, can you give me the estimated minutes played total, goals, assists, shots, plus/minus, PIMs and retirement age for each piece we will be receiving? Also, when each player will leave our teams employ?

Cogburn is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:00 AM
  #678
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeping it Blue View Post
Yeah, I agree, as long as you can tell me the following bits of info:

- what the cap will be in future years
- what year Lou is going to retire

Without knowing that, it's awfully hard to downplay it. What if the cap doesn't change? What if Lou retires earlier? Later?

It is something that has to be considered, for teams both acquiring and dealing Luongo or a player of any long term deal that would fall under a cap recapture rule. Failure to consider this is just not doing the job of a GM. This, without a shadow of a doubt, lowers the value for players with long contracts. It is an added risk the team obtaining the player has to accept.


What if there's a new CBA? What if?


Lower's value: Did you miss the article where Freidman breaks it down and says it doesn't change much at all?



I cannot believe people are taking the tact that this is a huge hit/deal breaker. It's 6m spread out over 3 years if he retires when expected. 9m over 4 years if he retires one year earlier. Shared by both teams. It's also a benefit to both that he retires when expected.



What's more, teams can trade salary to ensure the effects aren't felt monetarily. Oh, and you can still buy him out, or LTIR him.



I thought this would be way worse than what turned out. This is chump change.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:05 AM
  #679
sewellda
Registered User
 
sewellda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
No. The compliance buyout period ends the summer of 2014.
I Think u missed my point...or I yours

Couldn't the canucks conceiveably trade Luongo to Toronto, retaining up to 50% of his avg. (Approx. 2.65 mil) salary yearly over the length of the deal, but then use the 2/3 amnesty buyout to clear the contractual oligation until 2022 away? It would work just like any other buyout...sort of.

Not sure how that the two buyouts having to be completed before 2014 changes this, as long as Lu is traded prior to this period. Canucks with the portion buyout fulfills all contractual obligation ...

sewellda is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:08 AM
  #680
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,546
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeping it Blue View Post
Yeah, I agree, as long as you can tell me the following bits of info:

- what the cap will be in future years
- what year Lou is going to retire

Without knowing that, it's awfully hard to downplay it. What if the cap doesn't change? What if Lou retires earlier? Later?

It is something that has to be considered, for teams both acquiring and dealing Luongo or a player of any long term deal that would fall under a cap recapture rule. Failure to consider this is just not doing the job of a GM. This, without a shadow of a doubt, lowers the value for players with long contracts. It is an added risk the team obtaining the player has to accept.
Who cares? Toronto has wasted more cap space on Komisarek than what the possible two million slap on the wrist that is Luongo's "penalty". In the meantime, he shores up your goaltending for a minimum of five years, barring unexpected injuries and the like. You are placing undue emphasis on an irrelevant aspect of the trade. Toronto has been without consistent goaltending for the better part of a decade and you mean to argue a slight dent ten years from now is a deal breaker?

And Bleach brings up an excellent point. We have no idea if that penalty will even apply once another CBA is signed.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:12 AM
  #681
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sewellda View Post
I Think u missed my point...or I yours

Couldn't the canucks conceiveably trade Luongo to Toronto, retaining up to 50% of his avg. (Approx. 2.65 mil) salary yearly over the length of the deal, but then use the 2/3 amnesty buyout to clear the contractual oligation until 2022 away? It would work just like any other buyout...sort of.

Not sure how that the two buyouts having to be completed before 2014 changes this, as long as Lu is traded prior to this period. Canucks with the portion buyout fulfills all contractual obligation ...

My mistake, I read your post wrong. Yes, you can buy his portion of the contract out AFAIK (amnesty buyout). Just as if he were still owned by the team.


The 2 _compliance_ buyouts have nothing to do with it.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:24 AM
  #682
Keeping it Blue
Registered User
 
Keeping it Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
What if there's a new CBA? What if?


Lower's value: Did you miss the article where Freidman breaks it down and says it doesn't change much at all?



I cannot believe people are taking the tact that this is a huge hit/deal breaker. It's 6m spread out over 3 years if he retires when expected. 9m over 4 years if he retires one year earlier. Shared by both teams. It's also a benefit to both that he retires when expected.



What's more, teams can trade salary to ensure the effects aren't felt monetarily. Oh, and you can still buy him out, or LTIR him.



I thought this would be way worse than what turned out. This is chump change.
Okay, react that way all you want - seems a bit of an aggressive reaction but whatever floats your boat.

Yes, I did read Freidman post. You clearly didn't read my post. It doesn't matter if it is an added cap hit of $1 or $60 million. If you are ignoring this possibility of taking on a contract where you will later be forced to deal with a cap hit then you are clearly not doing your due diligence. It's an important bit to consider. It's still a risk regardless if you admit it or not. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.


Anyway, I suspect that the trade with Toronto will involve 4 of the bits below:

1. Bozak - I've always felt that he would fit well on the 3rd line in Toronto and would likely do the same in Vancouver.
2. Kadri/Kulemin - I'd hate to see Kadri go, but I think Burke would be more willing to give him up than a defense first Kulemin. Vancouver's pretty good at wing, but who knows with Kulemin, maybe he can get back his scoring touch - they'd need another deal to get rid of a winger though.
3. Franson - RFA, so not an idea piece. Vancouver could probably use a spare defenseman though.
4. Colburn/Ashton/Blacker - Secondary prospect. Toronto would prefer Blacker with the excess of defense.
5. 2nd Round Draft pick

We'll see what happens in the end, but I think he'll be dealt to someone before the 19th.

Keeping it Blue is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:29 AM
  #683
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeping it Blue View Post
Okay, react that way all you want - seems a bit of an aggressive reaction but whatever floats your boat.

Yes, I did read Freidman post. You clearly didn't read my post. It doesn't matter if it is an added cap hit of $1 or $60 million. If you are ignoring this possibility of taking on a contract where you will later be forced to deal with a cap hit then you are clearly not doing your due diligence. It's an important bit to consider. It's still a risk regardless if you admit it or not. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.


Anyway, I suspect that the trade with Toronto will involve 4 of the bits below:

1. Bozak - I've always felt that he would fit well on the 3rd line in Toronto and would likely do the same in Vancouver.
2. Kadri/Kulemin - I'd hate to see Kadri go, but I think Burke would be more willing to give him up than a defense first Kulemin. Vancouver's pretty good at wing, but who knows with Kulemin, maybe he can get back his scoring touch - they'd need another deal to get rid of a winger though.
3. Franson - RFA, so not an idea piece. Vancouver could probably use a spare defenseman though.
4. Colburn/Ashton/Blacker - Secondary prospect. Toronto would prefer Blacker with the excess of defense.
5. 2nd Round Draft pick

We'll see what happens in the end, but I think he'll be dealt to someone before the 19th.


It's not hard to grasp that it's a risk, but if the risk is miniscule, what's the point of being concerned about it? That's the main thrust of Friedman's article. He's saying that with the due diligence, and all considerations, Luongo's trade value doesn't really change much at all. I hope that clears it up?



As an aside, why do you think he will be dealt before the 19th? Some nuck fans are preparing to have him back for a while.




By the way, I agree the most of the pieces that you have listed will be involved (not all together of course), but I hope Gillis insists on a 1st. Especially now that the probabilities for all lottery teams is more random.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 01-08-2013 at 02:35 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:35 AM
  #684
professorchaos
Registered User
 
professorchaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Langley
Country: Canada
Posts: 285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
So here is what Mackenzie on TSN said earlier today for needs.

Centers: We need a 3rd line center for sure, and may be in need of a second line center depending on how Burrows/Higgins/Schroeder turn out for the 2C and if Malhotra can be effective as 3C.

Wingers: Need not apply, unless we move one out.

Defensemen: We need a veteran (my note: right side) d-man for depth.

Goalie: Not needed, but a veteran back up could negate the need to sign one, ie Ellis, and with Lack out for a short while, it fills a hole in the short term.
Pretty sure Ebbett will fill the 2c role as he had in the past, he actually produced some clutch plays for us and was a solid two-way center. That leaves Malhotra and Lappy to share 3c duties or we pick up someone dependable with draft picks (cap space permitting of course).

A RW would be nice and hopefully a Lu deal can include such a player but if that isn't in the cards we have other assets to move that can land us someone passable.

Agree that we need an RHD and that can be rectified by dealing Lu to a team that isn't Florida or Toronto (likely to also solve the veteran back-up goalie hole if Ellis doesn't sign).

For the Leafs fans who are clutching to the Luongo rumour but are loth to part with Kulemin, if he can't play RW he has no place on our roster. So unless we unload a LW we have no business unloading (Sedin/Booth/Higgins) as well as Raymond, breathe easy, he will stay a Leaf.

Considering what we need and the value of our assets I just see a deal with Toronto being impossible.

professorchaos is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 05:25 AM
  #685
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
My mistake, I read your post wrong. Yes, you can buy his portion of the contract out AFAIK (amnesty buyout). Just as if he were still owned by the team.


The 2 _compliance_ buyouts have nothing to do with it.
I may have misread this but what's the difference between an amnesty buyout and a compliance buyout?

AFAIK, there are 2 cap hit -free buyouts per team that can be used before season 14-15 starts. Other than those 2, there are the so-called normal buyouts which count against the cap the same way as in last CBA.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 05:30 AM
  #686
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeastOfTheBunch View Post
as the leader of the anti canuck movement on this board--if i read this story has being fact--Canucks will hit a home run on the trade market because it is the canucks who will be taking the huge hit

__________________
trying to fend off exwife number 2
45000/010113
GO SHARKS GO
jumptheshark is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 05:52 AM
  #687
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
It was a theoretical question, but I would say a cap floor team looking for artificially inflated cap
With the floor at only 44mil, i don't think that would be needed. Ya, it will go up over the years, but it will still be low enough that you won't need fake cap.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 06:06 AM
  #688
SufferingCatFan
Registered User
 
SufferingCatFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: fort lauderdale
Country: United States
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Prior to the disclosure of the new terms of the CBA allowing salary retention in trades, I was firmly of the belief that Lou's contract made him impossible to trade and that he would likely be an amnesty buy-out. That is no longer the case.

As I understand it, the Nucks now have the ability to retain up to 50% of Lou's salary in a trade. This should give the Nucks the needed flexibility to trade him with the quality of the return dependent to some decree on the size of the cap retention.

SufferingCatFan is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 06:10 AM
  #689
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,375
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
My mistake, I read your post wrong. Yes, you can buy his portion of the contract out AFAIK (amnesty buyout). Just as if he were still owned by the team.
I doubt it. A bought out player is a ufa, free to get a new contact to compensate for buyout losses.

A half bought out player would therefore be half a ufa.

Do they only have to play half the games?

What happens when the ufa half signs with a different team? I can just see the playoffs were he switches sides every period.

It's just illogical.

me2 is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 06:50 AM
  #690
Fogelhund
Registered User
 
Fogelhund's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,065
vCash: 500
http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/0...medium=twitter

Has a chart with the Cap hit for each year in retirement etc...

While it is probable this isn't a huge item, it should be seen as slightly negative to Luongo's value.

Fogelhund is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 06:55 AM
  #691
Jack Donaghy
Good God Lemon
 
Jack Donaghy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somerville MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,713
vCash: 500
I hope that, after God knows how many threads, he just stays Vancouver for years.

Jack Donaghy is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 06:56 AM
  #692
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Without having any actual official information, I'm pretty certain you can't buy out any share of Luongo's salary or cap hit. And we don't even know whether it's gonna be ok to buy-out any contracts currently not in your system. I'm sure someone saw the probability of teams using this to their advantage.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 07:13 AM
  #693
bobbyflex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeastOfTheBunch View Post


Canucks will be lucky to get Bozak + 2nd

bobbyflex is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 07:17 AM
  #694
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,592
vCash: 500
Here's what I don't get... are Canucks fans that dense to think they're going to value Bozak higher than the Leafs do? Yeah, we all know Gillis wants Bozak, but the fact is, you're trading for him to be a #2/3 centre, he's Toronto's #1 centre.

Furthermore, what is the basis for suggesting that the Canucks can get 3-4 quality assets from the Leafs, when there's talk that a buyout might be the better call, and only one other team interested, who has a goalie with similar numbers and 1/4 of the salary?

seanlinden is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 07:17 AM
  #695
dubey
The Best (per IIHF)
 
dubey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
as the leader of the anti canuck movement on this board--if i read this story has being fact--Canucks will hit a home run on the trade market because it is the canucks who will be taking the huge hit
Don't really understand this post but the last part of it is wrong

dubey is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 07:23 AM
  #696
Spazmatic Dan
The Circle of Leaf
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Medical reason? What was Hatcher's medical reason? Too slow? I think the fact that EF lists it as the primary option is pretty telling. LTIR is a bit of a joke. Very difficult to prove false. And certain teams, like PHI, have used it to take advantage of the cap. And more teams will...







Retaining Luongo to deal him in the offseason is ok with me.



Hatcher's injury was knee related IIRC.

Last I knew the LTIR conditions were that a player had to have an injury or illness that made them unable to play after passing the team physical at some point prior to the injury/illness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucbourdon View Post
honestly who gives a **** how many elite years luongo has, you guys have reimer and frickan scrivens in net. If you plan to do anything this year and in the future you get luongo.

Who cares about his contract 10 years from now.
Honestly, Burke should care. If he's acquiring a contract he should know all the pros and cons including a penalty that will very likely happen, even if it is later on.

Reimer is a young goalie with potential which handles your "plans for the future" question but you're right, its a huge gamble going into this season without a veteran.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of getting Luongo but it has to be a good fit team wise, contract wise and trade wise.

Spazmatic Dan is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 07:43 AM
  #697
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,841
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
Here's what I don't get... are Canucks fans that dense to think they're going to value Bozak higher than the Leafs do? Yeah, we all know Gillis wants Bozak, but the fact is, you're trading for him to be a #2/3 centre, he's Toronto's #1 centre.

Furthermore, what is the basis for suggesting that the Canucks can get 3-4 quality assets from the Leafs, when there's talk that a buyout might be the better call, and only one other team interested, who has a goalie with similar numbers and 1/4 of the salary?
I don't want Bozak whatsoever, but every single rumour under the sun seems to include him.

And every sports analyst has said that Florida is still interested. Probably because evryone and their mother knows Luongo >>> Theodore. The only question is how much they'd be willing to give up, given that they have Markstrom waiting, who is still likely 2+ years from being a starter, and has had some knee trouble.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 08:08 AM
  #698
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,699
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
After seeing the details of the back-diving contract penalties, I think teams will want to wait out Gillis a little longer so he absorbs more of the future cap hit. If I'm the Panthers, I would totally wait until the offseason to even consider making a trade for Luongo. That would push more of the retirement money onto the Canucks when Luongo retires.

And then another question is how much of Luongo's salary would the Canucks be willing to absorb in a trade? I assume 50% is not gonna happen but is 25% too much to expect? That would equate to 1.325M in cap hit being retained by the Canucks and 1.6785M in actual salary being paid. That would make Luongo's cap hit under $4M and his salary just over $5M which seems more palatable to more teams.

Coolburn is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 08:16 AM
  #699
Four1 Lead
We got Nylander.
 
Four1 Lead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: YYZ
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,752
vCash: 500
Eric Francis from the Calgary Sun was on the Fan 590 in Toronto this morning.

Francis says that Vancouver would be lucky to get a 3rd round pick for Luongo.

Also said that Florida has no interest in Luongo with Theodore/Clemmenson/Markstrom.

Tampa Bay also has little-to-no interest.

Team to watch in the Luongo sweepstakes, according to Francis, is Edmonton.

Four1 Lead is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 08:25 AM
  #700
AndMat*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 984
vCash: 500
Lou is not going to Florida it ain't happening why would Florida trade for Lou when they got a top young goaltender ready to play next season. Only way he goes to Florida is if he goes for free, Florida does not need Lou and no way they trade picks or prospects for him.

So take off Florida as Possible Destinations for Lou, The best your gonna get from the leafs is Bozak + a pick

AndMat* 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 05:52 AM.

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.