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.
Indeed. I'm almost positive he's going to be traded to a team that is not Florida or Toronto and Mike Gillis is going to get what is perceived as "fair value" depending on the specifics of the CBA.
I am not a Canucks fan , I am an Oiler fan . Take this for what it worth . I always liked lou . I understand cap hits , but from a business point how much is Lou worth if he can get a team , say my Oilers into the playoffs . How many millions would that put in a owners pocket ? I think Lou is paid fair . His contract is a little long ,but would a owner be willing to eat a few years of cap space at the end of the contract for the years he would put them into the playoffs ? If i were an owner and could have Lou getting my team into the playoffs year after year for the next 5 or 6 years . I would be willing to do it . Make the extra money now . As they say a bird in the hand is worth more then 2 in the bush . The fans posting low offers are doing it base on emotion , an owner will approve a trade for him base on profits
It's not an equal divide. It depends on actual cap savings. EF's article clearly states this which is why there are slightly different numbers in penalty.
By about $100,000/yr, I believe. Not quite equal, but nearly there.
I didn't attack you there?? Only outlined your desire.
I'm only going to address this one more time.
I feel that you have marginalized the point I've been making by imposing - a desire - that I have in a negative fashion.
I would appreciate it if you defended your point with a statement or something similar rather then suggesting or implying a personal agenda. I think it marginalizes the point I am trying to make by only replying to my character, especially without merit.
As mods say, defend the point and don't attack peoples character. Telling others to discredit/or not take my points seriously because you are inaccurately imposing my viewpoints to others is insulting.
The same can be said with posters that defend points by saying "oh okay have fun with your teaming sucking then".
It childish IMO and I would appreciate for the point of discussion that it is stopped. Thank you.
It's a fair concept and I'm not against discussing it but it's still a detriment. You have to consider that even on this basis whichever team that acquires him will be paying him 5.3M at some point and he won't be worth it.
That's suppose to be the trade off on these long term deals. But now there's an even further penalty.
So you seem to get the concept. But the entire current point is the 1.5 now vs the 2 mil later. This still comes out as a positive, thus the contract is still a positive. Does it make the contract a bit worse? Yes, but not a negative.
From what I have heard today, there are things in the CBA that are actually making his contract better. Mainly the trading of salary. On a side note, I think the trading of salary also would make the above more difficult to figure out, but that may be another conversation.
That's assuming he doesn't retire in year 11 which would mess up Vancouver. Point is, it still causes a lot of uncertainty. Of course, its quite possible neither MG or BB are around when all is said and done
I wonder what happens if Luongo gets traded to Leafs and then traded again say 2-3 years later and then retires 3 years after that
I'm curious about that myself. The penalty would be divided by the 3 parties no? Each taking a different portion of his contract length.
His contract only causes uncertainty because of it's length. The uncertainty in that respect was always there, even in VAN. As far as this CBA goes, he's got to have a hand shake agreement between himself and the other team he gets dealt to as to when he officially retires. That much is certain.
I am not a Canucks fan , I am an Oiler fan . Take this for what it worth . I always liked lou . I understand cap hits , but from a business point how much is Lou worth if he can get a team , say my Oilers into the playoffs . How many millions would that put in a owners pocket ? I think Lou is paid fair . His contract is a little long ,but would a owner be willing to eat a few years of cap space at the end of the contract for the years he would put them into the playoffs ? If i were an owner and could have Lou getting my team into the playoffs year after year for the next 5 or 6 years . I would be willing to do it . Make the extra money now . As they say a bird in the hand is worth more then 2 in the bush . The fans posting low offers are doing it base on emotion , an owner will approve a trade for him base on profits
I made this point, and continue to make this point...it seems that most people ignore it.
However it does not change the fact that you are absolutely correct and I'm pretty sure thats exactly how other teams look at it as well. there definitely is a risk that it just doesn't work out, but there is risk for everything in terms of trades and stuff.
As far as this CBA goes, he's got to have a hand shake agreement between himself and the other team he gets dealt to as to when he officially retires. That much is certain.
I doubt it. Roberto will retire when he wants to retire and I'm sure he doesn't care about any cap situation that will leave a team in. He has full control over his career.
It equates to a very minimal impact to a team, especially as the way it works out maximizes Luongo's value: You get him below market-price in terms of cap hit wile the cap is relatively low, while in 7 years when the cap is higher, you get a 2 mil penalty for 3 years, which would be much less inhibitive than it would be now. And that's assuming he isn't LTIRed or traded to a cap floor team before he retires.
And what about the 5.3M cap hit when he's in decline but still playing?
That's suppose to be the trade off, not an additional dead space cap penalty.
Not bad and I appreciate the effort in the explanation:
Many of the pieces you suggested make some sense to Vancouver, and do not remove core pieces from your group. From your suggestion I would consider:
Kulemin - MacArthur is not much of an upgrade on pieces we have. He might be better than Raymond but pretty close. Kulemin did not produce much last year and had a breakout year before. Seems like he is a career 40-45 point guy who is solid defensively. Good player upgrades Vancouver a little, but is not a huge loss for Toronto
Bozak - Future UFA/rental, good fill in guy for Vancouver
Kadri - solid prospect not lived up to potential yet.
Franson - depth defenceman for Vancouver. Value is relatively low because he does not want to sign back with Toronto
For
Luongo - I think speaks for himself
Raymond - replaces Kulemin on 3rd line. In similar situation, had a breakout year, but has not repeated like Kulemin
So essentially you are considering:
Kulemin
Bozak
Kadri
Franson
for
Luongo
Raymond
Its worth talking about, but I believe it to be rather steep from a Leafs perspective. We're giving up a lot of forward potential there.
Out of curiosity, would you consider swapping Kulemin or Kadri for another prospect (not named Rielly) and a 2nd? In that case we could use Kulemin/Kadri as a winger and you could remove Raymond from your side. Leafs I believe would value Kulemin over Kadri so that would affect the prospect/pick IMO.
Essentially:
Kulemin/Kadri (top six winger)
Bozak (center)
Franson (7th D)
Prospect/2nd
for
Luongo
Similar to the "rumoured" deal of Bozak + Kadri but with some stuff added.
That's assuming he doesn't retire in year 11 which would mess up Vancouver. Point is, it still causes a lot of uncertainty. Of course, its quite possible neither MG or BB are around when all is said and done
I wonder what happens if Luongo gets traded to Leafs and then traded again say 2-3 years later and then retires 3 years after that
Again read the article, as Bleach showed, there are a ton of outs from LTIR, to buyout, to trade. I mean worst case, you guy out that 6 mil, it becomes four mil over 6 years. how bad is that?
And what about the 5.3M cap hit when he's in decline but still playing?
That's suppose to be the trade off, not an additional dead space cap penalty.
You have to consider the whole contract.
You can't have it both ways. Either he retires when his play declines(and hence are hit with a minor penalty) or he plays out his entire contract, in which case he would most likely be traded to a team like Florida for a song to reach the cap floor.
Its worth talking about, but I believe it to be rather steep from a Leafs perspective. We're giving up a lot of forward potential there.
Out of curiosity, would you consider swapping Kulemin or Kadri for another prospect (not named Rielly) and a 2nd? In that case we could use Kulemin/Kadri as a winger and you could remove Raymond from your side. Leafs I believe would value Kulemin over Kadri so that would affect the prospect/pick IMO.
Essentially:
Kulemin/Kadri (top six winger)
Bozak (center)
Franson (7th D)
Prospect/2nd
for
Luongo
Similar to the "rumoured" deal of Bozak + Kadri but with some stuff added.
Just a thought.
I would rather keep Kadri, and switch Kuli for a prospect, Biggs or Finn come to mind. But I would need to take a better look.
I made this point, and continue to make this point...it seems that most people ignore it.
However it does not change the fact that you are absolutely correct and I'm pretty sure thats exactly how other teams look at it as well. there definitely is a risk that it just doesn't work out, but there is risk for everything in terms of trades and stuff.
There a risk with everything in Hockey , draft picks are a risk . You go with the pass . Lou has been great for mary years . Goalies can play at a high level longer that any other players on a team ...for the most part . Teams will go with what is known , not with what if,s . TML have the biggest fan base . How much extra cash would Lou bring them if he gets them to the playoffs year after year . to the owners Hockey = Business = profits .
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned in the thread already but Ray Ferraro was on the Team 1040 this morning and Luongo to Toronto was discussed.
The opinion he gave was that the cap benefit recapture that may or may not happen if Luongo was traded to the Leafs and retired early would not be an issue for Burke (or Gillis for that matter). Both these guys probably won't manage these teams in 8, 9 or however many years out this may or may not be a problem.
In addition to this, my personal opinion is that the cap benefit recapture with respect to Luongo is overblown in this thread. I say this because most players who retire early retire early from injury. So if that happens to Luongo he's off the books anyways. What's the difference between retiring because you don't have it anymore and retiring because you don't have it anymore? Where is the line between a nagging injury keeping you down and simply being down? What hockey player does not have a nagging injury by the time they are in their late 30's let alone early 40's? They've been playing a contact sport for decades. It makes no sense. Furthermore even 2 days into the new CBA I can sense loopholes like this one and others.
What if Luongo is 41, wants to retire, but if he does the Leafs and Canucks are penalized with a few million dollars on what figures to be an 80 million dollar cap but the Leafs stick with the regular cap hit and he just shows up at practice? His real salary at that point is like 800k or something. Who cares? What if he's traded to a salary floor team and he sticks around? What if the owners and players opt out of this CBA after 8 years and there's a whole other CBA by then?
The point is there's no way all these loopholes are completely shut, it's obviously too early into the life of the current CBA to say for sure but it seems really pointless arguing about it.
Either the Leafs want Luongo or they don't, it's so silly to try and drive down the value of a goalie to a bunch of people on an internet message board by pointing to something that might not even be a factor.
Or that salary + cap can be exchanged to mitigate the burden. EF is basically listing the outs to tell us "this doesn't matter much".
And yet you are saying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean
It levels out an "unfair" deal by making it fair.
What about the years where Luongo is getting paid 5.3M on the cap but playing below that? [potentially even when in real dollars Luongo is getting paid 6.7M] That's a penalty for those assuming the contract.
Now they have to pay out the previous advantage as well?
There a risk with everything in Hockey , draft picks are a risk . You go with the pass . Lou has been great for mary years . Goalies can play at a high level longer that any other players on a team ...for the most part . Teams will go with what is known , not with what if,s . TML have the biggest fan base . How much extra cash would Lou bring them if he gets them to the playoffs year after year . to the owners Hockey = Business = profits .
Again read the article, as Bleach showed, there are a ton of outs from LTIR, to buyout, to trade. I mean worst case, you guy out that 6 mil, it becomes four mil over 6 years. how bad is that?
No. You're assuming he retires with 3 years left. If he doesn't and he chooses to retire in year 11, no matter how you look at it, Canucks are on the hook for a 6M penalty. The only saving grace for the Canucks, as that 6M will always be looming, is A) he retires early and thus spread the penalty over X years or B) he doesn't retire and plays the full 12 year contract.
And you can't "buy out" a penalty imposed...there's no "tangible" piece to buy out. It'll always be there. Whether it gets imposed and the severity remains to be determined.
As an Oiler fan, if we got Luongo, it better be now and only keep him for the new few years before offloading; that way, penalty would be less as the difference between caphit and salary paid out is ~1.4M/y. Of course, if he has a Brodeur-ish performance/lifespan, then the team would likely reconsider options.
What about the years where Luongo is getting paid 5.3M on the cap but playing below that? [potentially even when in real dollars Luongo is getting paid 6.7M] That's a penalty for those assuming the contract.
Now they have to pay out the previous advantage as well?
Clearly doesn't make this a fair deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale
You can't have it both ways. Either he retires when his play declines(and hence are hit with a minor penalty) or he plays out his entire contract, in which case he would most likely be traded to a team like Florida for a song to reach the cap floor.
