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.
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.
So buy him out? Tear a muscle in his groin that would keep him on IR? Toronto doesn't care. Its worth a billion dollars, as I've pointed out.
I mean, you don't even know if that will happen or not. For all you know he plays incredible until the next lockout.
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.
Actually I would agree, you can't have it both ways.
Getting a team to assume a 5.3M cap hit for a player who will not perform at that cap hit [we all know it will happen but when] and to take a dead space cape hit when he retires for multiple years and saying "see that makes up for the 1.5M cap saving for the 3-5 years he potentially saves the team short term".
What bothers you more:
being the only team not to make the playoffs in the last 10 years.
Or How much the billion dollar company that charges max money for a sup par product spends on said product?
If the canucks could get zetterberg on a discount trade value wise do you think any canuck fans would care about the $$ the owners have to spend under the table?? heck no
The contract is peanuts to a team like the leafs.. A winning product will make them all that money back in spades.
I understand leaf fans want to use the contract to devalue Lu just like Van fans brush it off to build his value. Negotiations happen like this.
Im a canuck fan. If Lu was signed for 4 years at 5.2 we could pick anything from your team we wanted. Hes not so we have to be more resonable on our package requests. But dont for a second think that LU wont make more of a difference for the leafs than anything you send us back.
The leafs can afford the contract. The leafs can also afford to buy out the contract if it goes pear shaped. The leafs need a goalie. BB time is running out he is 4 years into a rebuild that has had highlights (lupul phanuef gardiner) and major lows (seguin Hamilton Monster) but no real traction.. he drafted 2nd overall his first year and 5th last year. Are the leafs better today than when he started.. sure but not 4 years of poor play better. They dont have edmontons assets or 20 mill in cap space.
This deal should happen because its the best hockey fit for both sides. i think the crunch will be a 1st or 1 level prospect to join bozak. Neither of those assets will make or break leaf nation. You lose a decent 2nd 3rd line tweener and one A asset. i promise after LU steals you 4-8 games this year you wont mind the price. Specially when your playing in the playoffs.
I don't care about contract.....COST TO AQUIRE, that's the sticking point.
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.
Again all of this was touched on in the EF article. Bottom line is it means less than people think, when a player can retire from a bad ______. Just like Hatcher did with the flyers.
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.
Excuse me but you have been a bit emotional in your posts. Many emoticons, CAPITALS, and statements like this directed to me:
"...fans who feel paying a 38, 39 year old 6.7M is market value is crazy." Or I'm "kidding myself" for thinking the way that I do.
Are those statements about Luongo or his current situation? Or are they about posters here? You've diminished points along the way marty111, ...and you've gotten it back.
Quote:
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.
I noticed that you had a problem with the "team sucking" comments. But here's the thing, that goes on here all the time, and you are not a mod. Let the moderators moderate, is how I've operated.
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.
Read the EF article, it explains the outs. Then says it makes no difference to either team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer
I don't care about contract.....COST TO AQUIRE, that's the sticking point.
Thats why we get a long, we might haggle, but we know value.
I'd advise that you guys cut it out with each other, or you'll both find yourself unable to post in the thread. In my experience, they haven't been very lenient when it comes to this topic.
Excuse me but you have been a bit emotional in your posts. Many emoticons, CAPITALS, and statements like this directed to me:
"...fans who feel paying a 38, 39 year old 6.7M is market value is crazy." Or I'm "kidding myself" for thinking the way that I do.
Are those statements about Luongo or his current situation? Or are they about posters here? You've diminished points along the way marty111, ...and you've gotten it back.
I noticed that you had a problem with the "team sucking" comments. But here's the thing, that goes on here all the time, and you are not a mod. Let the moderators moderate, is how I've operated.
But it any event, onward and upward.
Yet I didn't counter your points by referring to you personally or suggesting other to not take your points seriously.
I've already conversed on the issue of some of your posts and they are borderline bannable so I am kindly reminding you to stick to the points I'm making and not my personal character.
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.
It's a penalty to a team assuming a contract when a player doesn't play up to his salary/cap-hit? Does this apply to other players that don't perform up their cap-hit/salary? If it's the same, the point is moot.
The team getting him would get a 5-6 year cap advantage, roughly, and a 3-4 year penalty. They are still getting more years at advantage than they are disadvantage. Make sense?
