HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Leaf fans: would you trade kadri for luongo?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-01-2012, 10:20 PM
  #476
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Right now Luongo is playing, so he gets paid. If, at the age 39, he decides he no longer wants to play, the team he is on says "Oh well," and they no longer have to abide by the contract obliging them to pay him, because he is no longer playing, or keeping his side of the contract.
And Vancouver should have to carry his cap hit until his contract expires for making it in the first place.

thebluemachine* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:21 PM
  #477
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
But if those contracts were legit, and with good intensions, teams won't mind paying adjusted cap hits which more accurately reflect actual salary.
They wouldn't have minded it if the player were still playing. He's not.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:22 PM
  #478
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Give me one example where such a change happened and contracts weren't grandfathered in.
Contracts won't need to be grandfathered in, as they will stay exactly the same. It's cap hits which will change. Those aren't anything to be "grandfathered" as it is an artificial number based on a players contract.

smoke meat pete* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:24 PM
  #479
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
Contracts won't need to be grandfathered in, as they will stay exactly the same. It's cap hits which will change. Those aren't anything to be "grandfathered" as it is an artificial number based on a players contract.
So why didn't the same thing occur with the 35+ contracts?

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:24 PM
  #480
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
They wouldn't have minded it if the player were still playing. He's not.
So then the team gets charged the difference between the players cap hit and his actual salary for the years he played if the player retires. Shouldn't be an issue right? Teams took advantage in the early years, so they give a little back now?

How much more money did Luongo make in the 1st 5-6 years than what his cap hit was?

smoke meat pete* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:26 PM
  #481
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
1) They can't be guilty of something that was legal at the time it happened.
If Luongo had retired before the last CBA ended then Vancouver could have gotten out of the contract and then you would be correct. Once that loophole is closed then all bets are off and if Vancouver fights it they agree to cap circumvention.

It's kind of like the bank making a mistake in your favour, you need to give it back once they catch it later on.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:26 PM
  #482
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
So why didn't the same thing occur with the 35+ contracts?
? I don't understand this question? They would become just like +35 contracts.

smoke meat pete* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:33 PM
  #483
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
? I don't understand this question? They would become just like +35 contracts.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but when the 35+ clause was introduced, I believe it didn't apply to contracts already in effect that had been given to a player over the age of 35.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:33 PM
  #484
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
They wouldn't have minded it if the player were still playing. He's not.
Let's say Parise decides to just hang it up in 6 years, the Wild only had to pay about 7.5 million per towards the cap for a player that should have really counted about 10+ million towards the cap.

What are your opinions on this, is the Wild not cheating the system even if he does'nt hang it up early?

thebluemachine* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:34 PM
  #485
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
Let's say Parise decides to just hang it up in 6 years, the Wild only had to pay about 7.5 million per towards the cap for a player that should really have counted about 10+ million towards the cap.

What are your opinions on this, is the Wild not cheating the system even if he does'nt hang it up early?
It may not be in the "spirit" of the law, but it certainly shouldn't be penalized.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:37 PM
  #486
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
If Luongo had retired before the last CBA ended then Vancouver could have gotten out of the contract and then you would be correct. Once that loophole is closed then all bets are off and if Vancouver fights it they agree to cap circumvention.

It's kind of like the bank making a mistake in your favour, you need to give it back once they catch it later on.
Except it was part of the actual CBA. It would be like the bank offering a certain interest rate, but then deciding it was unprofitable(after you had arranged a deal), so they lock you out of a part of your account for a certain number of years to make up for it.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:38 PM
  #487
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
It may not be in the "spirit" of the law, but it certainly shouldn't be penalized.
Oh I see, you think it's okay for teams to cheat the system that was put in place so teams wouldn't cheat the system.

Making the Wild pay what Parise should count against the cap isn't penalizing them by the way.

thebluemachine* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:40 PM
  #488
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
Oh I see, you think it's okay for teams to cheat the system that was put in place so teams could not cheat the system.

Making the Wild pay what Parise should count against the cap isn't penalizing them by the way.
What the Wild "should" pay is according to the terms that were applicable under the past CBA. That is what legally should have counted, regardless of what you feel is a fair cap hit.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:41 PM
  #489
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
What the Wild "should" pay is according to the terms that were applicable under the past CBA. That is what legally should have counted, regardless of what you feel is a fair cap hit.
The last CBA expired, all bets are off. Teams were warned.

thebluemachine* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:43 PM
  #490
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Except it was part of the actual CBA. It would be like the bank offering a certain interest rate, but then deciding it was unprofitable(after you had arranged a deal), so they lock you out of a part of your account for a certain number of years to make up for it.
But that isn't how banks operate, they make sure that the 10 year fixed rate is quite a bit higher than the 5 year before the paperwork is signed.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:44 PM
  #491
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
But that isn't how banks operate, they make sure that the 10 year fixed rate is quite a bit higher than the 5 year before the paperwork is signed.
Well if the bank made a mistake, then they have to suffer the consequences. They would certainly have no right to penalize you after the fact to make up for their lost profit.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:45 PM
  #492
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,186
vCash: 500
holy crap i made a simple thread and its over 20 pages in one day rofl

Lucbourdon is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:47 PM
  #493
Kass Effect
Registered User
 
Kass Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Data Corrupted
Posts: 1,317
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
Absolutely... everything is risk / reward.

Nobody is completely comfortable with a contract that commits to a player until he's into his 40s when he's in his early 30s. It's simply a matter of balancing that risk / reward, and deciding it best at the time. Heck, even Vancouver was probably hesitant to sign that deal when they did (otherwise Luongo's agent is crap), they just decided it was better than signing him to a non-circumventing deal, or losing him to free agency.
For all GMs, there will be a price at which taking on Luongo's contract is in their best interest.... and above that price, it won't be.
Pure speculation, and that was when we already had him. I can't imagine any team paying that kind of money on that kind of term AND offering what Gillis has described as solid offers... unless they felt the risks were minimal. You have to take into consideration that whatever return the Canucks get, would have risk too. Especially when talking about unproven prospects (like Kadri,), or a future 1st rounder that could be anywhere from 1st ov to 30th.

Kass Effect is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:48 PM
  #494
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Well if the bank made a mistake, then they have to suffer the consequences. They would certainly have no right to penalize you after the fact to make up for their lost profit.
The bank always wins, if they give you something by accident you have to pay it back.

It's in the fine writing.

thebluemachine* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:52 PM
  #495
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
The last CBA expired, all bets are off. Teams were warned.
If the league intended to penalize existing cap circumvention contracts, why did they grandfather them in after the Kovalchuk-contract?

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:53 PM
  #496
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
The bank always wins, if they give you something by accident you have to pay it back.

It's in the fine writing.
Not if it's included in the terms they gave you. It's not like a mistaken transaction, it was the rule at that time.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:53 PM
  #497
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
If the league intended to penalize existing cap circumvention contracts, why did they grandfather them in after the Kovalchuk-contract?
They haven't grandfathered anything in after the Kovy contract.

thebluemachine* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:55 PM
  #498
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
They haven't grandfathered anything in after the Kovy contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
On September 4, 2010, the NHL and NHLPA ratified an agreement to alter how the salary cap hit of long-term contracts would be calculated. The new salary cap accounting system would see two distinct changes. First, long-term contracts remain valid, but contracts that include years when a player aged 40 or older will only have the portion of their salaries before they turn 40 included in cap hit calculation. Second, if the average value of the three highest seasons is $5.75 million or more, then the value of years 36 through 39 will have a minimum cap "charge" of $1 million.

These changes came shortly after Ilya Kovalchuk's contract extension with the New Jersey Devils was voided, due to "cap circumvention". Other long-term contracts, such as Marc Savard, Roberto Luongo and Marian Hossa, were grandfathered and their respective cap hits calculated under the old accounting system. However, any long-term contracts signed on September 5, 2010 would be subject to the new system.[1]
Ahem.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:55 PM
  #499
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Not if it's included in the terms they gave you. It's not like a mistaken transaction, it was the rule at that time.
You're forgetting the CBA (or the Bank) supersedes everything. The league will never lose, it's set up that way.

thebluemachine* is offline  
Old
10-01-2012, 10:58 PM
  #500
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Ahem.
I'm talking about the new CBA. How do you expect for anything to be grandfathered in if there isn't one in place?

thebluemachine* 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 05:37 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.