HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Luongo signs 12 years 64M deal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2009, 04:15 PM
  #76
frag2
Registered User
 
frag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfrancis View Post
So when do the Gagner and Cogliano 30 year extensions get done?
After we finish with signing Heatley

frag2 is online now  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:17 PM
  #77
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,779
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowstorm View Post
I think Detroit San jose and Chicago (in whatever order) are the sure locks. Calgary and vancouver fight for that 4th/5th spot. Also wouldn't be surprised if Anaheim makes it up there.

Otherwise, Agreed.
I think Chicago might be a little bit overrated only from the sense that Huet has never proved he can be a starter for more than around 20 games. I don't know if he'll be able to handle the full time load with absolutely no push from behind him.

We'll see. If he can handle it Chicago may even be good enough to win that division, if not I could see them sliding to 5th or 6th.

CCF23 is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:28 PM
  #78
Ol' Jase
PLAYOFFS??
 
Ol' Jase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,808
vCash: 500
One thing is a fact in all this...

It's go time now on the coast. They need to get over the hump, as there is no excuse anymore. They've committed to their core, and now they have to perform.

Ol' Jase is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:28 PM
  #79
caveat emptor
Registered User
 
caveat emptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
If the contract is signed before they're 35 they can be sent to the minors with no lingering cap hit.
I am aware of that. My point is that the owner is possibly on the hook for the entire contract if Luongo decides he wants to play injured and is ineffective. This is real money, not monopoly money, and if my suspicion is correct, and these contracts are uninsurable, it is bad business to enter into this type of agreement.

For all of the discussion fans have about burying players in the minors, it rarely happens. It seems some people view that as the solution to any ultimate problem with fitting under the cap, and although it is truly an option, having to pay an AHLer millions of dollars isn't a great solution for an owner.

There are two componets at play: cap hit and actual dollars paid. Even if you bury the cap hit, you have to pay the contract if the player decides to play. It is lunacy for owners to enter these types of agreements. Some will work out, but I can't help but believe there will be a few that will really, really hurt some owners. What happens if Luongo, at 33 or 34, becomes a china doll but refuses to retire? I guess you send him to the minors and pay him the balance of his contract that way?

It is shortsighted and bad business to enter these contracts. As a fan of the club, it is a great contract. As a financial partner in the club that agrees to such contract, it is idiocy.

caveat emptor is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:29 PM
  #80
The Moose
Registered User
 
The Moose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,696
vCash: 500
What happens if this "loophole" is changed in the next CBA? Say, if a player retires his salary counts against the cap, regardless of the age when he signed the contract. Doesn't that mean that it will apply to contracts like Hossa and Luongo as well?

It seems to me that the answer would be yes. The contract between Canucks and Luongo stipulates how much money he is going to get paid over the next 12 years, and has nothing to do with how the NHL deals with salary cap hit. These are two different issues.

The Moose is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:30 PM
  #81
tretiak09*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
If the contract is signed before they're 35 they can be sent to the minors with no lingering cap hit.
Only for one year though.

tretiak09* is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:32 PM
  #82
tretiak09*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Moose View Post
What happens if this "loophole" is changed in the next CBA? Say, if a player retires his salary counts against the cap, regardless of the age when he signed the contract. Doesn't that mean that it will apply to contracts like Hossa and Luongo as well?

It seems to me that the answer would be yes. The contract between Canucks and Luongo stipulates how much money he is going to get paid over the next 12 years, and has nothing to do with how the NHL deals with salary cap hit. These are two different issues.
The NHL cannot alter existing contracts nor cap hits without the agreement of the NHL.

The NHL didn't figure this one out, and a loophole was found, they are going to have to deal with it until they can negotiate it again, and I would be shocked if current deals are altered in any way.

tretiak09* is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:33 PM
  #83
frag2
Registered User
 
frag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
Burrows and Kesler don't have to be as good as they were last year. There are a TON of young Canucks on this team that could score. Hodgson, Raymond, Bernier, Kesler, Burrows, you could call up Grabner who was on fire in the AHL playoffs, Shirokov is a wild card having played years against men and succeeded in the KHL, a guy like Samuelsson could hit 20, and Demitra, although undoubtedly on the back 9 of his career, is still a serviceable 2nd line player. I'm in no way saying all or even most of these guys will play to their full potential, but it's not unreasonable to expect a few of them to.

Also, when you look at the Canucks, the defense is going to act as another scoring line. You have a ton of scoring defensemen. Salo, Edler, Bieksa, Schneider, and Ehrhoff can all score. The Canucks D will be amongst the highest scoring in the league.

If none of that works, there are a LOT of assets you could deal. The Canucks have 8 NHL caliber defensemen. Package Ehrhoff and Cory Schneider and you'll fetch a nice top 6 forward while clearing the space for it at the same time.
Easier said than done. The amount of wheeling and dealing among teams these days is so low, I wouldn't get hopes up.

frag2 is online now  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:35 PM
  #84
caveat emptor
Registered User
 
caveat emptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Moose View Post
What happens if this "loophole" is changed in the next CBA? Say, if a player retires his salary counts against the cap, regardless of the age when he signed the contract. Doesn't that mean that it will apply to contracts like Hossa and Luongo as well?

It seems to me that the answer would be yes. The contract between Canucks and Luongo stipulates how much money he is going to get paid over the next 12 years, and has nothing to do with how the NHL deals with salary cap hit. These are two different issues.
Not necessarily. The CBA could close the loophole for all contracts signed after the date that the new CBA is executed. These previously signed long term contracts could be an exception.

caveat emptor is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:36 PM
  #85
doulos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
It remains to be seen if this kind of loophole is going to cause any real imbalance in the league. It seems like it might but I'm not freaking out yet.

If it were such an incredibly brilliant idea then everyone would do them. RIght now more teams are giving it a go but all it takes is a couple more seirous injuries to a massive contract player (aside from Dipietro...yikes) and more teams will shy away from this kind of stuff.

doulos is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:39 PM
  #86
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Moose View Post
What happens if this "loophole" is changed in the next CBA? Say, if a player retires his salary counts against the cap, regardless of the age when he signed the contract. Doesn't that mean that it will apply to contracts like Hossa and Luongo as well?

It seems to me that the answer would be yes. The contract between Canucks and Luongo stipulates how much money he is going to get paid over the next 12 years, and has nothing to do with how the NHL deals with salary cap hit. These are two different issues.
It depends on what is agreed to in the new CBA. They could technically grandfather in all contracts and make those ones exempt.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 04:46 PM
  #87
Ty Webb*
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
I agree it is not that big a deal, but hockeydb lists his birthday as April 4, 1979.
Sorry, my 4th grade math teacher was the Flyers capologist.

Ty Webb* is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 05:17 PM
  #88
McOkMcgoMcoil
Registered User
 
McOkMcgoMcoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 13,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by caveat emptor View Post
I am aware of that. My point is that the owner is possibly on the hook for the entire contract if Luongo decides he wants to play injured and is ineffective. This is real money, not monopoly money, and if my suspicion is correct, and these contracts are uninsurable, it is bad business to enter into this type of agreement.

For all of the discussion fans have about burying players in the minors, it rarely happens. It seems some people view that as the solution to any ultimate problem with fitting under the cap, and although it is truly an option, having to pay an AHLer millions of dollars isn't a great solution for an owner.

There are two componets at play: cap hit and actual dollars paid. Even if you bury the cap hit, you have to pay the contract if the player decides to play. It is lunacy for owners to enter these types of agreements. Some will work out, but I can't help but believe there will be a few that will really, really hurt some owners. What happens if Luongo, at 33 or 34, becomes a china doll but refuses to retire? I guess you send him to the minors and pay him the balance of his contract that way?

It is shortsighted and bad business to enter these contracts. As a fan of the club, it is a great contract. As a financial partner in the club that agrees to such contract, it is idiocy.
The long term deals are a risk, more so then many think. Any thing can happen, I sitll don't like the loophole of signing players untill they are 42, I mean who really plays untill they are 42, to me that is just clear, you are signing a guy to years he won't play.

however, even forget about those years. How much is Luongo worth in his prime? say 7 mill, well with this contract you save 1.5 mill, really good, however you will at best save nothing the last 4-5 years of it. THere is also the chance it is a bust. IT seems so great now, but the reality is you give up a lot of risk to save that 1.5 mill. what if he breaks his knee at 35, what if he starts to just plain suck. the 1.5 mill saving is great, but there is risk that goes with it, I think people underestimate that risk.

McOkMcgoMcoil is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 05:22 PM
  #89
theranfordflop
Registered User
 
theranfordflop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
however, even forget about those years. How much is Luongo worth in his prime? say 7 mill, well with this contract you save 1.5 mill, really good, however you will at best save nothing the last 4-5 years of it. THere is also the chance it is a bust. IT seems so great now, but the reality is you give up a lot of risk to save that 1.5 mill. what if he breaks his knee at 35, what if he starts to just plain suck. the 1.5 mill saving is great, but there is risk that goes with it, I think people underestimate that risk.
There really is no risk to signing a guy like Luongo to this kind of deal. It's all win. If he breaks his knee? Well he would have done that regardless of what contract he signed.

The only REAL risk I see is the one that Luongo is taking, signing with a team that will never win anything ever in their sad pathetic existence. He risks madness, chronic bawling, and being hit in the head with garbage after every playoff choke job.

I mean, imagine it... He's pretty much agreed to have every year end horribly for the next 12 years of his life. That's a hell of a thing.

theranfordflop is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:01 PM
  #90
doulos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
Mahahahaha, well said!

doulos is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:16 PM
  #91
otto84
Registered User
 
otto84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Thunder Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,803
vCash: 500
Well, Luongo just kissed ever winning a Cup goodbye.

otto84 is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:35 PM
  #92
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by caveat emptor View Post
I am aware of that. My point is that the owner is possibly on the hook for the entire contract if Luongo decides he wants to play injured and is ineffective. This is real money, not monopoly money, and if my suspicion is correct, and these contracts are uninsurable, it is bad business to enter into this type of agreement.

For all of the discussion fans have about burying players in the minors, it rarely happens. It seems some people view that as the solution to any ultimate problem with fitting under the cap, and although it is truly an option, having to pay an AHLer millions of dollars isn't a great solution for an owner.

There are two componets at play: cap hit and actual dollars paid. Even if you bury the cap hit, you have to pay the contract if the player decides to play. It is lunacy for owners to enter these types of agreements. Some will work out, but I can't help but believe there will be a few that will really, really hurt some owners. What happens if Luongo, at 33 or 34, becomes a china doll but refuses to retire? I guess you send him to the minors and pay him the balance of his contract that way?

It is shortsighted and bad business to enter these contracts. As a fan of the club, it is a great contract. As a financial partner in the club that agrees to such contract, it is idiocy.
Is it any more short sighted or any more of a risk than paying the same dollars over 6 or 7 years?

I guess you could argue the player is more likely to decline or be injured but, if the contract is heavily front loaded like Luongo's seems to be, paying him a million a year in the last 2 or 3 years isn't a huge issue IMO.

dashingsilverfox* is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:36 PM
  #93
Asher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theranfordflop View Post
There really is no risk to signing a guy like Luongo to this kind of deal. It's all win. If he breaks his knee? Well he would have done that regardless of what contract he signed.

The only REAL risk I see is the one that Luongo is taking, signing with a team that will never win anything ever in their sad pathetic existence. He risks madness, chronic bawling, and being hit in the head with garbage after every playoff choke job.

I mean, imagine it... He's pretty much agreed to have every year end horribly for the next 12 years of his life. That's a hell of a thing.
But he's also found a team that will bend over to any of his diva-like rants. Maybe that makes the losing seasons worth it.

Asher is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:37 PM
  #94
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by theranfordflop View Post
There really is no risk to signing a guy like Luongo to this kind of deal. It's all win. If he breaks his knee? Well he would have done that regardless of what contract he signed.
There certainly is a risk. The risk isn't if he gets hurt and can't play... the risk is if he gets hurt, tries to play but isn't as effective.

With a 4 or 5 year deal (even at a larger cap hit), the contract expires sooner and the buyout isn't as big of a deal.

With a 12 year deal, if he pulls a Kipper and his play deteriorates in 2-3 years, there is nothing you can do with that contract. No one is going to take it, the buyout is awful and it's very expensive to just bury him.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:39 PM
  #95
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,779
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
I can understand your hate for the Canucks, I hate the Oilers...But come on, some of you act like you wouldn't want Luongo on your team.

CCF23 is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:44 PM
  #96
Asher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
I can understand your hate for the Canucks, I hate the Oilers...But come on, some of you act like you wouldn't want Luongo on your team.
In terms of abilty, obviously that's not true. But in terms of attitude... I have a lot of questions about this guy. God knows he was a terrible choice for captain. Mitchell would have been a much better choice IMO.

Asher is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:45 PM
  #97
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
Is it any more short sighted or any more of a risk than paying the same dollars over 6 or 7 years?
Of course it is.

Quote:
I guess you could argue the player is more likely to decline or be injured but, if the contract is heavily front loaded like Luongo's seems to be, paying him a million a year in the last 2 or 3 years isn't a huge issue IMO.
It's an issue when it comes to the buyout.... it's nearly impossible to do with these deals because the years you go to buy them out (the cheap years) come with ridiculous cap hits over the term of the buyout. All these deals with 4 and 5 years of low paying salary add 8-10 years to the buyout cap hit.

Obviously not every team who signed these deals will run into this... but just one can do a number on your franchise.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:45 PM
  #98
BlueChipper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,609
vCash: 500
I'd want Luongo at 5.5 for about 7 years, but he's too greedy for that. Even 6 Million for 7 years.

The prime of his contract (and maybe the entire contract if that's all he plays) pays him I believe 8.1M/year.

BlueChipper* is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:46 PM
  #99
otto84
Registered User
 
otto84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Thunder Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
I can understand your hate for the Canucks, I hate the Oilers...But come on, some of you act like you wouldn't want Luongo on your team.
I'd take him in a heartbeat.

otto84 is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 06:47 PM
  #100
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
NHL Numbers has the contract like this:

10.000 6.716 6.714 6.714 6.714 6.714 6.714 6.714 3.382 1.618 1.000 1.000

those are pretty high for 38 and 39 years old.

dawgbone 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 11:08 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.