AFrame14 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 This playoff will tell the tale of whether we keep Luongo or not. If he falters with his typical playoff "meltdown".... I guarantee you he is gone. This team can afford to bury his contract in the minors if he doesn't accept a trade. That is why Schneider is still here. Not just insurance for this playoff year, but to fall back on for seasons to come if Bobby Lou craps the proverbial bed come April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrippledCanuck Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It'd be in the Canucks best interest to try and drop Luongo in the summer over Schneider but there's a fat chance of that happening. Their value is probably about the same...Luongo is more proven but has the big contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrippledCanuck Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Well, Luongo is proven..... proven that he crumbles under pressure time and time again. Since he has been here. First year.... whining to the refs as Scott Neidermeyer scores the series clinching goal. Second year... no playoffs. Third year... meltdown to the blackhawks. Fourth year.... Meltdown to the blackhawks. Fifth year.... Almost meltdown to the blackhawks, and then a meltdown to the bruins. Do you see the trend here? I don't see where worrying about how "unproven" Schneider is. Was Niemi unproven? Was Cam Ward unproven? This is Luongo's last year to hopefully not meltdown.... and if he does, bye bye bobby lou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssir_78 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 This playoff will tell the tale of whether we keep Luongo or not. If he falters with his typical playoff "meltdown".... I guarantee you he is gone. This team can afford to bury his contract in the minors if he doesn't accept a trade. That is why Schneider is still here. Not just insurance for this playoff year, but to fall back on for seasons to come if Bobby Lou craps the proverbial bed come April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mookie Wilson Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Ok there are a few things wrong with this. First, there are 2 out clauses in his contract. The first doesn't come until 5 years into the contract (which we aren't there yet) and the second 7 years. I do believe the 5 year mark Luo can ask for a trade and the 7 the Canucks can ask him to waive NTC. So just in sheer legalities they can't even ask him to waive NTC and if they do they have violated his contract and let the lawsuits begin. Not to mention it is a front loaded contract and why would they pay him all the money up front and then let him out before they get full value. Second they can't send him to the minors. As most "superstar" players they have no movement clauses, plus he would have to clear waivers and fat chance that would happen. Embrace the reality, Luo is our goalie of the future and chances are Schneids is gone, good playoffs or not. P.S. Where were all the trade Luo comments in Jan and Feb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssir_78 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It doesn't break the law to ask a player to waive a NTC, lol. It happens all the time. Remember when Mats Sundin refused when asked? Though it might be disrespectful, players can be asked to waive NTCs. What is against the law, you could say (though before you I had never heard this matter discussed as a legal issue), is trading a player with a NTC when that player is unwilling to be traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssir_78 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It doesn't break the law to ask a player to waive a NTC, lol. It happens all the time. Remember when Mats Sundin refused when asked? Though it might be disrespectful, players can be asked to waive NTCs. What is against the law, you could say (though before you I had never heard this matter discussed as a legal issue), is trading a player with a NTC when that player is unwilling to be traded. EDIT: and as per your second point, I believe Luongo has a NTC - not a NMC - meaning he can be demoted to the minors. I believe you are right in saying this would make him vulnerable to waivers (though perhaps that is modified by a NTC - if a player can control a trade, then it would seem absurd to not let him control the waiver process). But if we want to send him to the minors, why would we care if he was taken by another team? Wouldn't that be better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanKeslord17 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I think a trade to TB would be the best for both sides. We would probably get a good return from Yzerman and Lu would be back with his wife and kids. Plus, if TB has a good goalie like Lu, they could go far. It's much less pressure on Luongo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortalis Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Are you kidding me? So you're good with just getting nothing for him? And to further the legalities yes it is illegal to ask to waive a NTC when it's built into the contract that you can't for 7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mookie Wilson Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It's not just a NTC. Sundin didn't have out clauses built into his contract. Don't forget long term contracts were meant to circumvent the current CBA. You don't think if the Canucks were to move Luo that there would be quite a few teams bitching about how they screwed the league. Remember folks this is no ordinary contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssir_78 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 well you are really getting just over 5 million dollars in cap space to dedicate to a better piece of the puzzle.... so you can't really say the canucks would be getting nothing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weber's Playoff Beard Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 well you are really getting just over 5 million dollars in cap space to dedicate to a better piece of the puzzle.... so you can't really say the canucks would be getting nothing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mookie Wilson Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Are you kidding me? So you're good with just getting nothing for him? And to further the legalities yes it is illegal to ask to waive a NTC when it's built into the contract that you can't for 7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssir_78 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I don't know how the out-clauses built into Luongo's contract modify the NTC in the times the out clauses don't apply. It's not straightforward that long-term contracts were meant to circumvent the CBA. They didn't in fact violate CBA. They were loopholes, basically. And assuming that, it follows that either 1) the lawyers who drafted the CBA made a mistake, or 2) the prospect of long-term, front-loaded contracts was considered and accepted. Either way, these contracts didn't technically violate the the CBA. Regardless of all that, Luongo's contract was verified by the league. Accordingly, the league couldn't block a Luongo trade (assuming there was nothing wrong with it). It wouldn't matter if the other teams whined about it. And I don't see why they would as they would have no legal basis (since you like discussing the matter as a legal issue) for compliant. Further, do you really think the Canucks would have accepted the deal if the league said: "Okay, we'll validate the Luongo deal, but you won't be able to trade him"? That would be ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssir_78 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 No, I'm not okay with losing him for nothing. But it's obvious that wouldn't be done unless Luongo became worthless. And if he became worthless, then I'd probably be okay with that. Your second point I'm not sure about. I tend to think it's not true. But, as you probably could have guessed, I'm not a lawyer. One point I will make is that - if indeed Luongo could not be asked to waive a NTC for 7 years - I assume that would have been public knowledge by now. I assume a journalist would have figured it out in response to the plethora of articles that have considered the possibility of a Luongo trade. Or I assume Gillis would have said as much in response to the all the articles that targeted his goaltender. I think the team's out clause is just a temporary suspension of Luongo's NTC. I don't think it has any bearing upon the NTC it is not in effect. And I am pretty darn sure that players can politely be asked to waive NTCs. It doesn't put any kind of onus on the player to consider waiving it. But it does let the player know that the team would like to go in another direction. And in that scenario, it likely increases the odds a player would want to leave. Why play where you're not wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mookie Wilson Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 well you are really getting just over 5 million dollars in cap space to dedicate to a better piece of the puzzle.... so you can't really say the canucks would be getting nothing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMR Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It does not matter who we trade. We will go no where fast if this team keeps playing the way they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssir_78 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It would be less than 5M. It would be the difference between what Luongo and Schneider currently make and what Luongo's replacement (likely Schneider) and his back-up would make. So let's say Luongo is traded this off-season and Schneider is kept. That would clear Luongo's 5.3M cap hit. But Schneider would need a raise. Let's ballpark that he gets $3M. And let's assume that Lack becomes the back-up and makes the same 900k that Schneider does as back-up (a contract that was signed prior to his first season as full-time back-up). Conversely, if Luongo is kept, let's assume Schneider is traded and the new back-up (again likely Lack) makes the same as what Schneider currently does. If Luongo is kept: Luongo: 5.3M Lack: 9k Total 6.2M If Luongo is traded: Schneider: 3M Lack: 9k Total: 3.9M Total difference: 2.3M Also consider the possibility that Lack is NOT the back-up next year increases if Luongo is traded and Schneider is becomes the starter. Because Schneider is untested as a starter, he's not as safe a bet as Luongo is to deliver elite goaltending over 60+ starts. Accordingly, it might be smart to spend a little more to get a more reliable back-up. So the difference could actually be less than 2.3M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mookie Wilson Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Thanks for the definition of circumvent. They found a loop hole and used it for their advantage. The league has since changed the policy and the Luo deal would no longer be allowed. Now do you really think that Gary Bettman is going to let the Canucks bend him over twice. Furthermore, why would you sign a guy to a 12 year deal if you intended on trading him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssir_78 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 So you believe that - assuming Luongo could be asked to waive his NTC and does do that - the league would block the trade if Gillis worked out a deal? That would be a substantial intrusion into business and - if in fact within Bettman's power - would tick off a lot of owners. The NHL is not Soviet Russia. And I don't see why Bettman would care so much. Trades are - obviously- to the mutual benefit of teams. If a GM didn't think a trade was to his team's benefit, he would not make it. If a GM wants Luongo despite his contract, then Luongo's contract must not be so bad, after all. And if it is, then it's that GM's problem. Anyhow, in an admittedly not so lucid way, the point I'm trying to make is I don't see what difference it makes what team Luongo is on. I understand the League might not like his contract very much. But I don't get how that would impact the League's opinion of a trade involving Luongo - let alone their ability or motivation to do anything about it. I'm not surprised there are no "Trade Luongo" editorials in Ontario papers. As far as I know there were no "Fire Wilson" editorials in BC papers. I searched for Luongo's contract but could not find it. I found several articles that referred to the possibility of trading Luongo, even some that cited rumours that Gillis was shopping him. Here's one: http://canucksarmy.c...tract-immovable If you're not impressed by the source, know that the author contributes to the Vancouver Sun and The Province: http://vansunsportsb...st-effectively/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.