Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Templeton Peck

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0

3,003 posts in this topic

There's a lot more teams with questionable goaltending. On top of Columbus, Florida, NJ and Toronto you could also arguably add Edmonton, San Jose, Chicago, NYI, TB, Philly, Washington, Ottawa and Detroit.

That's 13 teams with questionable goaltending. Even if half of the teams get solid goaltending, that leaves the other half fighting for a very thin goaltending market. There will be 1 team that will meet MG's high demands and satisfy Luongo. I'm sure he'd be far less picky if he had to come back into the Vancouver spotlight as a backup.

Here's a good point of view on Hockey Insiders site (yeah yeah I know, not a source, just opinion):

http://www.insiderru...ks-makes-sense/

Thinks this is a fair trade for both sides:

To SJ: Roberto Luongo and a Mason Raymond

To VAN: Antti Niemi, Ryane Clowe and a 2nd round pick

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob McKenzie@TSNBobMcKenzie

This stipulation could make Lu much more attractive to certain teams, like Florida. They'd only have to pay him $3.714M of salary next year. They're paying Theodore $1.5M salary next season. Assuming they offload him, the difference for yr 1 would be about $2M.

Bombshell!

Can you imagine Luongo gets traded to the Leafs. He retires in 5 yrs. His cap hit is still applied against Canucks till his contract is over. Not cool. Not cool at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cap relief in trades if the cap is reduced makes sense, but the bombshell - can't see how that makes any sense. Sounds like trying to impose the conditions of what was previously the terms of 35+ contracts only - to all existiing contracts, and make the post-retirement cap effectively untradeable?

Can't see that how the NHL could justify effectively retroactively punishing teams that signed players to lifetime contracts, when they allowed obvious cap intervention deals to transpire. That one would be highly contested.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine Luongo gets traded to the Leafs. He retires in 5 yrs. His cap hit is still applied against Canucks till his contract is over. Not cool. Not cool at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like Burke has been working hard on the new CBA. I can't believe the owners approved this. Soooo many teams, nearly 1/2 the league (Pitts, Wash, NYR, Van, Minny, Nash, NJD, Philly, Buff, Car, NYI, Tampa, Chi, Det), have long term contracts on the books. 1 injury to any of those contracts and they're screwed.

I can't see the NHLPA agreeing to this. It takes jobs away from players.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, this is similar to the nonsense the NHL was pulling when locking out and attempting to get salaries rolled back. Teams entered into those contracts freely. Owners/GMs chose to enter into those contracts. Then plead after the fact that they aren't getting enough of the profits - that they chose to risk, not only in spending as they have, but going into oddball markets.

Likewise - the terms of the former CBA allowed teams to trade cap hit - allowed teams to trade long term contracts - and even signed off on long term contracts that have obvious cap intervention years added at the end, where salary drops off considerably. To retroactively try to punish those particular contracts by not only adding the 35+ term (of post retirement cap hit remaining), but also make it non-transferable (which also prevents cap floor teams from circumventing the floor by acquiring these contracts) is entirely problematic - given the fact that these contracts were signed presuming the terms of the existing CBA. Who is the NHL to now punish them after not enforcing anything resembling the prevention of cap-circumvention contracts? What a dumb can of worms they're opening.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillis shouldn't have signed Luongo to that ridiculous contract in the first place. Put the blame where it belongs.

NHL could easily do this and I don't see the NHLPA fighting against this that hard. It would take away available salary cap for teams that have these contracts but it would make the lower level markets spend more because they won't be able to acquire the tail end of these contracts to reach the floor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillis shouldn't have signed Luongo to that ridiculous contract in the first place. Put the blame where it belongs.

NHL could easily do this and I don't see the NHLPA fighting against this that hard. It would take away available salary cap for teams that have these contracts but it would make the lower level markets spend more because they won't be able to acquire the tail end of these contracts to reach the floor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. How did nobody give him the heads up on this absurd contract? it's straight retarded.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug MacLean is hardly my most trusted NHL source, but this is an interesting tidbit:

@TEAM1040 Doug MacLean says he's heard Brian Burke will make an "unbelievable push" for Roberto Luongo once the lockout is over.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug MacLean is hardly my most trusted NHL source, but this is an interesting tidbit:

Luongo would obviously have to agree as has been mentioned, but it's the first rumour in awhile.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug MacLean is hardly my most trusted NHL source, but this is an interesting tidbit:

Luongo would obviously have to agree as has been mentioned, but it's the first rumour in awhile.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Gillis strings Burke along, then trades him elsewhere. Payback for the 'Burke Clause' proposed in the new CBA.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what Burkie's definition of an 'unbelieveable push' is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - let Toronto make their "push", let Luo go to Florida, and let Toronto suck it.

If a Luongo deal all of a sudden meant that a team is only acquiring, indefinitely, the years that they want to honour, at a bargain cap hit, suitors had better be prepared to pay a heavy price.

Still I think an attempt like that to rewrite the terms of the last CBA, under which those deals were made, is ridiculous, and really holds no water - in terms of contract-law it is bizarre to say the least To decide after the fact that the 35+ term and an additional non-transferrable condition applies? It actually makes me wonder what the hell is going on behind ownership doors? It's like their wagon is being steered by a different clique from week to week.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the most bizarre clauses I've ever seen, this coming from a negotiator whose seen many stupid clauses. The owners have nothing to gain from this clause, it's purely a punishment mechanism. I can't see them going to the wall for it when it benefits no one, but the players get screwed by dead cap space.

It's Burkes clause, he's steering that ship behind closed doors. He also has the salary/trade clause. I'd like to know where Aquilini is, he should be flexing some muscle. I know it's evil, but I'd love for Gillis to screw Burke one last time by trading him elsewhere. Send him a vase of flowers with card saying "Thanks for driving up the price. Good luck with the search. Until next time....."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW - John Shannon on Hockey Central today claiming that he thinks there is a deal in place between the Canucks and Leafs - just waiting for the CBA to be announced.

I personally don't find him very believable, but he seems to believe himself haha.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, sure hope the new deal doesn't keep the clause where the long term contracts over five years will stick with the signing team... we'd be attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis if he retired before his contract reached its back-diving years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen it mentioned elsewhere, but since Luongo likely wouldn't retire until at least the year where he makes $1.6+M (which isn't for another 8 years), and the CBA as it's currently proposed would max out at 7 years, the next CBA would also have to include the same type of clause for us to be affected.

Not that I think anything like that would make it into this CBA since it's not really feasible for the NHL to punish owners for contracts they could have denied if they felt they warranted punishment, but hey.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colborne, Gardiner, and a 1st.

for

Luongo, Tanev, and a 2nd.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.