Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3002 replies to this topic

#181 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:30 PM

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


Why would Vancouver want to move Luongo at 5.3 and bring back Niemi at 3.8? That part of the deal is kind of par for Hockey Insider - random and weak proposals/speculation. Forget Niemi - let the Sharks move him to someone like Toronto - in Vancouver he just replaces the existing need to move a goaltender to make way for Schneider and Lack.. I like Ryan Clowe, but he's another left winger and a UFA next year - in case Hockey Insider hasn't noticed, the last thing the Canucks need is another left wing - like Niemi, would just necessitate yet another move. This deal would leave the Canucks without a second line RW, without a third line center, without a big mean right handed blueliner, and without prospects aside from a 2nd round pick. And it also leaves them without any extra cap space.
  • 0

#182 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:45 PM

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.


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

#183 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,074 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:53 PM

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.


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.
  • 0

#184 ruffdeezy

ruffdeezy

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 07

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:19 PM

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.


there is no way the PA is gonna sign on the dotted line for this offer
I'm sure they would negotiate this out or grandfather the current people since their members would be less likely to get long term deals if this were the case
  • 0

#185 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:03 PM

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.


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.
  • 1

#186 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 01:08 AM

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.

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

#187 CookieCrumbs

CookieCrumbs

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,958 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 05:35 AM

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.


Yup. How did nobody give him the heads up on this absurd contract? it's straight retarded.
  • 0

#188 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 07:48 AM

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.



maxwell smart enters the room
  • 0

#189 sampy

sampy

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,982 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:49 AM

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

So Gillis shoud have let Lu walk for nothing?? This was the only way to keep Lu in a Canucks uni at the time and stay under the cap.
  • 0

#190 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:51 PM

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.


Luongo would obviously have to agree as has been mentioned, but it's the first rumour in awhile.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#191 Pears

Pears

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,837 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:57 PM

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.

I wonder what Burkie's definition of an 'unbelieveable push' is.
  • 0
Posted Image

Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!!

#192 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,074 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 17 October 2012 - 04:29 PM

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.


I hope Gillis strings Burke along, then trades him elsewhere. Payback for the 'Burke Clause' proposed in the new CBA.
  • 1

#193 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 07:24 PM

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


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.

Edited by oldnews, 17 October 2012 - 08:06 PM.

  • 0

#194 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:11 PM

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


I think the last reported offer was unbelievable. Schenn? Are you kidding Burkie? We'll take the 10 first round picks instead haha.

LOL at Dreger today - panel question - who do they miss the most? Surprise. Dreger misses Burke the most.... ahhhh, isn't that touching... Leafs suck so bad, for so long, and their fans still so attached...
  • 0

#195 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,074 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:19 PM

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.


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

#196 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:22 PM

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....."


Yeah

"We agree that you already have what it takes to make the playoffs"... muahahahaha!!!!

And I agree - you can call that the 'Burke wants Luongo, and to screw with Gilis at the same time clause."

Somehow I don't see Burkee quite getting everything he wants out of this...

Edited by oldnews, 17 October 2012 - 08:28 PM.

  • 0

#197 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:10 PM

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

#198 Phil_314

Phil_314

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,772 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 09

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:12 PM

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

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


Jesus LOVES YOU!
2012, meet Matthew 24:36-47!

14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.


#199 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:45 PM

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
Posted ImagePosted Image

#200 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,848 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:01 PM

Colborne, Gardiner, and a 1st.

for

Luongo, Tanev, and a 2nd.
  • 0
Posted Image

#201 Pears

Pears

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,837 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:15 PM

Colborne, Gardiner, and a 1st.

for

Luongo, Tanev, and a 2nd.

That would be an amazing trade.
  • 1
Posted Image

Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!!

#202 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,944 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:22 PM

I personally do not believe Lou is leaving because fans have put him under the microscope.

- Lou did not sit on the bench when Schneider started game 6 in Chicago 2010/11 first round. I Believe he was pouting.
- Lou threw up the "nobodies pumping my tires" charade in Boston, then lost all games in Boston Badly. Mentally fragile?
- Lou said the right things, but seems to have asked for a trade as soon as Schneider started some more playoff games. Pouting ?

All of these things happened outside the fans noticing it. But of course we have. Maybe you should as well. Let him go...


Side note; we just signed a BIG stay at home defenceman. Just sayin...? I do believe we could use another big top 6 winger, but a puck rushing (right side) D not the stay at home guy.



I.ve, personally been a fan of the Canucks since I was old enough to understand hockey. I,ve cheered for them through all the years of disappointment and remain a devoted fan to this day. My loyalty is anything but fickle. Now, back to the issue at hand. Maybe fans are a bit critical of our team but, to me, this just emphasizes the love we have for our Canucks. One thing players have to know is that hockey in BC is almost a religion of it's own. We want so badly for them to win that sometimes their short comings over shadow their successes. There is little question that we have the best team Vancouver management has been able to assemble and I feel that a couple of key additions will put us over the top. To me, our biggest needs are a winger to bring our second line into the elite category and provide consistent second line offense and a big, " stay at home," defenseman that provides stability in the defensive zone and can be counted on to police the front of the net, thus limiting second chances. To make it perfectly clear, I do not place all the blame on goaltending. The team as whole needs to take responsibility for it's inability to rise to the occasion and achieve it,s ulimate goal; a Stanley Cup. That being said, however, we do have an abundance of assets in goal and could use one to acquire the needed pieces. I believe both Schneids and Lou can get us there and it is irrelevant as to which one is kept. The key may lie in the length of the lock out. With NHL players sitting, waiting for a new CBA to be made, it is the AHLers that get a chance to shine. Eddie Lack is proving himself to be quite a good goaltender and is only getting better. This could be of significance because it may provide more options for Gillis to explore. If Lack puts together great games in Chicago, MG may become more accepting to offers for Schneider. This would be key as Schneider would bring better returns and open doors for more bidding wars. A play for a Bobby Ryan may become a possibility. I believe Lou can get us there. It's whether or not the fans will accept him back in the number one role. I know the fans do not run the team, but in a way they kind of assist in decisions. No player wants to be booedon a nightly basis and be kept under a microscope on a nightly basis. The pressure becomes immense and sooner or later it becomes too much. I believe this is what has happened to Lou. I say we get behind this team no matter what the circumstances and give them our full support.


  • 0

#203 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,944 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:33 PM

Have nothing to benefit?

It's a complete dis-incentive for signing any long term, big dollar, contract. It does not take rocket science to realize it will keep salaries down. I think that's what the owners want? :huh:

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

#204 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,944 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:35 PM

A big young centreman and a puck rushing D?

Sign me up! :towel: :towel: :towel:

That would be an amazing trade.


  • 0

#205 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,074 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:59 PM

Have nothing to benefit?

It's a complete dis-incentive for signing any long term, big dollar, contract. It does not take rocket science to realize it will keep salaries down. I think that's what the owners want? :huh:


We're talking about 2 different clauses. The 'Burke Clause', the one I am talking about, proposes to go back and punish teams who have given Luongo type contracts. It doesn't eliminate them from happening in the future. It's a retroactive punishment that doesn't benefit the owners.

There is a different clause that prohibits contract length, with a strict yr over yr %. This is the clause that you are talking about where owners benefit. It completely eliminates any Luongo type contract for the future.

Edited by RunningWild, 18 October 2012 - 12:00 AM.

  • 0

#206 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,944 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:22 AM

:huh: Please explain.

We were talking about;

First: max 5 year contracts
2Knd: clause 5 ; which has the cap hit of a retiring player attributed to the team who signed him; regardless if he had been traded to a new team. You may call that a Burke punishment clause; I suggest it is a specific point designed to keep teams from offering expensive contracts. Just cuz BB has whinged about such contracts does not mean its him?

From the TSN notes on NHL offer (not B Burkes rage web site);


5. Cap Accounting:
- Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.
- All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but
only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the
contract for the balance of its term.


We're talking about 2 different clauses. The 'Burke Clause', the one I am talking about, proposes to go back and punish teams who have given Luongo type contracts. It doesn't eliminate them from happening in the future. It's a retroactive punishment that doesn't benefit the owners.

There is a different clause that prohibits contract length, with a strict yr over yr %. This is the clause that you are talking about where owners benefit. It completely eliminates any Luongo type contract for the future.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 18 October 2012 - 01:23 AM.

  • 0

#207 Trelane42

Trelane42

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:50 AM

Breathe, folks. The clause about the original signing team being stuck with the cap if the player retires prematurely is NEVER happening. Philly has inked more of these than anyone, and stands to get fracked utterly if it passes. Their owner and Bettman are as tight as a pair of coconuts.

The thing is in there for the sole purpose to be negotiated away so that NHLPA can claim partially victory and NHL can give ground there while holding firm elsewhere. This works for both players and those owners that are willing to pay for them.

Fehr will go after clauses that can stretch the zero sum game aspect of a hard cap and this is an easy one to attack. No way will he allow for a system where rich teams cannot spend to the limit because their caps are impacted by players long gone. Length of terms, assignment to minors with salary not counting toward cap, and 50-50 split itself, is where the real battleground is at.
  • 0

#208 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,074 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:31 AM

:huh: Please explain.

We were talking about;

First: max 5 year contracts
2Knd: clause 5 ; which has the cap hit of a retiring player attributed to the team who signed him; regardless if he had been traded to a new team. You may call that a Burke punishment clause; I suggest it is a specific point designed to keep teams from offering expensive contracts. Just cuz BB has whinged about such contracts does not mean its him?

From the TSN notes on NHL offer (not B Burkes rage web site);


5. Cap Accounting:
- Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.
- All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but
only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the
contract for the balance of its term.


Not sure what your post is saying?
  • 0

#209 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:51 AM

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.


Out of curiosity, and if Schenn is such an appalling offer by the Leafs, what are you realistically expecting to get if there is, in fact, a deal in place?
  • 0

#210 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,944 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:17 AM

If Calgary was as terrible as some of you guys claim they were last year, they must of been really lucky to of finished 5 points out of the playoffs. So lucky to have 247 man games missed which was good enough for 6th highest in the league. Only Pits had more injuries and still made the playoffs. They had a very tough season and had a legit shot to make the 8th seed, adding 1 legit top 6 forward (Hudler- I don't care who he played with last season he is still a top 6 guy), 2 potential top 6 guys in Cervenka and Baertschi and Wideman, who yes is overpaid and mostly offensive but is a proven NHLer who will score goals and improve the powerplay.

The flames have improved from last year and are generally a hardworking grinding team with great goaltending. The biggest weakness last year was injuries and lack of scoring which one is luck and the other they addressed IMO.

Also I think Garrison is total risk, he is being billed as a reliable shutdown guy with a great shot.....kinda like Ballard was being billed minus the great shot but with offensive abilities. He could also turn out to be like Bieksa who got a late start in the NHL but turned out to be one of our best dman over the last few season. No guarantees either way as he just does not have enough experience in the NHL to know for sure. To be claiming that he was signed to a good contract is a little premature, I think was a calculated risk by Gillis who I do trust but its a risk all the same.


Below I quoted Mike Smith trying to find players in strange places. A better example was the last Oilers team who made the finals. It was a good mix of a solid goalie supported by a well crafted balance of various key elements. No doubt Pronger was THE key guy. But; speed, size, play making, penalty killing, and scoring was made up via an eclectic group which included Pisani, Samsanov, Horcoff, Raffi Torres, Ethan Moreau, Ales Hemsky.. But really they creatively (and cheaply) mixed talent with speed and size on every line. Where they did not have star power, they were also a near impossible match up on physical abilities.

I do not see any such capacity on the flames.

Your talking a need a C and RW. 3rd line C is a need no doubt. If Burrows stays with the Twins and Booth on the 2nd line with Hanson possibly pushing in that slot where does the RW need come from. I am more concerned with the 2nd line LW. Raymond is a gamble and I don't see Higgins as a fulltime 2nd liner even tho he did well last year.


Calgary is in an awkward spot; they have budget problems. And to their misfortune its not cuz their short on money.

So Feaster is looking to secondary markets looking for cheap talent and physical abilities. When I grew up controversial GM Mike Smith found Zhamnov and Selanne in secondary markets for Winnipeg. And he ultimately failed. Imagine how Feaster will do banking on Cervenka and Bartschi? Look, their not a bad gamble, but they're also not Selanne. But it's too much to expect them to rejuvenate the Flames!!!

My opinion anyway.

Hansen on the second, get real, we are missing a second line RW plain, and. simple. While we're at it Burrows shouldn't be on the first line. Our top 6 is a mess. Booth is the second line LW, you just mentioned him.


Raymond is a joke.

And Higgins is no second liner, you got that right.


In a perfect world, Burrows is the worlds best 3rd line LW. But Hansen is, unfortunately, our top natural RW until Kassian arrives.

Depth chart on LW;
Danny
Burrows
Booth (feel free to interchange him and Burrows, Burrows the better player, Booth as fast and 30 lbs heavier).
Raymond
Higgins
Lapierre (really a centre but?)
Jensen

Depth chart on RW
Hansen
Kassian
Weise
Desbiens

And so far only Burrows has been really good playing the off side?

An ideal trade is Lou and a LW (to ultimately make room fro Jensen) for a big RW! Big, because only Booth (who wont be the guy for this reason) is big on the left side, so we need to make up for it on the right...

Edited by Canuck Surfer, 18 October 2012 - 05:18 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.