Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Any existing deal in excess of 5 years would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire!


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#1 VoiceOfReason_

VoiceOfReason_

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:44 PM

Luongo contact looks worse and worse everyday.

Thanks, MGillis!


10 years of a 5.33 cap hit even if Reboundo retires.

Goodbye Schneider. :angry:


EDIT: If player traded, then later in deal retires, original club on hook for cap hit!

Haha. Even worse!

Edited by VoiceOfReason_, 16 October 2012 - 09:46 PM.

  • 0

#2 Xbox

Xbox

    Formerly Lups

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,665 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:44 PM

LOL that sucks
  • 0

2yo50sh.jpg

small.pngGM - STHS                                  Sig Cred to -Vintage Canuck-

 

 


#3 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,139 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:53 PM

Haha, Voice of Reason. Dramatic much?

You post that as if it's likely to be part of the new CBA.

A voice or reason would wait to see how that proposal plays out.

Like a lead balloon would be my guess.

It would effectively apply the terms that were exclusively applied to 35+ contracts, to all existing contracts, and make the cap space untradeable.
Oddball clause that would create a lot of conflict when a deal is going to require consensus.
  • 4

#4 Phil_314

Phil_314

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,115 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:56 PM

Is this news? If so, source?

(Sure hope what you say won't become true...)
  • 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.


#5 VoiceOfReason_

VoiceOfReason_

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:58 PM

Haha, Voice of Reason. Dramatic much?

You post that as if it's likely to be part of the new CBA.

A voice or reason would wait to see how that proposal plays out.

Like a lead balloon would be my guess.

It would effectively apply the terms that were exclusively applied to 35+ contracts, to all existing contracts, and make the cap space untradeable.
Oddball clause that would create a lot of conflict when a deal is going to require consensus.



It will pass. Bettman warned all GM's and owners not to do cap circumventing contracts. This is his payback.
  • 0

#6 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:59 PM

That will never fly for existing contracts... too many clubs would be screwed by it. I don't see that one being in the final deal.

If it is, AND if the rule where NHL players in the minors still count towards the cap... then the Canucks are pretty screwed in terms of Luongo. The only hope would be to allow a one-time option to buyout a contract for every team... then at least his cap hit is gone.

EDIT:
Mackenzie clarified to state that the ORIGINAL club that signed the player to that contract is on the hook for the cap hit even if they get traded. Makes Luongo easily tradeable but hits the Canucks pretty hard in terms of cap hit for a player they no longer employ.

Edited by Provost, 16 October 2012 - 10:02 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#7 Zoolander

Zoolander

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,189 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:01 PM

That has got to be the dumbest contract clause I've ever heard. It doesn't even benefit Luongo. Why would you make a contract that could potentially bite you in the a** and YOU created it!

That's like sticking a fork in your butt just for the heck of it.
  • 1
My 2014 Draft wishlist: 1st rd: Draisaitl, Virtanen, Scherbak. 2nd rd: Brendan Lemieux, Thatcher Demko (Goalie)
Posted Image
Future Canucks top 6:
Shinkaruk-Draisaitl-Scherbak
Virtanen-Horvat-Jensen

#8 VoiceOfReason_

VoiceOfReason_

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:03 PM

That will never fly for existing contracts... too many clubs would be screwed by it. I don't see that one being in the final deal.

If it is, AND if the rule where NHL players in the minors still count towards the cap... then the Canucks are pretty screwed in terms of Luongo. The only hope would be to allow a one-time option to buyout a contract for every team... then at least his cap hit is gone.

EDIT:
Mackenzie clarified to state that the ORIGINAL club that signed the player to that contract is on the hook for the cap hit even if they get traded. Makes Luongo easily tradeable but hits the Canucks pretty hard in terms of cap hit for a player they no longer employ.


I don't know about that. Maybe 6-7 teams have contracts that undermine the 'spirit of the CBA'. The other 20+ didn't play the loop hole.

I bet this is going to pass easily.
  • 0

#9 Moonshinefe

Moonshinefe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:04 PM

I doubt it's retroactive though (correct me if you have a source indicating otherwise). Bettman said the new proposal would honour existing contracts, I'd imagine that'd mean none of these new rules would be retroactively imposed and screw over a bunch of clubs.
  • 0

#10 VoiceOfReason_

VoiceOfReason_

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:05 PM

That has got to be the dumbest contract clause I've ever heard. It doesn't even benefit Luongo. Why would you make a contract that could potentially bite you in the a** and YOU created it!

That's like sticking a fork in your butt just for the heck of it.


It doesn't have to benefit Luongo.

It's to punish the teams that did it when Bettman told everybody not to do it.
  • 0

#11 VoiceOfReason_

VoiceOfReason_

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:05 PM

I doubt it's retroactive though (correct me if you have a source indicating otherwise). Bettman said the new proposal would honour existing contracts, I'd imagine that'd mean none of these new rules would be retroactively imposed and screw over a bunch of clubs.


Source is BobbyMac and LeBruns twitters.
  • 0

#12 morrissex95

morrissex95

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 12

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:13 PM

There are a number of things that the NHL proposed that won't pass. This won't pass because almost all of the big clubs(Vancouver, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York Rangers, Boston, etc.) attempted to circumvent the salary cap at one point or another.

They'll make this rule apply to all new contracts. If this becomes a part of the CBA, Luongo is a Canuck for life.
  • 0
Posted Image

#13 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,440 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:28 PM

I don't know about that. Maybe 6-7 teams have contracts that undermine the 'spirit of the CBA'. The other 20+ didn't play the loop hole.

I bet this is going to pass easily.

NYI - DePietro
NJ - Kovalchuk
Nas - Weber
Min - Parise, Suter
Chi - Keith, Hossa
Det - Zetterberg, Franzen
Van - Luongo
TB - Lecavalier, Ohlund
LA - Carter
Buf - Ehrhoff
Phi - Bryzgalov, Briere, Timonen
NYR - Richards
Ott - Spezza

13 teams actually.
  • 3
Posted Image
Posted Image

#14 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,141 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:43 PM

Why do you all think the players would veto this? I'm not sure that they should even care. If the NHL proposed it, and the NHLPA doesn't care.... it will pass.
  • 2

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#15 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:48 PM

There are a number of things that the NHL proposed that won't pass. This won't pass because almost all of the big clubs(Vancouver, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York Rangers, Boston, etc.) attempted to circumvent the salary cap at one point or another.

They'll make this rule apply to all new contracts. If this becomes a part of the CBA, Luongo is a Canuck for life.


I'm ok with that :)
  • 3

/=S=/


#16 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,934 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:48 PM

It will apply to new contracts if it's agreed upon.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#17 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:55 PM

I don't know about that. Maybe 6-7 teams have contracts that undermine the 'spirit of the CBA'. The other 20+ didn't play the loop hole.

I bet this is going to pass easily.


It is not 6 or 7 teams... it is literally half the league that has players on front-loaded long term contracts until they are getting into their late 30's or even 40's with the "wink wink" knowledge that they will never play those final years for little actual salary

Boston - Chara
Minnesota - Parise; Suter
Canucks - Luongo
Philadelphia - Bryzgalov
Chicago - Hossa; Keith
Buffalo - Erhoff
Washington - Ovechkin
Tampa Bay - Lecavalier; Ohlund
Los Angeles - Richards; Carter
Detroit - Zetterberg; Franzen; Kronwall
Pittsburgh - Crosby
New York - Richards
New Jersey - Kovalchuk
Nashville - Weber; Rinne (though he could still have value at the end of his)
Islanders - DiPietro

Teams without one of those contracts:
Calgary; San Jose; Montreal; Toronto; Edmonton; Carolina; Columbus (though Tyutin's contract could become an anchor under the new rules); Winnipeg; Aneheim; Colorado; Florida; St. Louis; Dallas; Ottawa; Phoenix

That proposed clause would wreak havoc on half the team's payrolls... and note that many of those teams are the cap ceiling spending ones. It would also affect the other half of the league because it would utterly kill the trade market.

EDIT; There is a post above that lists similar teams/player... guess he was finishing it as I started to do the research and post

Edited by Provost, 16 October 2012 - 10:59 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#18 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:00 PM

NYI - DePietro
NJ - Kovalchuk
Nas - Weber
Min - Parise, Suter
Chi - Keith, Hossa
Det - Zetterberg, Franzen
Van - Luongo
TB - Lecavalier, Ohlund
LA - Carter
Buf - Ehrhoff
Phi - Bryzgalov, Briere, Timonen
NYR - Richards
Ott - Spezza

13 teams actually.


As a Blackhawks fan I'm certainly ok with the Keith deal, he'll still be effective for the duration of his contract. Hossa is 50/50, but as long as he's relatively healthy he could be ok too. I always envisioned Hossa becoming a great 3rd liner during the latter part of his career.

If this clause goes through I think Luongo stays and Schneider goes. Trading a contract like that becomes so much more difficult because a $5+ million cap hit could be coming the Canucks way and they have no control over it.

I think this clause was put in as a bargaining chip for the owners, it's something they could easily give up as a concession for something else. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds
  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#19 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:04 PM

As a Blackhawks fan I'm certainly ok with the Keith deal, he'll still be effective for the duration of his contract. Hossa is 50/50, but as long as he's relatively healthy he could be ok too. I always envisioned Hossa becoming a great 3rd liner during the latter part of his career.


While I don't disagree that they could both be somewhat useful players at that point in their careers, they almost certainly won't be worth their cap hits... AND more to the point, they are highly unlikely to continue playing for a tiny salary in real dollars. Can you really see Hossa playing the last four years at $1 million per year going into his pocket?

My bet is that both he and Keith would retire with 3-4 years left on their deals.... and that would hit Chicago for almost $11 million per year in cap hit used for players who are no longer playing. Players that they have to replace on their roster and pay another salary to.

Edited by Provost, 16 October 2012 - 11:07 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#20 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,769 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:05 PM

I can't possibly imagine the owners; who Bettman 'represents', being ok with this clause, let alone the players.
  • 4

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#21 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,139 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:14 PM

It will pass. Bettman warned all GM's and owners not to do cap circumventing contracts. This is his payback.


It will pass because you say Bettman says it will? You don't seem to understand how these negotiations work.

The NHL stood by and allowed those deals - signed off on them. And what you are saying is that Bettman, who is employed by the Owners (and to a lesser extent the GMs) can pretend to turn around be in a position to punish his employers.

This is an extremely divisive clause, which attempts to change the implications of deals signed under the former CBA - it is borderline ridiculous - considering there was a CBA governing those deals, and if any of those deals contravened the CBA, the time to intervene would have been before signing off on them.

Here's another equal possibility. Bettman's successes are weighed against his losses, and he loses his job.
  • 1

#22 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:28 PM

I can't possibly imagine the owners; who Bettman 'represents', being ok with this clause, let alone the players.


Well either it isn't quite as is reported OR we are about to see a huge fracture in the league owners. With the voting rules, Bettman could certainly get the minimum 8 teams required to sign off... who amongst the basement/cap floor teams wouldn't want to totally screw with the cap ceiling teams. Half the league would be unable to compete for free agents as they would have too many dollars tied up in players who are retired.

It would dramatically curtail spending and certainly make it easy to get down to a 50/50 split as the top spending owners would not be able to spend cash for the next decade.

Of course it would also put an asterisk beside any potential Stanley Cups as it would completely skew the playing field and how teams become competitive. The NHL could have refused to sign off on these deals, but they didn't. They even went so far as to outline how to structure a deal that fit within the rules (the Kovalchuk rule). The idea of punishing half the teams in the league for following those guidelines is ridiculous.

Edited by Provost, 16 October 2012 - 11:32 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#23 canuck_trevor16

canuck_trevor16

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,657 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 07

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:34 PM

Luongo contract is NOT bad..........damn you haters and fake fans there are worse contract out there that affect their team...5.3 cap hit is a bargain
  • 0

One day some of us will look back on the year and look at the chicago, and most of us will realize that it was a small bump in the road to the cup


WIN THE CUP FOR SALO CAMPAIGN

#24 SEAN HARNETT

SEAN HARNETT

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 05

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:39 PM

I can't possibly imagine the owners; who Bettman 'represents', being ok with this clause, let alone the players.


This is exactly what I thought aswell. Why would the owners O.K this?
  • 0
:towel:

#25 SEAN HARNETT

SEAN HARNETT

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 05

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:40 PM

Luongo contract is NOT bad..........damn you haters and fake fans there are worse contract out there that affect their team...5.3 cap hit is a bargain


Not in 4 years when his window as an Elite tender has passed. When he retires, that is when this contract will hurt the team. Why do you think the Canucks are trying to rid themselves of this contract?
  • 2
:towel:

#26 Where's Wellwood

Where's Wellwood

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,146 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 10

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:43 PM

Well either it isn't quite as is reported OR we are about to see a huge fracture in the league owners. With the voting rules, Bettman could certainly get the minimum 8 teams required to sign off... who amongst the basement/cap floor teams wouldn't want to totally screw with the cap ceiling teams. Half the league would be unable to compete for free agents as they would have too many dollars tied up in players who are retired.

It would dramatically curtail spending and certainly make it easy to get down to a 50/50 split as the top spending owners would not be able to spend cash for the next decade.

Of course it would also put an asterisk beside any potential Stanley Cups as it would completely skew the playing field and how teams become competitive. The NHL could have refused to sign off on these deals, but they didn't. They even went so far as to outline how to structure a deal that fit within the rules (the Kovalchuk rule). The idea of punishing half the teams in the league for following those guidelines is ridiculous.


The cap floor teams wouldn't want to screw with the cap ceiling teams b/c the cap ceiling teams fund the revenue sharing. By tieing up the cap ceiling teams' cap space with this retroactive punishment, they won't do as well, which in some markets may lead to lower revenues, meaning theres less money to bail out the cap floor teams. The cap floor teams' owners had better realize this. Plus it's not just the cap ceiling teams who have signed cap circumventing contracts.

Luongo contract is NOT bad..........damn you haters and fake fans there are worse contract out there that affect their team...5.3 cap hit is a bargain


5.3 is a not bad if he's playing at the level he's playing at now. If he's 38 and retired, and still takes up 5.3 mill in cap space, then his contract absolutely sucks.
  • 1
Posted Image
Credit to khalifawiz501 for the sig.
My old sig: http://tinypic.com/v...=5#.UlSrrlAWJ7U

#27 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:43 PM

Luongo contract is NOT bad..........damn you haters and fake fans there are worse contract out there that affect their team...5.3 cap hit is a bargain


You really don't have a solid understanding of what this thread is about do you?

Luongo's contract isn't bad at all under the current rules. Decent cap hit for a great goalie.

If you think that ANY contract (under the new rules) which means that a team gets whacked for a $5.3 million dollar cap hit for 3-5 years EVEN IF THEY TRADE THAT PLAYER AWAY OR HE IS RETIRED is good... then you are simply foolish.
  • 2
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#28 Watermelons

Watermelons

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,589 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:46 PM

Luongo contract is NOT bad..........damn you haters and fake fans there are worse contract out there that affect their team...5.3 cap hit is a bargain


Exactly. And the contract is designed so he only makes $1 million in the last 3 years, which means that he is likely to retire after 7 years (rather than 10)
  • 0

tumblr_lv6jbk180f1r5jtugo1_250.gif  Kirby_eats_a_watermelon.gif 


#29 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:52 PM

The cap floor teams wouldn't want to screw with the cap ceiling teams b/c the cap ceiling teams fund the revenue sharing. By tieing up the cap ceiling teams' cap space with this retroactive punishment, they won't do as well, which in some markets may lead to lower revenues, meaning theres less money to bail out the cap floor teams. The cap floor teams' owners had better realize this. Plus it's not just the cap ceiling teams who have signed cap circumventing contracts.


That is not solid logic. Most of the cap ceiling teams will get their revenue regardless of their on ice product... that is kind of the whole point of this labour issue. There are a few incredibly rich teams and a lot of lower end teams. A great real life example is Toronto who hasn't had a sniff of the playoffs in many years but still have their sellouts and big TV deals.

... and on the other side.... if you are a bottom spending team and suddenly the top teams can't afford to poach your free agents; can't compete against you for their own free agents; and even have to dump some of their good value players to you to get under the cap... how is that NOT to your benefit?

As for not just being cap ceiling teams with these contracts, that is true. But 7 of the top 10 spending teams have those contracts and only 3 of the bottom 10 spending teams have them.... so it is clearly dramatically shifted towards negatively affecting the top spending teams.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#30 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:54 PM

Exactly. And the contract is designed so he only makes $1 million in the last 3 years, which means that he is likely to retire after 7 years (rather than 10)


It would be handy for you to read the thread (heck even the title of it) before posting.
  • 2
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!




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.