Archived

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

VoiceOfReason_

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

70 posts in this topic

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!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this news? If so, source?

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.