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!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
69 replies to this topic

#61 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,761 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 17 October 2012 - 04:34 PM

If it were as simple as that, it would be easy to argue you would not need both clauses?

By "grandfathering" I am suggesting teams would have the ability to trade players on contracts signed before the new CBA without penalty risk. And look at what will happen if not. Toronto trades for Lou. Then they give him a payout to retire after 3 years; here's a $5 mill coaching contract... Then we wear the cap hit.

But in reality, I am sure the players will not accept such a clause. They all hold some secret belief they can cash in like Suter and Parise at some point in their careers. And that theory actually works against them. If Parise (is forced by such a CBA) into a more reasonable contract there is likely more money for 2knd tier and depth players. Competitive teams will still spend to the cap, and it should help parity as you can afford stars and good role players. But I still see this as leaving it as a serious hindrance on players ability to negotiate. I doubt this clause makes the final cut for many reasons, but this the most important.

That would make no sense, since the CBA wouldn't allow anyone to sign a contract over 5 years as the NHL has proposed it anyway. Why bother having the clause if you've already grandfathered the old contracts and don't allow for any new ones to be created?


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 17 October 2012 - 04:37 PM.


#62 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,153 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 07:54 PM

This clause would be a hindrance for the Canucks long term - but it would increase Luongo's trade value because all the red herrings about the term of his contract would become even less valid, actually a non-issue. All that a team would be acquiring would be the years that they want to pay for (in Luongo's case, at a bargain 5.3 milion). If that clause were to exist and apply to all existing contracts it would in effect be an attempt to rewrite the previous CBA after the fact - which I think is completely unrealistic to be honest - you simply can't retroactively apply the terms of 35+ contracts under the last CBA, AND add an additional non-transferrable aspect. Dream on Burke - and try looking forward instead of attempting to find favourable terms on which to poach Luongo.

If that nonsense were to ever fly, be prepared to pay a steep price if you want Luongo. The Canucks would need a lot of incentive to accept the contingency of the future cap. However, it could make the short term return very seriously signifcant - and in the sense that some people see the window as now or never...
Somehow I think if Burke got his way on this, Gillis would snub him and not even answer the phone if Burke came calling for Luongo - unless he is in fact prepared to strip mine his system.

#63 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,005 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:29 PM

A lifetime contract is for life. Bobby is a Canuck for life.

Bobby is our guy 'going forward'.

#64 Ray_Cathode

Ray_Cathode

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,887 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:15 AM

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

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


Being realistic about Luongo's play and his contract doesn't make a person a hater or a fake fan - it meakes a person realistic. If Luongo's contract was such a great deal, teams would have been pounding down Gillis's door and offering the moon. Clearly they weren't, so just as clearly his contract is no great deal - in fact, the contract is so bad that it devalues Luongo's value in a trade.

#65 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,622 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:14 AM

If it were as simple as that, it would be easy to argue you would not need both clauses?

By "grandfathering" I am suggesting teams would have the ability to trade players on contracts signed before the new CBA without penalty risk. And look at what will happen if not. Toronto trades for Lou. Then they give him a payout to retire after 3 years; here's a $5 mill coaching contract... Then we wear the cap hit.

But in reality, I am sure the players will not accept such a clause. They all hold some secret belief they can cash in like Suter and Parise at some point in their careers. And that theory actually works against them. If Parise (is forced by such a CBA) into a more reasonable contract there is likely more money for 2knd tier and depth players. Competitive teams will still spend to the cap, and it should help parity as you can afford stars and good role players. But I still see this as leaving it as a serious hindrance on players ability to negotiate. I doubt this clause makes the final cut for many reasons, but this the most important.

Having one (max new contract length is 5 years) means that the other (cap applying to original team if player on a 6+ year contract retires) is redundant if you choose to exclude the contracts signed prior to the new CBA. There would be no contracts left that the second clause would apply to. All old contracts would be excluded and all new contracts would be max 5 years.

I've mentioned already that there's no way this makes it into the new CBA anyways, unless the players can find an altered version that would suit them. I've also made the point that most of the current contracts that would fall under this clause have more than 6-7 years left on them, and only a minority of those are paid the minimum amount before the new CBA would expire (Luongo isn't one of those). At this point, it would be more relevant if the next CBA had this clause in it than the one they're currently bargaining over.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#66 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,761 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:37 PM

It is there to make teams think, twice, three times, four times, hell 30 times before handing out any big money contract.And players won't get big $'s...

You don't think reduced salaries would be attractive to owners?

:sick:

Why is it that if the contract is dealt to another team,that the original team gets stuck with the cap hit, if and when that player retires? Bettman is just being a complete idiot at this point and must have really lost his mind. The thing that baffles me the most is why are the owners behind this?

There has to be more to this..... Maybe it's baiting the players along with other concessions in order to get the deal done and will be taken off the table once the players say no to this proposal. This still doesn't really explain things, but I cant think of any other reason to do this?



#67 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,622 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:48 PM

It is there to make teams think, twice, three times, four times, hell 30 times before handing out any big money contract.And players won't get big $'s...

You don't think reduced salaries would be attractive to owners?

:sick:

It's more to the point of penalizing the teams that have signed players to long term contracts that extend into their 40's and are extremely front loaded to make the cap hit palatable. It would have a secondary effect of bringing down the value overall (through less years and less salary in the initial years) but signing someone to a 5 year deal worth $7+M/year wouldn't be addressed by that clause.

Scott Hartnell's deal, or maybe a better example is Shane Doan's deal, pay significant money for a number of years where their play may decline. That might cause them to retire, but it's hardly an issue where their using $1-1.5M salary tacked on to the end in years 7-10 to save on cap hit. If they were traded and then retired before their deals were up, then their cap hits would work as normal - not revert to the team that signed them to that deal.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#68 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:36 PM

I think this is more of a scare tactic than going to be a real thing.
Posted Image

#69 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:00 PM

I'm surprised the owners are even talking about this and not grandfathering in any existing contracts. It would be interesting to see whether the owners will get together and pull this clause if the players were to actually allow it to pass.

I don't see this stopping teams from taking a risk by signing exceptional players to these sort of cap-circumventing contracts. What I do see is a reduction in the number of players who will be offered these sorts of deals in the future.

For example: the Canucks manage to draft MacKinnon (yes, he falls that far down in the draft). They go through the required time up to his RFA period. MacKinnon makes it know he wants to stay here for his whole career, but he also wants to be paid. If you were Gillis, would you offer this guy a 5 year contract, or a 10 year deal?

On the other hand, would you offer a contract with a term any longer than 5 years to a lesser player?

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#70 chrisbanks

chrisbanks

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,690 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:07 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.

depietro doesnt count as his contract is the same every year.... it doesnt drop off drastically in the last 3 or 4 years other players that have long contracts are likely to keep playing unless it goes into their 40s like luongo so it wouldnt matter to thoes teams either it would work like this we trade luongo to florida they are stuck with his cap hit and salary if he retires in thoes last few years wheer he makes no money thoes last few years the original cap hit goes against original team that signed the contract the canucks .




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.