Provost Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Looking at the NHL's last offer, it included a couple of clauses that could dramatically change the landscape for a Luongo trade. 1. The punitive clause on long term contracts which means we would be stuck with Luongo's cap hit after he retires even if we trade him. I will pretty much ignore this clause as I don't see it actually going through... literally half the teams in the league have one of these contracts. 2. The clause allowing a team to retain half of actual salary or cap hit in a trade. Assuming a limitation on this, something like 1 contract on the books where you are retaining salary; and 1 contract where another team is taking half the cap hit for your player. The 2nd one makes a huge difference in the value of Luongo. We could absorb a bad value contract in return and only get charged half the cap hit for that player. Conversely, we can pay some of Luongo's salary even after we trade him... the real dollars are a a bigger issue for many teams than the salary cap... much less so for the Canucks, especially considering the payroll that will be saved in an eventual reduced player share. MG will look like a genius if the 2nd clause goes in, just imagine how much more Columbus could have gotten for Nash if the receiving team was only charged half his cap hit? Nash at under $4 million per year? We would have definitely been in on that! Here are a couple of options: To Van: Bjugstad Theodore Upshall (we only take half his cap hit) To Florida: Luongo (we pay half his salary) Raymond Or: To Van: Lecavalier (half his cap hit) 1st or 2nd round pick Garon To Tampa Bay: Luongo (half his salary) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks1 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Haired_Shanks Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Looking at the NHL's last offer, it included a couple of clauses that could dramatically change the landscape for a Luongo trade. 1. The punitive clause on long term contracts which means we would be stuck with Luongo's cap hit after he retires even if we trade him. I will pretty much ignore this clause as I don't see it actually going through... literally half the teams in the league have one of these contracts. 2. The clause allowing a team to retain half of actual salary or cap hit in a trade. Assuming a limitation on this, something like 1 contract on the books where you are retaining salary; and 1 contract where another team is taking half the cap hit for your player. The 2nd one makes a huge difference in the value of Luongo. We could absorb a bad value contract in return and only get charged half the cap hit for that player. Conversely, we can pay some of Luongo's salary even after we trade him... the real dollars are a a bigger issue for many teams than the salary cap... much less so for the Canucks, especially considering the payroll that will be saved in an eventual reduced player share. MG will look like a genius if the 2nd clause goes in, just imagine how much more Columbus could have gotten for Nash if the receiving team was only charged half his cap hit? Nash at under $4 million per year? We would have definitely been in on that! Here are a couple of options: To Van: Bjugstad Theodore Upshall (we only take half his cap hit) To Florida: Luongo (we pay half his salary) Raymond Or: To Van: Lecavalier (half his cap hit) 1st or 2nd round pick Garon To Tampa Bay: Luongo (half his salary) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 No to both. Like I said before if we got Bjugstad the deal would have been done along time ago, as nice as it would be I have pretty much given up hope in him coming our way. I know you made some good points about how the salary would be divded but his contract wasn't really ever the issue for Florida, it was just the price. And Tampa has there goalie, they dont want Luongo, and I dont believe the salary was ever the reason, I just trust that Yzerman was never interested, and Bozak produces just as much, and for that little Salary I would take him rather than having to pay 3.5 or 4 for Lecavlier, who also is older and has longer length. To me there are only 2 possible teams still. - Toronto - Florida Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 well thats all good but if the new CBA goes in another direction and decreases the salary cap then we are screwed. and tampa says no to the 2nd deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 No to both. Like I said before if we got Bjugstad the deal would have been done along time ago, as nice as it would be I have pretty much given up hope in him coming our way. I know you made some good points about how the salary would be divded but his contract wasn't really ever the issue for Florida, it was just the price. And Tampa has there goalie, they dont want Luongo, and I dont believe the salary was ever the reason, I just trust that Yzerman was never interested, and Bozak produces just as much, and for that little Salary I would take him rather than having to pay 3.5 or 4 for Lecavlier, who also is older and has longer length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunningWild Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I didn't realize there was a proposed clause regarding trading a player and transferring 1/2 their 'cap hit'? I thought the clause was trading a player but retaining a certain % of their 'salary'? Are you talking about the same clause, or are they 2 different ones? Also, @SmashianKassian: I know you made some good points about how the salary would be divded but his contract wasn't really ever the issue for Florida, it was just the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 I didn't realize there was a proposed clause regarding trading a player and transferring 1/2 their 'cap hit'? I thought the clause was trading a player but retaining a certain % of their 'salary'? Are you talking about the same clause, or are they 2 different ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunningWild Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I went back to look directly at the NHL proposal and it states up to 50% of salary AND cap hit to a max of $3 million. With a max of 2 contracts and $5 million at any particular time. I am not sure where I read that you could de-link the two... which is very different. The wording of the NHL clause doesn't seem like it would have much impact at all... I can't think of a lot of situations where you would want to get rid of a player, but keep a portion of their salary AND cap hit. Rich teams can afford the salary but not the cap hit... poor teams can afford the cap hits and not the salary. Maybe it was one of the beat writers who talked about the ability to EITHER retain cap or salary, and not necessarily both. It does seem to make more sense in terms of spurring the ability to make trades (which are a rare breed now), and that it would help financially struggling teams as they would often be on the receiving end of "name" players who may still be very useful... just not in terms of value for their cap hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avicii Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I'd definitely do Lecavalier for Luongo. I've been begging for that trade for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 You have made thsoe two points, but I think they are thoroughly refutable. 1. The cash owing Luongo is most certainly a big issue for Florida... there is a very good reason that we ate Reinprecht's salary in our last trade... and that is because $2 million in real dollars is a big deal to them. This would be an extension of that concept. 2. Tampa's goalie has less than 40 CAREER NHL games to his name. To even suggest that a team with aspirations to go well into the playoffs is happy with that is ridiculous. Virtually ALL the rumours out there involved Tampa backing off Luongo because they insisted on Lecavalier coming back. That contract was almost enough to stop their current owner from buying the team, and many reports from Tampa were that his priority has been to get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I didn't realize there was a proposed clause regarding trading a player and transferring 1/2 their 'cap hit'? I thought the clause was trading a player but retaining a certain % of their 'salary'? Are you talking about the same clause, or are they 2 different ones? Also, @SmashianKassian: We don't know this^. Dreger has stated that the issue between Florida/Van is that Van was not take $$ back in the trade. He also said Florida is the frontrunner for Lu. Today, Friedman in his 30 Thoughts said the issue was asking price. Others media members have suggested the issue was Canucks brass asking Bjugstad whether he was returning to Uni or not this yr. That's 3 very different reports on what the 'sticking point is'. Suggesting no one has a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 I'd definitely do Lecavalier for Luongo. I've been begging for that trade for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 Ya, I just looked at the verbage. I'm confused if they are linked or not. I agree it doesn't make sense to link them. Very strange wording in the 'Kovy Clause' though. Any contract of 5 yrs or more is subject to these rules, "regardless of whether or where a Player is playing". It doesn't mention if this player is on LTIR, such as Pronger and Savard. I mean if the NHLPA accepts this clause, Boston will automatically have Savards $4M cap hit counting against their space for 5 more yrs. Philly will automatically have Prongers $5M cap hit eating their space for 5 more yrs. The other clause re: not barrying $$ in the minors would immediately effect NYR. They'd have Reddens $6.5M cap hit for 2 more yrs. I can't honestly believe that 3 of the apparent most 'powerful' GM's are allowing these clauses. It directly affects them all .... immediately. Where as it 'might' affect Vancouver in the future. It's just strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Theodore and Upshall do not make us better contenders. Apparently Bjugstad has great potential, but we need more urgency to win now reflected in our deal. Not 2 years from now. So lets save Florida some real money; Campbell's $28 million owing... I would pay half Ballard's salary to move him to, say Florida. They don't have a problem taking on cap, but want to save actual real dollars. But if they have genuine interest in Lou, why pay half his salary to get rid of him? First reason is he is only a few clutch play off games from being a true superstar, still a great player. Second is he is still owed near $50 million dollars. That contract was a mistake, but he is still a serviceable player and cap hit. In the scale of an NHL teams salary I can pay $2.3 mill each year for 3 years to free Ballard, and use the cap space for another player. Money well spent, it could be recovered in 1 play off year. $25 million is a whole different scale. But investing $25 mill on Campbell if we get to keep him is a different story. I proposed, in a different thread, Campbell and Bjugstad for Lou, a first and Ballard. We'll pay all Campbell's salary, they take half the cap. We pay half Ballards salary they get all the cap. It costs them $800,000 in cap hit and saves them $25 mill in real dollars. Now they can afford Lou. Lou and Ballard > Campbell; it's even a good hockey trade for them. They also have Howden and Huberdeau as genuine centre prospects. They do not need Bjugstad either. It's good for us as we have Schneider to offset loosing Lou and Campbell's ability to lug the puck makes us an exceptionally dangerous team. A fair trade all round! Looking at the NHL's last offer, it included a couple of clauses that could dramatically change the landscape for a Luongo trade. 1. The punitive clause on long term contracts which means we would be stuck with Luongo's cap hit after he retires even if we trade him. I will pretty much ignore this clause as I don't see it actually going through... literally half the teams in the league have one of these contracts. 2. The clause allowing a team to retain half of actual salary or cap hit in a trade. Assuming a limitation on this, something like 1 contract on the books where you are retaining salary; and 1 contract where another team is taking half the cap hit for your player. The 2nd one makes a huge difference in the value of Luongo. We could absorb a bad value contract in return and only get charged half the cap hit for that player. Conversely, we can pay some of Luongo's salary even after we trade him... the real dollars are a a bigger issue for many teams than the salary cap... much less so for the Canucks, especially considering the payroll that will be saved in an eventual reduced player share. MG will look like a genius if the 2nd clause goes in, just imagine how much more Columbus could have gotten for Nash if the receiving team was only charged half his cap hit? Nash at under $4 million per year? We would have definitely been in on that! Here are a couple of options: To Van: Bjugstad Theodore Upshall (we only take half his cap hit) To Florida: Luongo (we pay half his salary) Raymond Or: To Van: Lecavalier (half his cap hit) 1st or 2nd round pick Garon To Tampa Bay: Luongo (half his salary) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 This is just a proposal by the league and not set in stone but if it flies you could have teams with a player with a bad contract trading him for another player with a bad contract. As i said before Lou for Hossa it works on so many levels and dont count out Chicago as a trading partner. I suspect there are more teams in the mix than just Toronto or Florida. Gillis is not going to give Lou away for scrubs like so many on here seem to think. Patick Marleau is another guy that would fit perfect on the Canucks as i think San Jose is the dark horse in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunningWild Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Ya, I seriously doubt that clause makes it... I call this NHL proposal the "Burke option", it has his fingerprints all over it and reflects basically everything that he has been arguing about for several years. I did a quick gander a few days ago, and there appears to be 15-16 teams who have long term contracts like this that they are assuming come off the books in later years, most of them cap ceiling teams. Including this punitive clause would markedly affect the competitive level of these teams for years. The scary thing is that only 8 teams need to agree with Bettman for it to be pushed through. If they managed to push it through against the wishes of the majority of owners, I honestly expect huge fallout in the league up to and including court action from several teams, owners are not going to accept having their team with effectively 10% less cap room because of a rule that never existed when they signed the contracts. The league had every bit of authority to not accept them when they were submitted, but they chose to let those contracts to go through... and even in an arbitration decided a second time to allow them (specifically Luongo's by name). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 24, 2012 Author Share Posted October 24, 2012 This is just a proposal by the league and not set in stone but if it flies you could have teams with a player with a bad contract trading him for another player with a bad contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.