Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Luongo Trade Market with new Proposed CBA Rules

Discussion

This topic has been archived.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

#1 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:53 PM

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)

Edited by Provost, 22 October 2012 - 04:53 PM.

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

#2 kanucks1

kanucks1

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 12

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:57 PM

????
Posted Image


CDC Fantasy League GM Chicago Blackhawks

#3 Red-Haired_Shanks

Red-Haired_Shanks

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 12

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:15 PM

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)


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.
NHL! WHY YOU LOCKOUT!

#4 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:33 PM

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

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 22 October 2012 - 05:35 PM.

zackass.png


#5 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 October 2012 - 06:29 PM

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.


Both the current league and the NHLPA offers avoid the idea that we retain current salaries AND reduce the cap. There is no option on the table where somehow we have to get down to $59 million dollars shedding existing contracts.

Lots of people are talking bout this, but it is not a possibility... there is no way mathematically it could happen on a league level, nor is either side asking for it. they both have mechanisms where the additional salary above the 50% split is taken away from the calculation.
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#6 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 October 2012 - 06:33 PM

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.


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

#7 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,405 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:58 PM

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.


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.

#8 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:14 PM

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?


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

#9 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,405 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:13 PM

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.


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.

#10 Avicii

Avicii

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,363 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 07

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:14 PM

I'd definitely do Lecavalier for Luongo. I've been begging for that trade for months.

Posted Image


#11 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:41 AM

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.


1. Good point, but we would be taking Salary back, so yes we can take an Upshall back or something but that still won't get us Bjugstad. He's not going anywhere, or else the deal would have been done by now.

2. First off, I dont know how Tampa can have aspirations of going far in the playoffs with that Roster, there defense has improved but it is still old, and there Forward group has only gotten worse over time, they have alot of other issues than just goaltending if they want a run. I think they are taking an approach that they have to build for the future, (near like 2 or 3 years) that's why they got a young goalie, they brought in older veterans on bad contracts so that they could remain competitve (they pulled a mini-Florida) but really they are just waiting for some young players to get a bit better and crack the line-up, then when all the pieces are in place they will go for the goalie, no sense wasting assets that could be better served in the future.

And they wanted Schneider, but now that we are keeping him all there were offering is Lecavalier and heck no. We have to pay 3.5-4 million for everything we could get in Tyler Bozak.

So no thanks to Lecavalier, he's not the player he once was, and I don't see TBay giving us anything else because I don't think they are truely all that interested in Luongo.

zackass.png


#12 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:43 AM

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.


Well it seems constant that through all the reports on TV (regardless of whether money was one or not) that the constant issue was the price. And how can you say it's not? because if it wasn't the deal would have already been done.

So maybe Provost is right and they want to send some cap back, but in order for us to be willing to do that the Return has to be good enough (probably meaning Bjugstad) and that isn't gunna fly with Florida right now.

zackass.png


#13 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:14 AM

I'd definitely do Lecavalier for Luongo. I've been begging for that trade for months.


I wouldn't do that trade if we were being hit for his whole cap hit... just too much to spend on a guy that will likely only be #4 in team scoring.
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#14 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:25 AM

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.


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).
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#15 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,146 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:55 AM

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)


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 23 October 2012 - 06:08 AM.


#16 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:05 AM

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.

#17 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,405 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:03 AM

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).


Ya, I looked through capgeek as well. 15 teams with 8+ yr contracts on the books, most of which expire when a player turns 39+. That doesn't even take into account the additional teams with 5+ yr contracts - who are liable under the new proposal.

I could also forsee major legal issues down the road. And yap, Burkes fingerprints are all over this one. I bet that makes Gillis feel all warm and fuzzy. I bet he really wants to trade his #1 goaltender to him now.

But if the 'retaining salary' clause goes through, I can see more teams joining the mix. Assuming Canucks org is OK paying some of his salary for a better package. I'd think Florida would be back on board - Dreger has said Canucks taking $$ back was the sticking point.

#18 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:46 AM

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.


Yes, it is a proposal only... and the exact wording of the proposed clause is pretty lame and meaningless. Burke's full vision (as he articulated MANY times before the negotiations) was that teams could retain either cap or salary in a trade.

If you could do this, you can trade bad contracts... but effectively only between rich and poor teams. One team would have to be willing to eat extra cap hit, and the other would have to be willing to eat extra salary.

That puts Chicago and San Jose out of the picture for that sort of trade... both are generally cap ceiling teams and would not be wanting to eat extra cap space for players they trade to us. That isn't to say that a regular player for player trade couldn't happen with those teams.

I personally think that unless we get a really decent offer (if there is a season)... then we should keep both goalies for a while. A compressed schedule means lots more games in fewer nights... it means you have to play your backup goalie a ton more or kill your starter. Us being able to split starts between two elite goalies would be a massive advantage. That is on top of the fact that there are likely to be lots of injuries early in the season due to shortened training camps. I wouldn't be surprised to see 10 starting goalies out of commission with groin injuries a month into the season.
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!




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.