oldnews Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Brent Seabrook for Roberto Luongo, and you'd "listen". Not a homer at all, clearly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I disagree, you could say the same thing about the lockout. A deal would have been done in October if it wasn't for all the posturing by either side to get the best deal for their side. What happened when it came down to crunch time? Both sides sat down and got a deal done. Brian Burke is going to go for luongo hard now as he's not going to sit around and wait for another veteran premier goalie to become availible. What we get for Lu is going to depend on how badly the other teams want him as well. After watching the past few months of posturing and bulls**t between the NHL and PA, I think we will never actually know the real answer to that. Tallon says bjugstad is untouchable. Is that really the hill he will die on? Did he make his absolute best offer in September? Is JVR also worth ten first rounds picks? Would Burke have really taken Reilly 1st overall? These guys say anything to extract leverage but in the end, when it comes down to crunch time, the offers will improve and I think that is going to happen soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The sense he is making relates to winning, not trade value King. The idea he is clearly endorsing is to keep a tandem in a short season - two goaltenders gives you a better chance of having a hot one - advantage Vancouver. Is that really so difficult to comprehend? We understand your point. It's just that not everyone agrees with you. Not everything relates to trade value King, or coveting other team's assets. The point he is making - and I realize this is difficult for you to understand since you've cast your opinion in cement on this one,- is that Luongo has value to the Canucks as well. It's a different strategic perspective than yours. He may be right. There really is no way of knowing at this point. He will either be dealt or kept, and either result could turn out to be a stroke of genius or an error in hindsight. But Button, your Craigslist authority regarding prospects, has an evidently opposing view regarding Luongo to you - and he is driving up the price if anyone listens to media banter. Someone in TO must have stepped on his toes... Whatever. I think Gillis will do his best to cut a favourable deal for Luongo. But the Canucks also have a lot of talent on their current roster - there are a few places to upgrade - but for the most part, a deep, balanced, talented roster. Once Luongo is moved, the biggest question mark will likely shift from 2nd line RW, or 3rd line center, to backup goaltending. I like Lack but he hasn't been healthy this season. It may not be conventional thinking, but some people actually consider goaltending an opportune place to have depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noheart Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Tebow in no #1 QB in the NFL. Tebow in more of a running back than QB. The problem with the Jets was they did not have even one #1, not that they had two. I agree it will be a circus. MG will pbbly trade Lu but only if he gets a descent return, he won't be giving Lu away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Pretty much, yes! That's how it worked in New England, when Brady supplanted Bledsoe. Teams make decisions and live and die with them. I'm on your side, I think it's the wrong decision to be trading Luongo, but the decision has been made nonetheless. The red carpet has been slid under Schneider's golden feet, like it or not, and the worst possible way to start off this marriage would be to have Roberto Luongo on the bench and with the crowd on his side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Gillis is almost impossible to read. His word is usually pretty scripted. He wants the teams involved to feel like they are prying Luongo out if Van. He doesn't have much tolerence for distractions M Schneider, Coho are examples of that. If Gillis truly believes Luongo is a distraction he will pull the trigger Quickly so the team can build chemistry before the playoffs. He tries to be proactive in preserving a positive culture in the dressing room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 You an NFL fan? How'd the New York Jets' season go? When you have two #1's, you actually often have none. TSN has already started a "LuongoWatch". This is already turning into a circus and the CBA hasn't even been ratified. It will only get worse, and it will be a detriment to this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 DP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 That is a very good point on Gillis' perspective on the situation. He's got the track record for eliminating distractions and I trust him in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noheart Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I certainly do too. But the fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Uh oh. Canucks are going to get screwed from Lu's contract. TSN Lebrun http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/21219/trades-cheat-deals-and-more-cba-details NEW YORK -- On Sunday, I broke down the more obvious key components of the tentative agreement. Now after getting our hands on more details of the agreement from a source, we bring you more: RETAINING SALARY IN TRADES This was Brian Burke’s baby, an idea he pushed for years at GM meetings. Under the old CBA, teams could not absorb any part of a salary from a player they were trading -- unlike baseball for example. But in this new agreement, teams will be able to do that. Here are the main parameters of the rule: a club cannot absorb more than 50 percent of the players’ annual cap hit/salary in any trade. Any NHL club can only have up to three contracts on their payroll where the contract was traded away under the retaining salary proviso. Also, only up to 15 percent of your upper limit cap amount can be used up by the money you have retained in trades. For example, let’s say the Maple Leafs want to trade little-used blueliner Mike Komisarek and his $4.5-million cap hit ($3.5 million salary this year) to the New York Islanders (hypothetically). The Leafs could retain half the cap hit -- $2.25 million -- and half the salary -- $1.75 million -- in order to facilitate the deal. The Islanders would pay him the other half. This should facilitate more trades around the league, no question. THE LUONGO RULE This is another rule from the league aimed at hammering current back-diving deals (front-loaded, "cheat deals." However, this has changed from its original form when the NHL first proposed it in October. In the original formula, if a player like Roberto Luongo was traded and retired before the end of his deal, the Canucks (the team who signed him to the contract) would assume his remaining $5.33-million cap early hit in retirement. The new rule in this tentative agreement is different. Now, for any contract in excess of six years, both teams involved in a trade on a contract like Luongo’s would be penalized if he retired before the end of his deal. To wit: let’s say the Canucks trade Luongo soon. Luongo has played two years of his 12-year contract, the Canucks paying him $16.716 million in salary but only absorbing a $5.33 million cap hit each year. That’s a cap savings of $6.056 million over two years so far for Vancouver. Under this new rule, should the Canucks trade him now and he retires with three years left on his contract, Vancouver would be charged that $6.056 million in cap savings over the final three years left on his deal from 2019 to 2022. However, let’s say for argument’s sake Luongo gets traded to Toronto, the Maple Leafs also would be subject to cap penalties if Luongo retires before the end of his deal. To wit, part 2: If Luongo were to play the next seven years of his deal in Toronto before retiring, the Leafs would be paying him $43.666 million in salary but only counting $37.31 million against the cap over those seven years, a cap savings of $6.356 million. So if Luongo retires with three years left on his deal (because his salary falls to $1.618 million in the 10th year and then $1 million in the last two years of the deal), the Leafs would get charged that $6.356 million on their cap spread evenly over the remaining three years of his deal. And obviously, if players under these back-diving deals are never traded, but retire before the end of their deals (Marian Hossa in Chicago), their current teams get charged the cap savings spread evenly over the remaining years of the deal. COMPLIANCE BUYOUTS Teams will be allowed up to two buyouts over the next two summers -- 2013 and 2014 -- either one in each summer or two in one summer and none in the other. The new detail here that I found interesting is that any player bought out under these circumstances CANNOT be re-acquired by that same team during the upcoming season, not by waivers, not by trade and not by free-agent signing. Obvious reason here: league doesn’t want teams to cheat the system and get a player back under a cheaper salary (since the buyout doesn’t count against the salary cap). PLAYERS’ PENSIONS The pension plan shall be frozen at the termination of this CBA, whether that’s in eight years or 10 years. The NHL and the NHLPA will have to either agree to continue the pension under similar guidelines in the next CBA, or renegotiate new terms for it. No small detail there, given the acrimony over this pension negotiation, which was only resolved at the 11th hour Sunday morning. UFA FREE AGENCY INTERVIEW PERIOD Similar to the NBA, the NHL has instituted a free-agency interview period prior to the actual signing period. UFAs will be able to meet and interview with potential clubs from the day after the NHL draft until June 30, prior to the July 1 opening of free agency. What’s interesting about this is that I don’t think you’ll have a Parise/Suter situation where you wait all the way to July 4 to sign with a team. Instead, their decisions will be made by June 30 for the most part, you would have to assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Another article from CBC's Friedmen http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2013/01/new-cba-doesnt-hurt-roberto-luongo.html Since the various reports of a Roberto Luongo trade to Toronto aren't already insane enough...let's throw some gasoline on the fire! One of the intricacies of the new yet-to-be-ratified CBA is the "cap-recapture system." Basically, this affects players with long-term deals (minimum five or six years, I'm not 100 per cent certain). Either way, Luongo's counts because his is a 12-year deal. Therefore, there will be a penalty if he retires before the contract is completed. How does it work? The simplest way to explain it is this: Let's assume the Canucks and Maple Leafs make the deal. Vancouver would be responsible for the "cap benefit" that it received in the first two years. Toronto would be responsible for any remaining "cap benefit" it gets as a result of contract structure if he walks away early. Here's the math. Luongo salary: 2010-11: $10 million US 2011-12: $6,716,000 That's a total of $16,716,000. Luongo's cap hit is $5,333,333. You multiply it by how many years he spent with the Canucks, so, in this case, that figure is doubled. That's $10,666,666. What was the cap benefit to Vancouver? You take the actual salaries paid ($16,716,000) and subtract the total amount of cap space the Canucks used ($10,666,666). The answer is $6,049,334. That is the "cap benefit" Vancouver received in the first two years of Luongo's contract. The key -- and the thing I had to check -- is that this number has zero immediate effect on the Canucks' cap situation. It is basically "frozen" and does not become an issue unless he retires before his contract is up. So let's say he happily goes to Toronto (and really, who wouldn't happily go there?), spending seven seasons there before saying, "I've had enough" in the summer of 2019. Actual cash numbers Here are his actual cash numbers for those years: 2012-13 through 2017-18: $6,714,000 2018-19: $3,382,000 He would then walk away from three years at a combined $3,618,000. And, it's time for the penalties. Vancouver's "frozen" $6,049,334 thaws. It is divided by the number of "unused" years in Luongo's contract -- three. The figure is $2,016,445. The Canucks will get a "cap penalty" at that amount for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 seasons. As for Toronto, the Maple Leafs will pay Luongo $43,666,000. (I'm not pro-rating this year's lockout-infected salary. Going for the easy math here). The total cap hit for those seven seasons is $37,333,331. The difference is $6,332,669. Divide it by the three unused years in Luongo's contract, and the penalty per season is $2,111,890 -- slightly larger than Vancouver's. I wasn't really tuned into the outside world today, but heard people were wondering if it made more sense for Vancouver to buy out Luongo. These figures make it seem non-sensical. First of all, with the opt-out clauses attached to the length of the new CBA, there's no guarantee the rules will be the same by the time the penalties are scheduled to take effect. Second, there may just be a loophole. From what I understand, Long-Term Injury Reserve still exists. (For example, it allows Chris Pronger to come off the Philadelphia cap while he recovers from concussions). God forbid Luongo (or anyone else) goes through that. But he will be 40 in the summer of 2019. Who knows what happens to a goalie's body by then? Maybe he's had enough and is battling some nagging groin or hip or knee problem. He goes on LTIR, still gets paid and neither Toronto nor Vancouver gets any kind of penalty. Could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onions Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I certainly do too. But the fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The CBA may also have fundamentally changed the landscape where Luongo is concerned, in a good way for Vancouver. The CBA didn't quite go as Burkie had hoped. The reason I say that is because I think once the dust settles on the new CBA, it might have created a new front-runner interested in Luongo. Holmgren, fresh with a buyout option in one hand, loads of cash in the other, and desperate to improve Philly on the back end could very realistically be seriously interested in Luongo. Can he not now divorce Bryz's contract and buy him out? He has a lot of assets up front to work with, and is rather suspect on the back end. He could also be as interested as anyone in Edler. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Gillis gets some calls from Philadelphia in the next week. We've all seen that Holmgren is anything but shy about wheeling and dealing. The penalties around long term contracts are not as stiff as Burke had hoped. It may play out in Phillly (and Vancouver's) favour. Luo, 3rd for Couturier and Voracek Luo and Edler for Couturier, Vorachek, Coburn, and a 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I certainly do too. But the fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70seven Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Very interesting stuff! Still not really sure if the helps or hinders the deal, but good on the NHL for making teams pay for their cap circumvention in a very intreguing manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Very interesting stuff! Still not really sure if the helps or hinders the deal, but good on the NHL for making teams pay for their cap circumvention in a very intreguing manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangelos Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Luo, 3rd for Couturier and Voracek Luo and Edler for Couturier, Vorachek, Coburn, and a 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The cap penalty is a huge blow to Luongo's value. Plus, we are already 6 mill in the hole in the future. Luongo is not going to play out his entire contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The CBA may also have fundamentally changed the landscape where Luongo is concerned, in a good way for Vancouver. The CBA didn't quite go as Burkie had hoped. The reason I say that is because I think once the dust settles on the new CBA, it might have created a new front-runner interested in Luongo. Holmgren, fresh with a buyout option in one hand, loads of cash in the other, and desperate to improve Philly on the back end could very realistically be seriously interested in Luongo. Can he not now divorce Bryz's contract and buy him out? He has a lot of assets up front to work with, and is rather suspect on the back end. He could also be as interested as anyone in Edler. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Gillis is getting a few calls from Philadelphia. We've all seen that Holmgren is anything but shy about wheeling and dealing. Luo, 3rd for Couturier and Voracek Luo and Edler for Couturier, Vorachek, Coburn, and a 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.