Archived

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

boxiebrown

The New Cap Circumvention

36 posts in this topic

This is something that I haven't seen mentioned yet but that I think would be a great strategy for rich teams like the Canucks.

The cap for this year is 70.2, and the Canucks are at 67.7 with a full roster. Let's imagine that we move Luongo (which is likely) and dump one of Ballard or Booth for a late draft pick (not as likely, but definitely possible.) That would probably give us in the neighbourhood of 8 million in cap space, which in turn gives us a HUGE opportunity. That cap space allows us to pick up a good player on a bad contract, use them for this season, and then amnesty them in the summer.

For example, it's likely that Tampa wants to amnesty Lecavalier. He is still a good player, but he is not worth the contract. Instead of using an amnesty on him, though, they could just trade him to us. This would help Tampa for the following reasons:

  • They could get rid of his contract now rather than in the summer, saving the owner money and giving them more cap flexibility

  • When you amnesty a player, you still have to pay 2/3 of his salary. For a small market team like Tampa, that's prohibitive. This way, they don't have to pay anything.

  • Instead of losing him for nothing, they'd get an asset back, even if it's just a late draft pick.

Some other players that could be acquired like this are Heatley, Bouwmeester and Pronger. Obviously it's expensive to get players and then amnesty them, but it could give rich, savvy teams like the Canucks a great one time opportunity to take advantage of the higher cap. I think we should go for it!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know when you buy someone out, you have to BUY them.. with money.. Its really easy to spend other peoples money, but I highly doubt gillis does anything like this just to spend MILLIONS of aquilini's money on a longshot

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know when you buy someone out, you have to BUY them.. with money.. Its really easy to spend other peoples money, but I highly doubt gillis does anything like this just to spend MILLIONS of aquilini's money on a longshot

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad idea actually if Tampa wants to go that route and we are willing to pay that much money for a one year rental. Lecavalier's contract is too much though, it would have to be a cheaper one. Love to see Heatley with the Sedins even though he's a chump. I want to see a bonfide top notch goal scorer with them. It's a shame we have one of the top 5 passers (probably number 2) to ever play the game and no 50 goal scorer to go with it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they would want to dump it on an eastern team. Not a western team.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't really, no more than back loaded contracts did. All it does is use the amnesty clause to acquire a player that would otherwise be prohibitive to acquire. For some reason, though, people call using the rules creatively "circumvention."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? Why shouldn't we do our best to win a Cup, within the rules?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you forget that we're losing assets to gain the players you want to buyout. If the buyout player was a throw in along with other good assets we would be happy to get for whatever we give up, then sure, but not many teams would do so.

Your post suggests:

Van gets Lecavalier

Tampa gets Luongo

My post suggests

Van gets Lecavalier, Garon, Connelly

Tampa gets Luongo, Rodin

Garon's a 34 year old pending UFA that Luongo would push out of the rotation, Lecavalier is the pending buyout that will do nothing except for cost us money after this season, but Connelly is the return we get for long term. I'm still not sure I'm happy with that considering we get two players for this year only before we drop them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Lecavalier is too expensive, but it might not be bad if Kesler won't be back this season.

Also, the details to the new CBA aren't all confirmed yet as far as I know, so don't count out the possibility that there will be a rule preventing things like this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you forget that we're losing assets to gain the players you want to buyout. If the buyout player was a throw in along with other good assets we would be happy to get for whatever we give up, then sure, but not many teams would do so.

Your post suggests:

Van gets Lecavalier

Tampa gets Luongo

My post suggests

Van gets Lecavalier, Garon, Connelly

Tampa gets Luongo, Rodin

Garon's a 34 year old pending UFA that Luongo would push out of the rotation, Lecavalier is the pending buyout that will do nothing except for cost us money after this season, but Connelly is the return we get for long term. I'm still not sure I'm happy with that considering we get two players for this year only before we drop them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

back loaded contracts are what helped create the lockout. Time for the owners to stop any "cap circumvention."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually didn't suggest a Tampa to Luongo deal. In my post, I was assuming that Luongo would be dealt in a separate trade (probably to Toronto.) So in that scenario, we would only give Tampa a very minor asset for Lecavalier. But I agree that Tampa could be persuaded to give up good pieces as part of a Luongo deal if we are willing to take Vinny's contract. That might be the most realistic scenario, in fact.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.