boxiebrown Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 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 flexibilityWhen 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Jane Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Doesnt mean Tampa goes for it. And people should give booth a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-52 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 Doesnt mean Tampa goes for it. And people should give booth a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Jane Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 they would want to dump it on an eastern team. Not a western team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 No more cap circumvention! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 they would want to dump it on an eastern team. Not a western team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 No more cap circumvention! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babych Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 How does this circumvent the cap, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 they would want to dump it on an eastern team. Not a western team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 How does this circumvent the cap, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babych Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Why not? Why shouldn't we do our best to win a Cup, within the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 back loaded contracts are what helped create the lockout. Time for the owners to stop any "cap circumvention." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.