• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      All Threads Must Contain Tags!   07/25/2017

      ALL THREADS MUST CONTAIN TAGS   All threads in this forum must contain tags prefixed to topic titles. The purpose of the tags is to eliminate confusion in recent threads lists, and to create an organized and consistent environment. Moderators may immediately lock and thread that does not contain tags.    Tags must be placed at the start of your thread title, following this exact formatting:    [Tag] Thread Title   Here are some of the most used popular tags:    [Proposal]
      A trade, or trades, for next season, or even the off-season.
      [Off-Season]
      FA signings, off-season trades for RFA's, UFA's rights etc...
      [Value Of]
      (A question regarding a players worth, whether from another team, or the Canucks)
      [Speculation] Posting a rumor (with a source of course), but providing why it could be possible for the Canucks to land that player.   [Discussion]
      Thoughts on team trading strategy and composition.   Please feel free to create your own tag if none of these suit your thread.   

Archived

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

boxiebrown

The New Cap Circumvention

Recommended Posts

It is misleading since you mention trading Luongo and then suggest Lecavalier as an example trade, but that's neither here nor there. If we did Lecavalier for some extra piece, we still lose that piece for nothing, and Tampa has less incentive to move Lecavalier (then there's why he'd waive his NMC).

I still don't think it's realistic that teams would do this unless a. the player will actually help and b. the cost of the buyout isn't that much. Lecavalier would have $45M in contracted salary to factor into the buyout, and that's not chump change for a one year rental - even if he might be useful despite his declining performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually impossible to stop creative application of the rules without changing the rules. Otherwise it's called "collusion." And since the amnesty provision is only in effect for two years, and this CBA is ten years in length, there is literally no chance whatsoever that this tactic would lead to labour strife in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't Tampa needs any incentive to move Lecavalier except to dump his contract with no strings attached. So we would not be giving up an asset of any value.

As for the salary cost, it is definitely an issue. But, 2/3 of Vinny's salary after this year would be about 5 million a year for the next 7 years. In other words, instead of spending to the cap, the Canucks would essentially be spending 5 million over the cap for those years. Considering the new CBA, that is easily affordable for the Aquiliinis.

But it's true that this tactic might be more realistic for players with shorter contracts like Bouwmeester, Heatley or Pronger. Of course, because of the shorter contract those teams also have less incentive to dump the contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aquilini's might be able to afford to spend $30-35M for a buyout, but why they would want to I don't know.

So my question to you then is what level of asset could we give up that would be of little to no value for us that Tampa would accept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 other teams in the league can do them a favour though, would they really take a 3rd, 4th or 5th rounder? Would they do it for a prospect like Prab Rai, Steven Anthony, Stefan Schneider?

I don't think so, but it's all speculation so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 other teams in the league can do them a favour though, would they really take a 3rd, 4th or 5th rounder? Would they do it for a prospect like Prab Rai, Steven Anthony, Stefan Schneider?

I don't think so, but it's all speculation so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept is solid. The question is, how much would Tampa be willing to add, if we took a 40 million-anchor off their hands?

Eg:Ballard, Raymond & Schroeder, for

LeCav, Connolly & a 1st(2013, or 2014)

How much of Tampa's future would entice the Aquilinis to acquire an aging star for just a few month-cameo? Teams like NYR already have buyout-candidates, & might not be able to accomodate such a plan.

With this idea & a goaltender-deal for youth, the Canucks could radically improve their future; without compromising the present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Because Lecavalier is their captain, a true leader and still a very useful player. He's not Scott Gomez. He's a top-six center. Is he overpaid? Yes. But not every overpaid player will be bought out.

And the Aquilinis do have money, but that doesn't mean they want to spend 50 million dollars into the next decade on a player that won't be playing for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept is solid. The question is, how much would Tampa be willing to add, if we took a 40 million-anchor off their hands?

Eg:Ballard, Raymond & Schroeder, for

LeCav, Connolly & a 1st(2013, or 2014)

How much of Tampa's future would entice the Aquilinis to acquire an aging star for just a few month-cameo? Teams like NYR already have buyout-candidates, & might not be able to accomodate such a plan.

With this idea & a goaltender-deal for youth, the Canucks could radically improve their future; without compromising the present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Boxie, it's funny cos' I was imagining a similar manoeuvre shortly after the agreement was reached. Most of the big spenders, who might consider the possibility, are out east(rivals to TBay for a PO spot). Which probably would act as a deterent.

It also fits perfect positionally, with Kesler's uncertainty. Van wouldn't have to rush this key player to return. Kesler wouldn't worry over his 2nd line-status, knowing it's only Lecavalier 'til June.

So the 2 teams have good reasons to do this-now, what would Vinny think about it? What's his incentive, as opposed to just staying & getting the amnesty from TBay?(he's already got his Cup...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Boxie, it's funny cos' I was imagining a similar manoeuvre shortly after the agreement was reached. Most of the big spenders, who might consider the possibility, are out east(rivals to TBay for a PO spot). Which probably would act as a deterent.

It also fits perfect positionally, with Kesler's uncertainty. Van wouldn't have to rush this key player to return. Kesler wouldn't worry over his 2nd line-status, knowing it's only Lecavalier 'til June.

So the 2 teams have good reasons to do this-now, what would Vinny think about it? What's his incentive, as opposed to just staying & getting the amnesty from TBay?(he's already got his Cup...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting, but I'd suspect the CBA language will be written to preclude this kind of arrangement.(eg: Can't reacquire traded player, the following summer through amnesty-availability). It's too obvious, & cap-floor teams may cry foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct!

Vinny is owed THIRTY million dollars on a buyout. Someone coughs when you swallow that much no matter how rich! And speaking logically we only make roughly $25 mill on a full cup run. Not a good investment.

I'd pay $30 mill for Hedman if they included him on the deal! :bigblush:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I think that given their cap situation for the next two years, Tampa would at least have to consider dumping his salary, no matter what the emotional cost. Honestly, Stamkos is the face of that franchise now. He could easily step in as captain.

Secondly, it would be 35 million, not 50. Again, it would be an extra 5 million a year for 7 years. It would basically be exactly what they would have paid under the old CBA. They can easily afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.