Examining Luongo contract extension (2009)

[Socrates]

Thought it might be interesting to talk about the motivating factors that led to the 12-year contract extension signed in September 2009. Below are my initial thoughts.

Administrators - if the topic belongs elsewhere, please move it as fit.

Gillis

• Luongo had a 33-13-7 prior season, with a franchise record in terms of shootouts (9). For Vancouver, this looked pretty awesome given previous experiences

• Luongo had come out of a $7M salary and was set to make $7.5M in the new season. Gillis probably wanted to minimize cap hit for the following 5-7 years (Luongo's projected prime), while discounting the following years (he may have bet on the cap RISING over the years). Salary-wise, he stayed competitive up-front, while paying RL much less in later years

Luongo

• he cited the Sedins committing long-term as a solid reason to commit for that long. Believable, but they only got 5-year extensions

• he also said that his reduced cap hit could be used to add other valuable players to the roster in order to prepare a run at the Cup - I trust that too

• with his family in Florida and unwilling to move to Vancouver, this must have been a tough choice

While I cannot blame Gillis for his general logic, I believe he should have probably negotiated a shorter deal for the benefit of this organization. He jumped the gun, especially given Luongo's performance in the Playoffs - the Canucks had just been taken out by the Hawks that year with a ton of goals against, so he did have reasons to ponder his next move.

As for Luongo, I tend to believe that he was willing to help the organization with the reduced cap-hit, but also after the money (locking in $64M until he is 42 years old). IMO, the latter reason was somewhat more important, considering he was going to be away from his family for a long time, knowing how much they love Florida.

Objectively, the two may have had enough good intentions to make a good deal for both parties. I am only faulting Gillis for not seeing Luongo's issues in Playoff games and Luongo for being perhaps a little too money oriented. A shorter contract would have followed a "trust but verify" logic.

Any thoughts anyone?

[CanucksFanMike]

Everyone makes mistakes.... Gillis made a mistake here

That is the only way to put it

[elvis15]

If he had negotiated a shorter deal, the cap hit wouldn't have been as good. That's why they're back diving contracts and the NHL has ruled them out in the new CBA.

What would our team have been like in 2010/2011 if Luongo had had a $6.75M (or more!) cap hit? Would we have had the pieces necessary to go to the SCF? People talk about taking risks in trading some of the future (prospects, high draft picks) for deadline rentals in the hopes that it could lead to a Stanley Cup. What was the Luongo deal if not a risk that could impact the future more than the present?

Here's what I don't get: you don't see people complaining about Zetterberg, Hossa or Franzen's back diving deals (those were the original 3 back diving contracts). Would people devalue them considerably if they were looking at trading for them? Has Luongo been worse than any of them to devalue him considerably more?

[Bring_Back_Bertuzzi]

he did this when cory schneider was not a starter. luongo is still a great goalie cory schneider is just younger and better

[Papayas]

If he had negotiated a shorter deal, the cap hit wouldn't have been as good. That's why they're back diving contracts and the NHL has ruled them out in the new CBA.

Here's what I don't get: you don't see people complaining about Zetterberg, Hossa or Franzen's back diving deals (those were the original 3 back diving contracts). Would people devalue them considerably if they were looking at trading for them? Has Luongo been worse than any of them to devalue him considerably more?

[Foo202]

At the time, the contract made sense, Luongo was a consistently a superb goalie in the regular season and usually had a spot int he top 5 in GAA and Save%, and the only two knocks against him in the playoffs were the Chicago series in 09, and the final goal against Anaheim in 07, with strong plays in all the other 3 playoff series he's been in.

The length had a bit to do with Luongo's vanity, he wanted to be the highest paid goaltender in the league, which is why he had that initial season at 10mil and needed to have the long, back diving contract to balance it out, but the contract had outs. Seven years into the deal, the canucks have an opportunity to move Luongo despite his NTC to any team, which it being a back diving contract would make him a commodity for struggling franchises that could lower there team salary while still staying above the minimum salary bar.

Also, there is still the option, at the time, that the canucks could buy luongo out for the last few years for the 2/3 of the remainder of the contract over twice the years.

[Papayas]

At the time, the contract made sense, Luongo was a consistently a superb goalie in the regular season and usually had a spot int he top 5 in GAA and Save%, and the only two knocks against him in the playoffs were the Chicago series in 09, and the final goal against Anaheim in 07, with strong plays in all the other 3 playoff series he's been in.

The length had a bit to do with Luongo's vanity, he wanted to be the highest paid goaltender in the league, which is why he had that initial season at 10mil and needed to have the long, back diving contract to balance it out, but the contract had outs. Seven years into the deal, the canucks have an opportunity to move Luongo despite his NTC to any team, which it being a back diving contract would make him a commodity for struggling franchises that could lower there team salary while still staying above the minimum salary bar.

Also, there is still the option, at the time, that the canucks could buy luongo out for the last few years for the 2/3 of the remainder of the contract over twice the years.

[nuckin_futz]

The only problem I have with his deal is that it includes a NTC. You simply cannot include a NTC with a deal of that length.

That part negates the positives of the deal.

[PrimeMinisterBure]

If he had negotiated a shorter deal, the cap hit wouldn't have been as good. That's why they're back diving contracts and the NHL has ruled them out in the new CBA.

What would our team have been like in 2010/2011 if Luongo had had a $6.75M (or more!) cap hit? Would we have had the pieces necessary to go to the SCF? People talk about taking risks in trading some of the future (prospects, high draft picks) for deadline rentals in the hopes that it could lead to a Stanley Cup. What was the Luongo deal if not a risk that could impact the future more than the present?

Here's what I don't get: you don't see people complaining about Zetterberg, Hossa or Franzen's back diving deals (those were the original 3 back diving contracts). Would people devalue them considerably if they were looking at trading for them? Has Luongo been worse than any of them to devalue him considerably more?

[Neil HD]

I still wonder to this day if a $6 million over 8 or 9 years was ever on the table at some point.

It would have given us $.666M less cap (~1 depth fwd) to sign players for our SCF year, but it may have also given MG more justification for a high trade return than the existing contract.

[Papayas]

Yes.

[Merci]

ANd poeple wonder why I hate Luongo.

Greedy greaseball who imploded when we needed him most.

[apollo]

20 teams in the NHL would have picked him up for the 7-8.5 million dollar hit.

The contract was fantastic... one of Gillis few good moves

[Bleed Blue and Green]

Don't forget we gave him the "C" as an extra incentive to re-sign with us as well

[elvis15]

Those people who complains doesnt understand the concept of cap hits or math in general.... It's the same group of people who yelled " luongo and his 10 mil cap!!" A couple season ago.

The thing is, the type of contract that luongo signed was so good that its considered a loophole..... A 5.3 million o cap hit for luongo is a great deal and I won't cost the club much at his last two seasons if his performance decreases ( sendin him to the ahl)

The only thing that's preventing him being trade was his Ntc and that luongo can dictates that city he wants to go while mg wants max return... That makes him almost untradable like iggy unless you want minimal return......

[alt kilgore]

I think it was a bit of greed on both sides.

Luongo was regarded, and certainly regarded himself, as one of the top shelf goaltenders in the NHL at the time.

The OP makes a point that it would take good $ to uproot himself from Florida.

Gillis represented a team that was a "goalie graveyard". IMO this was unfairly blamed on the fans. We were just cursed with only getting spotty good tending through the years with a couple of brief peaks with King Richard and Kirk McLean. We FINALLY had one of the top rated goalies that actually was willing to move up to the Great Wet North.

We would pay anything. And we did. Lu's agent knew he had us by the balls. Gillis wanted to make a splash and was willing to commit to a long long term to get it done. Lu was greedy for the $ (which I don't blame him for at the time). Gillis knew the fans were greedy for a bonafide #1 for a change (which we damn well deserved).

It was a huge gamble and yes, Gillis should have considered Lu's first playoff meltdown with Chicago the Spring before. But who would fathom he'd repeat that behavior for every playoff after. In Florida he never had to deal with playoff pressures where the goalie HAS to be the best player on the ice every night. More important he has to be able to retain that "not to high, not to low" mentality even after a bad goal.

It was a huge gamble. It could have paid off......but it didn't. Vancouver fans are not content with a great regular season goalie. We want the Cup.

[apollo]

I think it was a bit of greed on both sides.

Luongo was regarded, and certainly regarded himself, as one of the top shelf goaltenders in the NHL at the time.

The OP makes a point that it would take good $ to uproot himself from Florida.

Gillis represented a team that was a "goalie graveyard". IMO this was unfairly blamed on the fans. We were just cursed with only getting spotty good tending through the years with a couple of brief peaks with King Richard and Kirk McLean. We FINALLY had one of the top rated goalies that actually was willing to move up to the Great Wet North.

We would pay anything. And we did. Lu's agent knew he had us by the balls. Gillis wanted to make a splash and was willing to commit to a long long term to get it done. Lu was greedy for the $ (which I don't blame him for at the time). Gillis knew the fans were greedy for a bonafide #1 for a change (which we damn well deserved).

It was a huge gamble and yes, Gillis should have considered Lu's first playoff meltdown with Chicago the Spring before. But who would fathom he'd repeat that behavior for every playoff after. In Florida he never had to deal with playoff pressures where the goalie HAS to be the best player on the ice every night. More important he has to be able to retain that "not to high, not to low" mentality even after a bad goal.

It was a huge gamble. It could have paid off......but it didn't. Vancouver fans are not content with a great regular season goalie. We want the Cup.

[alt kilgore]

It did pay off. He carried the team to game 7 of the finals and had two shutouts in the final.

What didn't pay off was the team barely averaging over one goal per game ... 8 in 7 games if I'm not mistaking.

[Vansicle]

Any thoughts anyone?

[Vansicle]

If he had negotiated a shorter deal, the cap hit wouldn't have been as good. That's why they're back diving contracts and the NHL has ruled them out in the new CBA.

What would our team have been like in 2010/2011 if Luongo had had a $6.75M (or more!) cap hit? Would we have had the pieces necessary to go to the SCF? People talk about taking risks in trading some of the future (prospects, high draft picks) for deadline rentals in the hopes that it could lead to a Stanley Cup. What was the Luongo deal if not a risk that could impact the future more than the present?

Here's what I don't get: you don't see people complaining about Zetterberg, Hossa or Franzen's back diving deals (those were the original 3 back diving contracts). Would people devalue them considerably if they were looking at trading for them? Has Luongo been worse than any of them to devalue him considerably more?