Socrates Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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. GillisLuongo had a 33-13-7 prior season, with a franchise record in terms of shootouts (9). For Vancouver, this looked pretty awesome given previous experiencesLuongo 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 Luongohe cited the Sedins committing long-term as a solid reason to commit for that long. Believable, but they only got 5-year extensionshe 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 toowith 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Everyone makes mistakes.... Gillis made a mistake here That is the only way to put it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring_Back_Bertuzzi Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 he did this when cory schneider was not a starter. luongo is still a great goalie cory schneider is just younger and better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foo202 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeMinisterBure Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil HD Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 ANd poeple wonder why I hate Luongo. Greedy greaseball who imploded when we needed him most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleed Blue and Green Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Don't forget we gave him the "C" as an extra incentive to re-sign with us as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Any thoughts anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.