Provost Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Technically Philly isn't off the hook. They are just loop holing the situation by not having him retire and paying him off the cap to just be injured xD They did the same thing with Rathje. Hatcher, and Lapierrere. They still have another so called ticking bomb in Mark Streit though who signed over 35. Though for his age he doesn't have to many miles on it. But Ed Snider isn't cheap he seems to have no issue throwing millions around to try to keep the team competitive. Odds are the same will happen with him. You can almost be sure that Luongo is going to have an "injury" that keeps this stuff off the books. There are enough loopholes to resolve anything. Also... it looks like by the time he retires, the cap will be at least 90 million. A couple of million off that is chump change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Should have made him happy so he could stay here and make sure the $8m time bomb doesn't explode ... but no, Tortorella had to sit him for the HC because of a myopic decision to win one game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giant Inflatable Beaver Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The canucks should be able to take some legal action. The canucks really did nothing wrong. they abided by the rules that were IN PLACE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 You would have to think that the Canucks could take some sort of legal action to get relieved by some of the hit. The contract was a legal contract when it was signed by the Canucks, Luongo, AND THE LEAGUE before the new cba. Im sure when the time comes the Canucks Organization will take legal action if they are not relieved by some of the penalty. Didn't the Devils get pardoned by some of Kovalchuk's penalty? I believe as soon as the NHL tries to "collect" on any of these pre-approved contracts, lawsuits will be filed immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giant Inflatable Beaver Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 You can almost be sure that Luongo is going to have an "injury" that keeps this stuff off the books. There are enough loopholes to resolve anything. Also... it looks like by the time he retires, the cap will be at least 90 million. A couple of million off that is chump change. 8 million is a significant amount, even with a cap at 90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Well people call the NHL bush league sometimes and this is exactly why. How a league can change the rules on how contracts work after they've been signed is illegal and just plain dumb. Hopefully there is leniency in the league's eyes when the time comes. Of course, NJ got off because they were in financial trouble. MG also flagrantly manipulated the cap time and time again and this was definite cap circumvention. However, Luongo is the one that determines the truth of the contract. If he honors the entire thing there is no circumvention at all. How in the heck the Canucks get penalized for a player's decisions when he is on another team to boot is a head-scratcher. Should have made him happy so he could stay here and make sure the $8m time bomb doesn't explode ... but no, Tortorella had to sit him for the HC because of a myopic decision to win one game. Will you people just shut up already? If you honestly believe that sucky baby Luongo left because he didn't a start a hockey game then I wish they would have escorted him out of the building after the first period. I would like to hear that he's a poor sport and a sniveling child from his own lips and not the nuthuggers on CDC. I have too much respect for Luongo to believe he is that much of a loser. Does anyone actually have a quote from Lou on that? Anyone that believes Lou playing in the horrible hockey gimmick called the HC is more important than the whole hockey team and basic coaching decisions really needs to re-evaluate if team sports are for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Because it didn't hurt any of the darlings. My thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanCityCanuck14 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 And people called Gillis the best GM in history... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedlee Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 the contract was a perfect contract until the league closed that loop hold..i believe contracts that the league agreed to, should have been grandfathered in to the cba....the contract, front loaded lu's deal ....it provided to be much lower in the latter years....federov had the same kind of deal that played itself out....if you sign off on a deal, you should honor that deal...Perfect? Ah no...it was a stupid and ridiculous contract the day it was signed. Term was way too long...who is good for 12 years? not even Gretzky. That contract will cost the owners for years and cost us Cory Schneider too. But still...it was total BS that the league imposed penalties on contracts that were legal and approved at the time they were signed. Complete BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 ticking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaSwede Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 That is very very scary to think about. a 7+ million cap penalty would cripple any team. I am pretty sure when it comes to it legal actions will be taken by the Canucks. I mean the freakin Devils received a first round pick this year even though the whole Kovalchuk thing went down. If the Canucks don't get some relief atleast I will fly out to New York and slap Bettman in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocnucksfan Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 good god, Luongo will haunt us even when my daughter is in middle school! She's 2 now by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Well, with Luo gone he's not truly gone. That's nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombieksa Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Man, I never really looked into it, but I had assumed all that salary that Vancouver is retaining would in someway lower the cap penalty in the case of retirement. I never thought it would actually increase the penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 8 million is a significant amount, even with a cap at 90 If you believe that Luongo is going to play the last years of his contract for effectively zero "real" dollars you are almost certainly mistaken. That is why the league decided against these contracts... there is no intention of the player to play the years where their salary drops down to nothing. We will be hit with a $2-2.5 penalty at worst case. As for whether there would be a lawsuit or whether we could win it... probably not. Sports leagues by their nature seem to be bulletproof against all sorts of anti-trust suits. No judge seems to want to get in the way and start a precedent. They signed on to be in a league with certain voting rules and collective bargaining... if they don't like the rules that are made under those circumstances, there isn't a lot of room to complain. We don't even know if the Canucks voted against the last CBA. If they voted for it, then their lawsuit wouldn't even make it in front of the courts before being thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollieo Del Fuego Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 As long as he retires in 2017 or 2018 or before, it will be $2 to $2.5 mil., when the cap is maybe around $90 Million but then we won't be stuck for 15% of his contract anymore either so we are not to bad off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gross-Misconduct Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I don't get your subject heading Luongo's ticking time bomb. Are you saying Luongo has a ticking time bomb? Or are you saying Luongo is a ticking time bomb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 "We don't even know if the Canucks voted against the last CBA. If they voted for it, then their lawsuit wouldn't even make it in front of the courts before being thrown out." The vote to ratify the cba was said to be unanimous. Thus F.A. voted to hurt his own hockey club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 If you believe that Luongo is going to play the last years of his contract for effectively zero "real" dollars you are almost certainly mistaken. That is why the league decided against these contracts... there is no intention of the player to play the years where their salary drops down to nothing. We will be hit with a $2-2.5 penalty at worst case. As for whether there would be a lawsuit or whether we could win it... probably not. Sports leagues by their nature seem to be bulletproof against all sorts of anti-trust suits. No judge seems to want to get in the way and start a precedent. They signed on to be in a league with certain voting rules and collective bargaining... if they don't like the rules that are made under those circumstances, there isn't a lot of room to complain. We don't even know if the Canucks voted against the last CBA. If they voted for it, then their lawsuit wouldn't even make it in front of the courts before being thrown out. I haven't taken any law classes in a while but that was my take. If in the end the Canucks, and the players agreed in a vote to ratify the new agreement then they've essentially accepted all the new rules that go with it. "We don't even know if the Canucks voted against the last CBA. If they voted for it, then their lawsuit wouldn't even make it in front of the courts before being thrown out." The vote to ratify the cba was said to be unanimous. Thus F.A. voted to hurt his own hockey club. Well F.A. was in pretty tough. He was fighting with the rest of the owners against the players at that point. Pretty difficult to take a player's side in a sense, although I'm sure this must have been mentioned by the specific parties. Unfortunately it probably affects us the most and the rest of the owners were laughing silently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbox Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Technically Philly isn't off the hook. They are just loop holing the situation by not having him retire and paying him off the cap to just be injured xD They did the same thing with Rathje. Hatcher, and Lapierrere. They still have another so called ticking bomb in Mark Streit though who signed over 35. Though for his age he doesn't have to many miles on it. But Ed Snider isn't cheap he seems to have no issue throwing millions around to try to keep the team competitive. Odds are the same will happen with him. Yeah you're team will never be hurt financially. The owner is rich as hell and to top it off, Philly makes the most money in the NHL outside of the Original 6. Although I'm pretty sure Van is right behind them in 8th. We're getting penalized for being well off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.