lmm Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 16 minutes ago, Borvat said: It appears the Canucks are not happy about it either. No one said this will change but I do not have to agree with it or like it - it smells. https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/ben-kuzma-no-cap-recapture-relief-for-canucks-after-panthers-hire-roberto-luongo https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/so-called-luongo-rule-petty-vindictive-counterintuitive-and-cute one of those atrticles is 6 (six) years old, the othe sounds like due diligence. It smells as much now as it did when the contract was signed. It reeked of cap circumvention then as it does now. Where are all the fans that lauded Laurence Gilman for his amazing contract work now? 3.02 mil per x 3 years for Bobby Lu not to play but maybe make the occasional funny tweet is still better than Loui 6x2.75 (years left) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 6 hours ago, Borvat said: The below makes a total mockery of the NHL cap system yet the Canucks get retroactively hammered for negotiating a contract that was not outside the parameters of the existing agreement. Ottawa has over $20 Milllion in cap for players not even playing so they can make the cap floor. Disgusting. Loui would fit Ottawa's model - the Value Village of the NHL - depends what they want I guess. I am surprised Jimmy Hoffa isn't on this list. Anisimov and Sabourin are roster players. They are temporarily on IR just like Sutter/Motte/Ferland. They have 3 LTIR contracts - Gaborik, Callahan and MacArthur. MacArthur is their own player - they signed him to that extension in summer 2014 for the 2015/16 season but injuries cut his career short. He tried coming back several times before doctors forced him to give up his career. Gaborik played 16 games for them before going on LTIR - was it really foreseeable that he could end up on LTIR. They wanted to move Phaneuf and had to take back Gaborik. Callahan they traded for but they would be above the floor even without his contract. The floor is 60.2M. Teams were warned well ahead of time, that penalties were coming if they tried to circumvent the intent of the salary cap. Gillis admitted that he was expecting Luongo to end on LTIR - why tag on those additional years if you don't think the player will be fit enough to finish the contract. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 9 hours ago, lmm said: It smells as much now as it did when the contract was signed. It reeked of cap circumvention then as it does now. And yet the NHL accepted it, and filed it as a valid, legal player contract at the time. That's my own biggest issue with the entire debacle, the NHL couldn't find any legal or CBA contractual issue with the contract at the time and accepted as valid. They had their chance to void the contract but chose not to - should've been over at that exact moment imo. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Fanuck said: And yet the NHL accepted it, and filed it as a valid, legal player contract at the time. That's my own biggest issue with the entire debacle, the NHL couldn't find any legal or CBA contractual issue with the contract at the time and accepted as valid. They had their chance to void the contract but chose not to - should've been over at that exact moment imo. They couldn't void the contract because there was nothing in the CBA that allowed them too. Teams were warned that there would be retroactive penalties in the next version of the CBA. “We were very up front with the clubs,” Daly said. “We told them we’re going to seek provisions in this CBA that will extract a cost for pushing the boundaries in this area, which is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the original system. “So all the clubs were on notice for probably two years in advance of bargaining. This was covered in our general manager workshops, and the owners were told numerous times in board meetings. To suggest that anybody was really surprised by the fact that we negotiated that provision would be very unfair.” Edited November 19, 2019 by mll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 33 minutes ago, mll said: They couldn't void the contract because there was nothing in the CBA that allowed them too. Teams were warned that there would be retroactive penalties in the next version of the CBA. “We were very up front with the clubs,” Daly said. “We told them we’re going to seek provisions in this CBA that will extract a cost for pushing the boundaries in this area, which is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the original system. “So all the clubs were on notice for probably two years in advance of bargaining. This was covered in our general manager workshops, and the owners were told numerous times in board meetings. To suggest that anybody was really surprised by the fact that we negotiated that provision would be very unfair.” I'd be curious how many GM's, who signed those deals, were (are) still with the same team to feel the consequences? I know the owners are complicit too, but there is precedent where the league forgave a team's penalty (Jersey) to satisfy an owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 7 minutes ago, Alflives said: I'd be curious how many GM's, who signed those deals, were (are) still with the same team to feel the consequences? I know the owners are complicit too, but there is precedent where the league forgave a team's penalty (Jersey) to satisfy an owner. Luongo and Mike Richards are the only ones so far. NYR used a compliance buyout on Brad Richards and Buffalo on Ehrhoff - cash wise they had to convince their owners but it doesn't hurt their books. Others have played out their contracts (Chara, Kronwall) or the player went on LTIR (Zetterberg, Franzen, Hossa, Savard, Ohlund). The remaining ones: Chicago: Keith LA: Quick, Carter Minnesota: Parise, Suter Nashville / Montreal: Weber Pittsburgh: Crosby Flyers signed 4 and have not faced any consequence - Pronger, Shea Weber, Mike Richards and Jeff Carter. Pronger told the league that he was looking for a shorter deal but the Flyers wanted to tag on additional years to reduce the cap hit - he had to go on LTIR. Shea Weber was their offer sheet. Teams had 2 outs. Trade the player before the new CBA comes into effect and only the new team gets the penalty but not the original team; or use a compliance buyout. Philadelphia traded both Jeff Carter and Mike Richards before the new CBA came into effect so they don't get the penalty. The recapture penalty for Mike Richards is only on LA's books. Owner Leipold in Minnesota has been battling the league against those penalties but without success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Fanuck said: And yet the NHL accepted it, and filed it as a valid, legal player contract at the time. That's my own biggest issue with the entire debacle, the NHL couldn't find any legal or CBA contractual issue with the contract at the time and accepted as valid. They had their chance to void the contract but chose not to - should've been over at that exact moment imo. I heard recently that Bill Daly warned teams they would be changing that rule that allowed those contracts. Edit: MLL has the quote above. The Canucks chose not to heed that warning. If the NHL ( or any governing body)sees a problem, making changes takes time, we often hear of laws that will come into effect in 6 months. My problem with these contracts was always the question, "What if the minimun salary exceeds $1 000 000 in 12 years?" Or 10, or 8 years? Because lawyers and coaches are hired to find ways around the new rules, the NHL will always be playing catch up,its the nature of the beast. Before they started happening, no-one could falthom a 12 year contract. They were a mechanism to circumvent the "new rules". The NHL knew they had a problem ( once they started occurring) but could not re-open the CBA. It was a risk teams made signing contracts that spanned multiple CBAs. No-one thought Luongo would finish that contract, and he didn't. That was cheating. 1 hour ago, Fanuck said: And yet the NHL accepted it, and filed it as a valid, legal player contract at the time. That's my own biggest issue with the entire debacle, the NHL couldn't find any legal or CBA contractual issue with the contract at the time and accepted as valid. They had their chance to void the contract but chose not to - should've been over at that exact moment imo. Edited November 19, 2019 by lmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 31 minutes ago, mll said: Luongo and Mike Richards are the only ones so far. NYR used a compliance buyout on Brad Richards and Buffalo on Ehrhoff - cash wise they had to convince their owners but it doesn't hurt their books. Others have played out their contracts (Chara, Kronwall) or the player went on LTIR (Zetterberg, Franzen, Hossa, Savard, Ohlund). The remaining ones: Chicago: Keith LA: Quick, Carter Minnesota: Parise, Suter Nashville / Montreal: Weber Pittsburgh: Crosby Flyers signed 4 and have not faced any consequence - Pronger, Shea Weber, Mike Richards and Jeff Carter. Pronger told the league that he was looking for a shorter deal but the Flyers wanted to tag on additional years to reduce the cap hit - he had to go on LTIR. Shea Weber was their offer sheet. Teams had 2 outs. Trade the player before the new CBA comes into effect and only the new team gets the penalty but not the original team; or use a compliance buyout. Philadelphia traded both Jeff Carter and Mike Richards before the new CBA came into effect so they don't get the penalty. The recapture penalty for Mike Richards is only on LA's books. Owner Leipold in Minnesota has been battling the league against those penalties but without success. Weber retiring would decimate Nashville. There's no way Bettman will allow that to happen to a US team. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 23 minutes ago, lmm said: The Canucks chose not to heed that warning. which is a total horse $&!# way to run a league. Do you run it by rules or warnings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: which is a total horse $&!# way to run a league. Do you run it by rules or warnings? the league is run by rules which is why those contracts had to be approved and accepted initially the league also bargains rules and agreed to new rules for these contracts in the next cba and then those rules were applied the warnings were just to give all a heads up about the new rules that were coming 35 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: Weber retiring would decimate Nashville. There's no way Bettman will allow that to happen to a US team. and i entirely agree with this as being the true test of the luongo rule if weber simply retires early preds have to be hit with the recapture penalties but as we have seen so far, except for luongo, who the rule was named after, every other player on this sort of contract has finished out their contract or got medically exempt richards contract ended unusually due to his complete stupidity so the recapture rule likely is appropriately named as the luongo rule as at the end of the day, it likely only will have applied directly to him and no one else (richards excepted) Edited November 19, 2019 by coastal.view 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, coastal.view said: the league is run by rules which is why those contracts had to be approved and accepted initially the league also bargains rules and agreed to new rules for these contracts in the next cba and then those rules were applied the warnings were just to give all a heads up about the new rules that were coming and i entirely agree with this as being the true test of the luongo rule if weber simply retires early preds have to be hit with the recapture penalties but as we have seen so far, except for luongo, who the rule was named after, every other player on this sort of contract has finished out their contract or got medically exempt richards contract ended unusually due to his complete stupidity so the recapture rule likely is appropriately names as the luongo rule as at the end of the day, it likely only will have applied directly to him and no one else (richards excepted) yeah after the 22/23 season things will get interesting with Weber, he won't retire before then but after that its a string of 1m years. I suspect he and the league will find a way to have a hangnail put him on LTIR for 3 years. I doubt Weber wants to see Nashville hurt. Doesn't seem to have entered into it for Luongo tho, which for me drops him down a peg in terms of how I view him in Canucks history. Edited November 19, 2019 by Jimmy McGill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 34 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: Weber retiring would decimate Nashville. There's no way Bettman will allow that to happen to a US team. I don't think it's that straight forward with Weber because he signed an offer sheet. It wasn't Nashville that structured that contract. They had to match to retain him and had just lost Suter to free agency. The 1st 4 years of the contract were at 14M in salary. The Predators could have fit 14M under their cap those 4 years where he was in Nashville. They didn't gain any cap benefit - they didn't need it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Just now, Jimmy McGill said: yeah after the 22/23 season things will get interesting with Weber, he won't retire before then but after that its a string of 1m years. I suspect he and the league will find a way to have a hangnail put him on LTIR for 3 years. I doubt Weber wants to see Nashville hurt. the other team that is also interesting regarding recapture is the wild they have 2 long term contracts, 1 is very likely to end early due to medical issues (parise) but not sure suter will be excited to play his last 3 seasons for 4 million in total salary over that time frame 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 1 minute ago, coastal.view said: the other team that is also interesting regarding recapture is the wild they have 2 long term contracts, 1 is very likely to end early due to medical issues (parise) but not sure suter will be excited to play his last 3 seasons for 4 million in total salary over that time frame All the guys with that potential penally will go on LTIR. Only Luongo retired because FLA offered him the money he'd give up by retiring with a pseudo management job. The Canucks should do the same with LE. Have him retire and then hire him as an assistant to JB, and pay him the dollars owed that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Alflives said: All the guys with that potential penally will go on LTIR. Only Luongo retired because FLA offered him the money he'd give up by retiring with a pseudo management job. The Canucks should do the same with LE. Have him retire and then hire him as an assistant to JB, and pay him the dollars owed that way. you think this organization really wants loui around longer?? at least luongo is a positive icon in florida (may as well bring back messier too then, i hear he is still without a management position in hockey would be karma of sorts to put him in linden's old role here ) Edited November 19, 2019 by coastal.view 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 1 hour ago, mll said: I don't think it's that straight forward with Weber because he signed an offer sheet. It wasn't Nashville that structured that contract. They had to match to retain him and had just lost Suter to free agency. The 1st 4 years of the contract were at 14M in salary. The Predators could have fit 14M under their cap those 4 years where he was in Nashville. They didn't gain any cap benefit - they didn't need it. and they obviously didn't worry about getting a warning from the league. I don't think teams were really told the full extent of what the outcome would be, its such a punitive ridiculous approach. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: which is a total horse $&!# way to run a league. Do you run it by rules or warnings? That may well be true, I have many issues with the league, so I am not here to paint the league blameless, but the Canucks made a few mistakes of their own. The Canucks were not at the forfront of this, they kind of jumped on the bandwagon after other teams had signed these contracts. It was not brilliant contract work by Gillis/Gilman, they were late to the party and got stuck with the bill. If they had won the cup no one would care, they didn't too bad, so sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RakuRaku Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 I was hoping to see Eriksson score at least ONE goal to get the media on his side.. but......... NOPE!! I paid close attention to all his shifts... he was just skating around... trying to forecheck a bit... not more than once did I see him get into some dangerous areas or try to fire some good shots... what da hell is he doing here still??? I would rather see MacEwen play.... honestly!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Bang Boogie Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Virtanen#18 said: I was hoping to see Eriksson score at least ONE goal to get the media on his side.. but......... NOPE!! I paid close attention to all his shifts... he was just skating around... trying to forecheck a bit... not more than once did I see him get into some dangerous areas or try to fire some good shots... what da hell is he doing here still??? I would rather see MacEwen play.... honestly!! He doesn't even play PK anymore. The guy is literally just a warm body to have on the bench. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RakuRaku Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bang Bang Boogie said: He doesn't even play PK anymore. The guy is literally just a warm body to have on the bench. Oh well... he's just asking to join the AHL VIP Club along with Corey Schneider, Andrew Ladd, Jonathan Ericsson, Karl Alzner, Matt Beleskey... etc... not doing much and earning same $$$.... I wonder if these past NHL hot shots get better food and hotel rooms... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now