Ghostsof1915 Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 (edited) The league should have voided the contract once it was sent in for approval. It might have been technically in the rules. But there are only a handful of players that play to age 43. The stupid thing is an 5 to 8 year contract at $6 million per would have only been $700k more per season. It still would have made Lu as one of the highest paid goalies in the League, and with the NTC would have been fair. Lu would have been way easier to trade. I imagine the team will quietly fight it. Citing that the NHL has let other teams get out contracts like this. Edited June 27, 2019 by Ghostsof1915 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 30 minutes ago, CanucksJay said: Yes it was clearly cap circumvention. The canucks exposed a loophole (like many other teams before them). The contract however was approved by the league. The league then changed the rules afterwards to punish those that circumvented the cap. An anology is that your kid wants to go out on a school night. He convinces you he'll be home by 9pm. You oblige. He comes home by 9 pm. The next day you say, there's a new house rule. in order to go out on a school night, you have to clean your room. He didn't clean his room before going out so he's grounded for a week. I get that cap circumvention occured. However to place a new rule AFTER the fact and then to backdate the rule and apply it sounds stupid. Here's another question then. How far should the league go back in retroactively penalizing any rule changes? Should the league go back and disqualify all of new jersey's Stanley cup because Brodeur played the puck outside of the trapezoid zone before they implemented the trapezoid? I mean the rule is in play now and clearly, brodeur played the puck out of the area and according to today's rule, he should have been assessed a 2 min penalty? How about icing? The whistle should have gone according to today's rule but we used to force players to race back and actually touch the puck. Im sure quite a few icings were negated which resulted in goals. Do we take those goals away, get in our DeLorean and run it back? Edit.. Lol someone used a bedtime reference.... So funny whay a coincidence The salary cap was introduced to level the playing field. A player's cap was to reflect the average value of his contract for his time as a player. The CBA did not spell out that teams shouldn't try to artificially lower the salary cap. For the bedtime analogy. It's more like telling your kid don't come home too late and not setting a deadline. He comes home at 2am. The next day he is punished and curfew is set at 11pm. He knows very well that coming home at 2am is not exactly what you had in mind when you said don't come home too late. Teams knew very well that they were circumventing the spirit of the CBA. Pronger even admitted to the league that he wanted a shorter contract and Philadelphia wanted to tag a few more years to reduce the cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, IBatch said: For sure he could have gone to the doctor and got a note, but if I was in his shoes why would you want to have that as your closing out legacy retirement move? Do you think anyone remembers the time Chris Pronger spent on LTIR with the Coyotes? If it didn't affect that POS's legacy then why would it affect Lu's? Quote He wants to retire and join the Panthers in another capacity, he’s screwing them a bit too but they don’t seem to mind, as fans why should we too. Panthers fans are fine with it because it is probably 1M that wasn't going to be spent anyway. Its simply a number from Florida's perspective, they are saving on actual salary which is worth more to them as a budget team which struggles to sell tickets. Quote I agree that we signed the last CBA and that’s supersedes whatever agreements were made before (from your earlier post), we will just have to live with it, and heck it could have been a lot worse if he didn’t retire until a year from now, who knows maybe he knew this and didn’t want to stick it to us and it played into his thinking process...would have loved it if he stayed and got his 500w...and then retired but then the cap penalty would be a lot worse for two more years...and if he retired with one year left it was a huge penalty, right when we have Hughes and EP on new contracts...we should be rejoicing from a cap penalty stand point...that he retired now. The easiest solution was facilitating a trade where Luongo could effectively retire while still being on our books for the remainder of that contract. I don't know if league rules prevent an employee from collecting a paycheck as part of another organization while working for another but there is some precedent with Pronger being hired by the DOPS while still being paid by the Coyotes. But at the end of the day it was Luongo's decision to avoid all of the shenanigans and simply retire. I can respect it but I am not sure I will ever understand it. He had the opportunity to help us (and himself) on his way out and simply chose not to. I have been sympathetic towards Luongo for the way he was treated. I have defended him numerous times for the way he performed and also his exit but I don't think there is anything to defend here. I am thankful for all the memories but I cannot help but feel that Luongo thinks of himself as a Panther more than a Canuck. He has spent a significant amount of time with that organization so you can't really blame him but every single significant moment in this guy's career came when he was part of this franchise. Of course even with the best goaltender in our history, this franchise is again the bridesmaid and not the bride. It &^@#ing pisses me off that just about everybody is going to put their guys on LTIR but we are going to be screwed. I spent years telling everyone I knew this moment would never come, that Luongo would never make this decision. Edited June 27, 2019 by Toews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 I don't think the Canucks will dispute it. I'm not a fan of this rule but since it is implemented, I would like to see it be enforced strictly. The problem I have is that other teams have found ways to circumvent around this rule thereby creating unfairness in competition. For example, Chicago was able to win 3 cups in large part to getting Hossa under 5.275M. His market value was probably somewhere around 8M during his prime years. So they were able to save nearly 2.8 million dollars, which went to pay for other guys and keep that roster strong. If Chicago had to pay 8M, then maybe they couldn't afford a player such as Bolland, Ladd, or even Byfuglien in 2010 and maybe the another team would have beaten them. Hossa "retired" after 2016-17 season with 4 years left on his contract. If Hossa hadn't retired, Chicago incurs 5.275 M in cap for 4 more seasons, which is well above his market value say around 2-3 M. So things balance out. You get the player at discount during his prime and save 10s of millions in cap over those years but you are also responsible for him once he is off his peak performance and performs below his salary, paying 10s of millions in cap compared to his value. The cap-recapture penalty ensures that Chicago is hit with this responsibility in case the team and player mutually agree for the player to retire to avoid this penalty. The principle behind the rule, I'm OK with. I don't like the rule because it was legal under the previous CBA but I understand why it was implemented. I'm OK with getting hit with Luongo's cap-recapture since we did only incur 5+ mil when he was easily worth 8+ mil. My problem is that the rule has not been strictly enforced with the players going on LTIR and not retiring. If the NHL was a serious league, they would apply the cap-recapture if the player is considered unable to play for good. If he is unable to play for good before his contract is up, then the onus should still fall on the team for taking on the player on such a long contract. Saying the player has all of a sudden developed allergic reaction to hockey gear shouldn't let you off the hook. You signed him to 12 year deal knowing that the contract takes him to his 40's, therefore, you deal with any unforeseen consequences to his health whether it's allergy, drug problem, concussion, degenerative back issue, retirement, and on and on. Anyways, the conclusion is that the NHL is not a serious league. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobayashi Maru Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 This was likely mentioned but was the compliance buyout window tied to that CBA? League giving an out on a couple of the contracts like this. Our problem is we needed Luongo and weren't going to buy him out at the risk of him leaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 8 hours ago, coastal.view said: so the team is now dealing with a cap recapture penalty and many fans are unhappy so let's look at what really has happened here luongo, despite his chronic injuries, elected to retire rather then go on ltir that is a bit odd, he is actually losing salary as a result why would he do this ? it hurts both his previous teams, the canucks much more maybe he still has a bad taste in his mouth from his treatment here ? this is a way he can payback ? luongo, could easily have obtained doctor support, that his injury is chronic and career ending and that he could no longer play hockey he did not elect this outcome he is the only person who could have chosen the outcome we are now dealing with florida could not have imposed this on him. .the man's hips are a mess clearly the canucks had no say maybe he is not worthy of jersey retirement? It doesn't actually hurt Fla as much as it helps. They free up about $3m in salary, I believe and they worked with Lu on his decision, making sure he retired rather than going on ltir. Lu made the decision to help the Panthers knowing it screwed the Canucks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 2 hours ago, Toews said: Do you think anyone remembers the time Chris Pronger spent on LTIR with the Coyotes? If it didn't affect that POS's legacy then why would it affect Lu's? Panthers fans are fine with it because it is probably 1M that wasn't going to be spent anyway. Its simply a number from Florida's perspective, they are saving on actual salary which is worth more to them as a budget team which struggles to sell tickets. The easiest solution was facilitating a trade where Luongo could effectively retire while still being on our books for the remainder of that contract. I don't know if league rules prevent an employee from collecting a paycheck as part of another organization while working for another but there is some precedent with Pronger being hired by the DOPS while still being paid by the Coyotes. But at the end of the day it was Luongo's decision to avoid all of the shenanigans and simply retire. I can respect it but I am not sure I will ever understand it. He had the opportunity to help us (and himself) on his way out and simply chose not to. I have been sympathetic towards Luongo for the way he was treated. I have defended him numerous times for the way he performed and also his exit but I don't think there is anything to defend here. I am thankful for all the memories but I cannot help but feel that Luongo thinks of himself as a Panther more than a Canuck. He has spent a significant amount of time with that organization so you can't really blame him but every single significant moment in this guy's career came when he was part of this franchise. Of course even with the best goaltender in our history, this franchise is again the bridesmaid and not the bride. It &^@#ing pisses me off that just about everybody is going to put their guys on LTIR but we are going to be screwed. I spent years telling everyone I knew this moment would never come, that Luongo would never make this decision. You do understand that there was no way he was going to play this contract out right? He did us a huge favour retiring now instead of going for 500 wins and then retiring next year or even worse the one after that when both EP and Hughes are up. Personally I’m stoked, very happy for him and that he didn’t go to a doctor for a note as it would have been dishonest. Dont think this needs to be a big deal, I’m sure Benning has plans for each scenario and is sending flowers and a thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 13 hours ago, Top Sven Baercheese said: I don't think they'll win it, although it's absolutely ridiculous that they get penalized for it. You shouldn't be penalized for doing something completely legal at the time the contract was signed. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Amazing how the NHL doesn't simply use common sense for this, there shouldn't even be a dispute. I think if they appeal it, they will win it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Ghost Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 The argument that the league retroactively punished a handful of contracts wont be enough. But if the Canucks were smart they would be bring in in every single cap recapture skirting player deal as a point of reference. This includes an NHL employed player too in Pronger as he was collecting his pay while also working for the NHL. If the Canucks challenged it on the basis of these phony retire but not actually retire situations, they would have much more leverage imo. And they should make the fight as public as they can as both the NHL and the NHLPA, along with agents and players, would certainly not want that particular publicity for what is essentially insurance fraud. All kinds of ramifications for medical staff etc too if they are giving players like Callahan, etc an out to go on permanent injured reserve. Apply the pressure enough that 3 mil recapture will quietly and magically disappear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoescobar Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, CanucksJay said: Yes it was clearly cap circumvention. The canucks exposed a loophole (like many other teams before them). The contract however was approved by the league. The league then changed the rules afterwards to punish those that circumvented the cap. An anology is that your kid wants to go out on a school night. He convinces you he'll be home by 9pm. You oblige. He comes home by 9 pm. The next day you say, there's a new house rule. in order to go out on a school night, you have to clean your room. He didn't clean his room before going out so he's grounded for a week. I get that cap circumvention occured. However to place a new rule AFTER the fact and then to backdate the rule and apply it sounds stupid. Here's another question then. How far should the league go back in retroactively penalizing any rule changes? Should the league go back and disqualify all of new jersey's Stanley cup because Brodeur played the puck outside of the trapezoid zone before they implemented the trapezoid? I mean the rule is in play now and clearly, brodeur played the puck out of the area and according to today's rule, he should have been assessed a 2 min penalty? How about icing? The whistle should have gone according to today's rule but we used to force players to race back and actually touch the puck. Im sure quite a few icings were negated which resulted in goals. Do we take those goals away, get in our DeLorean and run it back? Edit.. Lol someone used a bedtime reference.... So funny whay a coincidence no your analogy is not accurate the contract was technically valid and sound the nhl had not legal basis to reject the form of the contract they approved them with a warning that there would be consequences for cap circumvention it's more like your kid coming home at 9 on time for bed but then stays up all night in bed drinking coke and eating cookies and chats online you can't ground him for coming home late, you do warn that there will be consequences in the morning if he does not go to sleep though you are ignored he technically complied with coming home on time but your real intent was that he get a decent night sleep so he could function for school in the morning you need a bit of time to figure out the appropriate consequence for his misconduct (your analogy needs to build in some underlying wrongdoing by your son for it to work) Edited June 27, 2019 by coastal.view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, coastal.view said: i think basically everyone who does not like this recapture penalty has chosen to simply ignore that the team was actively involved in cap circumvention which gave teams a big salary cap advantage when the luongo contract was signed that was a breach of the intent of the cba that existed at the time and all teams were warned there would be a sanction but let's all just forget about the warning and the cap circumvention strategy adopted by some teams and just whine now about the penalty because we just don't like it and did not get away with it but i think you are forgetting that allowing Tallon to nix Lu's LTIR is unfair and self-serviing and not in the spirit of the CBA either if Montreal is allowed to do this it will crush Nashville and we all know the league won't allow that Edited June 27, 2019 by Jimmy McGill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: but i think you are forgetting that allowing Tallon to nix Lu's LTIR is unfair and self-serviing and not in the spirit of the CBA either if Montreal is allowed to do this it will crush Nashville and we all know the league won't allow that tallon may have had influence but it clearly is luongo's decision not sure why you feel you need to deflect from this luongo is a big boy he knows all the options he chose to retire no one else made that decision for him why are you blaming tallon? join most on here and blame bettman i see this as luongo's decision no other player in his position made the decision he did they all elected ltir at the end of the day, it also will not be montreal's decision not sure why you frame this as a team decision it is the player's decision you seem to have an agenda here jimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therodigy Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 My thoughts on the matter: - Luongo's contract was legal at the time of signing. The new CBA was approved in order to prevent further ludicrous contracts, which everyone signed off on. With the new Cap implications, which I believe went down as a result post-lockout, each NHL team were given two compliance buyouts. Vancouver decided to not use one on Luongo. . - Because everyone signed off on the new CBA, it's fair to be penalized for breaching said contracts. It is anyone's prerogative to appeal it, and I would expect Canucks management to pursue one, citing LTIR loop holes applied by other teams, the Kovalchuk issue, etc. I don't see it being successful, though. - The $3.3 million in cap recapture is frustrating, but manageable. According to cap friendly, the team has a little over $15 Million to resign/replace Boeser, Motte, Leivo, Goldobin, Granlund, Hutton, and Schenn. Provided the roster (and salary cap) remains status quo next year, we see Spooner, Tanev, and Schaller off the books, which will allow for space to resign/replace Virtanen, Gaudette, Stecher, and Markstrom. Year 3 will be tough with Pettersson and Hughes needing new contracts, so we'll lose Sutter (The sky is falling!), Pearson (which could hurt if he plays well in the next couple of seasons), Edler (unless he'll resign at heavy discount, pending his play) & Baertschi (which, at this point, I have no idea if he'll even play again). Year 4, we're free of the recapture penalty, Eriksson, and Beagle, not to mention there should be a big increase in the cap with Seattle and the pending tv deal... Management will need to get creative, but it's not a complete anchor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, coastal.view said: tallon may have had influence but it clearly is luongo's decision not sure why you feel you need to deflect from this luongo is a big boy he knows all the options he chose to retire no one else made that decision for him why are you blaming tallon? join most on here and blame bettman i see this as luongo's decision no other player in his position made the decision he did they all elected ltir at the end of the day, it also will not be montreal's decision not sure why you frame this as a team decision it is the player's decision you seem to have an agenda here jimmy agenda? Look if you want to pretend that there are hard and fast rules in the NHL enjoy your bubble. There are not, the recapture penalty was punitive and a perfect example of influence on the league by certain teams. Yes Tallon. By getting Lu an office job that ensures he doesn't lose any salary. By also refusing to go LTIR which is now coming out as Lu's preference, he's actively working to his benefit at our expense. Thats not how this clause is supposed to work, and its not in the spirit of the CBA. And I guarantee if Weber retires early that Nashville won't face this, it would be too devastating to their team. I get it, some people are "rule followers" but you know, sometimes you need to punch the bully even when you know you're going to get your ass kicked. Aquilini should fight this. I do think there is a number of solutions where teams still feel the pain of recapture but don't allow other teams to benefit at your expense. E.g., give teams the options in a situation like this: 1) pick the recapture penalty as is, or 2) allow teams to pick LTIR for the cap hit, but also make it so it uses a spot on the 23 man roster. This way teams get punished (making the rule crowd happy) but they get some flexibility in how they're being &^@#ed. Edited June 27, 2019 by Jimmy McGill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Ghost Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 Realistically the solution is to treat the player situation exactly the same from a cap recapture standpoint whether they actually retire or go on permanent ir status. Too much common sense for the NHL though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said: Realistically the solution is to treat the player situation exactly the same from a cap recapture standpoint whether they actually retire or go on permanent ir status. Too much common sense for the NHL though. unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle already, that would have been a good idea if they'd done that at the start. Some different mechanism is needed now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Ghost Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 The nhl retroactively applied this rule. They could expand it in the next cba to include all situations. But they wont. Look at the nhl darling teams that have gained huge benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: agenda? Look if you want to pretend that there are hard and fast rules in the NHL enjoy your bubble. There are not, the recapture penalty was punitive and a perfect example of influence on the league by certain teams. Yes Tallon. By getting Lu an office job that ensures he doesn't lose any salary. By also refusing to go LTIR which is now coming out as Lu's preference, he's actively working to his benefit at our expense. Thats not how this clause is supposed to work, and its not in the spirit of the CBA. And I guarantee if Weber retires early that Nashville won't face this, it would be too devastating to their team. I get it, some people are "rule followers" but you know, sometimes you need to punch the bully even when you know you're going to get your ass kicked. Aquilini should fight this. I do think there is a number of solutions where teams still feel the pain of recapture but don't allow other teams to benefit at your expense. E.g., give teams the options in a situation like this: 1) pick the recapture penalty as is, or 2) allow teams to pick LTIR for the cap hit, but also make it so it uses a spot on the 23 man roster. This way teams get punished (making the rule crowd happy) but they get some flexibility in how they're being &^@#ed. but the game is clearly scripted you want to go off script yet again ?? cap circumvention was addressed and penalized in the current cba it was not punitive, it simply required all dollars paid in salary be captured in cap there were no additional penalties added a loophole was left if a player cannot continue to perform and play out the contract due to injury (but not due to a simple retirement choice) the cap recapture could not apply as the player did not choose to end his career, (he medically could not continue) so the player is placed on ltir and the contract plays out till the end that is the only way out of this mess everyone knows this luongo chose to retire anyway i guess we will see what will happen if weber choose the same outcome as luongo did or maybe this will all be addressed again in the new cba and revised (is weber the last remaining player who faces possible sanctions?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 i have been trying to figure out what the difference would be if luongo had elected to go the ltir list route instead of retiring would panthers have to take the whole ltir amount? would is be split in similar proportion to the nucks and panthers as the recapture does? the difference in amount overall is not very much, a million or so per season i cannot find anything that answers this does anyone else know? 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