Undrafted

That CBA doesn’t specify what you just claimed. Yes, Luongo wouldn’t have an “active” long term contract, (thus agreeing with you) but the cap hit certainly is active... which is lower than it should have been thus circumventing the cap. Exactly the reason why the league put in this clause in the CBA.

I remember a report from 2013, where Nonis asked the NHL about this specific scenario when deliberating acquiring Luongo. The league told Nonis, that the recapture penalty wouldn’t be affected. 

There is a pretty obvious way to circumvent the cap if your allowed to avoid recapture penalties by “paying” for other teams to buyout a retiring player. The league won’t allow that, and they have the authority to stop it. 

Had insomnia, so I did some poking around and it turns out @mll is right: a buyout does eliminate the cap recapture penalty.

There's precedent to confirm this: When NYR bought out Brad Richards's 9-yr deal (signed in 2011), they were spared from any cap recapture penalties related to that contract.  If that were not the case, NYR would've been hit hard from the cap recapture from that deal and they do not currently have any cap space taken up from Richards's contract, either from the buyout or from any penalty applied (at least, according to CapFriendly)

I think the difference is that a contract buyout is considered equivalent to 'completing' the contract.

As for FLA and Luongo, it's also true that there's little benefit to FLA in buying out Luongo, either financially or in regards to his cap hit, so it's an unlikely scenario to begin with

That was a compliance buyout... I’m not saying you are wrong but giving a team a recapture penalty would defeat the purpose of a compliance buyout.