qwijibo
Members-
Posts
8,144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by qwijibo
-
How is amending the recapture so it prevents the penalty from Exceeding the players AAV in a my given season screw over the Canucks? It doesn’t lower the overall penalty for that pk sure. It just makes it so the team is still able to ice a team. Can you imagine if Nashville got hit with a 1 year $24m cap penalty? It would be devastating. There’s no way they could adjust their roster that much to comply for the one season. They’d still end up with a $7.85m cap hit for 3+ seasons. I really don’t understand how you see this as the league screwing over the Canucks again. It’s a perfectly reasonable and well thought out solution to a potentially catastrophic situation The Canucks situation was mild in comparison. The cap went up $2m right as the $3.03m penalty went into effect. So really they only had to adjust to -$1.03m cap space. Yes. Having that cap space would solve an issue or two. But the penalty would have never caused the Canucks to have to completely strip their roster to comply. There all they’re trying to avoid
-
It is punishment. It’s a penalty for circumventing the spirit of the cap. it’s supposed to be punitive. That said the league gave GM’s a few avenues to avoid the recapture. A player going on LTIR was one. Hossa had a legit medical issue. Did the timing of his retirement play into his compensation dropping? Possibly. Regardless. His condition was verified as serious enough to end his career. GM’s also could have avoided recapture by making use of a compliance buyout. Vancouver chose not to, likely because taking a cap penalty that costs no real money is preferable to ownership out paying millions of dollars to buy out a player who still has value to the team. The moral of the story? GM’s should be careful about biting the hand that feeds them. Every GMA could have taken the sane route as the ones who subsequently got hit with the recapture penalty. It’s not like those guys were so much smarter thst they discovered a loophole that no one else saw. Everyone knew the loophole was there and they were warned not to violate the spirit of the cap by using it. A few GM’s saw an opportunity to make a cup run and took the risk. It didn’t pay off.
-
I think it’s prudent to hold off on signing him. He’s posted 10 games as a Canuck and looked very good. Hopefully he can carry on with that through the play-in/playoff games. For the most part through his career he’s been a 40/45 point guy. Assuming he’s much more than that based on the success he had over a 10 game stretch is risky. He wouldn’t be the first player to come to a new team with a hot hand. Look what Neal did in his first dozen or so games with the Oilers. Benning is smart to wait and see what Toffoli actually adds to the lineup before committing cap and term to him.
-
Nashville is still facing a potential $24m cap penalty (compared to the $9m penalty the Canucks have). NJ, LA and Florida aren’t excluded either. Your victim mentality is showing. Some GM’s tried to make the owners look stupid by circumventing the cap that the owners fought to have put in. The owners struck back. It wasn’t directed directly at Vancouver, but rather the group of GM’s that ignored the warnings to not circumvent the cap. it certainly wasn’t handled in the best way but painting the GM’s of the teams as innocent victims is far from accurate.
-
It’s a reasonable amendment. I don’t think they ever factored in a the effect on recapture if the player was traded when they first brought in the penalty. To limit the annual penalty to the AAV of the contract makes sense. Having a potential $24m cap penalty for a season doesn’t make sense. The only reason it doesn’t help the Canucks is because penalty isn’t that bad. Luongo’s cap hit was $5.33m. The Canucks penalty is $3.03m. If it was higher the amendment would limit it to the $5.34
-
Teams were warned repeatedly not to circumvent the cap. The league recognized the loophole in the wording of the CBA but had to wait until the new CBA kicked in the fix it. That’s why the contract was approved. Make no mistake, The GM’s knew they were playing with fire. There’s a reason only a handful of GM’s chose to risk it. They were looking for a competitive advantage in a cup run. They all knew there would be consequences (although they didn’t know what)
-
[Report] Lias Andersson requests trade from Rangers
qwijibo replied to Ossi Vaananen's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I think your homer mode kicked in to high here. This is absolutely brutal for the Rangers. -
Not according to Apron Basu and several other reporters who have spoken goth dozens of players off the record. Players health and safety is a real concern.
-
That’s purely speculation at this point. Right now the players are still waiting on clarification on what safely measures will be in place. Apparently a lot of the players are apprehensive about returning to play. They do, however, understand the dire financial effect of not returning.
-
Not that it matters, but it was a video, not a picture. And it easily could have been forwarded to her by anyone, including staff of the establishment