Any existing deal in excess of 5 years would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire!

[DownUndaCanuck]

This will hurt the GM's more than anything - the players and owners get out fine. I doubt the 5 year cap will hold up though.

Just for the record though, Luongo's contract at the time of being signed (and even still today) is one of the best a goalie has in the NHL. Despite it's length, 5.3 million cap hit for a top-5 goalie in the world consistently over half a decade if not longer is a steal compared to what guys like Rinne, Lundqvist and Miller are making.

But props on the nickname ""Reboundo" lol.

[10Bure14Burrows]

Once upon a time @ Vancouver " luongo"

[ice orca]

Lots of players on that list with bad contracts that i would trade Lou for. Bad contract for bad contract would make for some very interesting trades. Lots of high end talent on the list. Actually this allows the big money teams to do a completely different level of trades to help each other for the now instead of the future. What player on that list would you trade Lou for? mine would be Hossa. Darth Kane gonna hate me tho.

[Fozzy]

If this is true, it might increase the value of Luongo in a trade.

[Wilbur]

Not sure how this increases Luongo's trade value as any team taking him on still will be paying him for as long as he's on that team. The only thing new is the cap hit goes back to the Canucks once he retires.

Although this rule makes good salary cap sense, I'm surprised it won't be grandfathered in. This will suck for a lot of teams.

Not sure if it's been posted elsewhere, but the proposal is up on the NHL website: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570&navid=DL|NHL|home

[BuretoMogilny]

Haha, Voice of Reason. Dramatic much?

You post that as if it's likely to be part of the new CBA.

A voice or reason would wait to see how that proposal plays out.

Like a lead balloon would be my guess.

It would effectively apply the terms that were exclusively applied to 35+ contracts, to all existing contracts, and make the cap space untradeable.

Oddball clause that would create a lot of conflict when a deal is going to require consensus.

[95XXX]

It will end up being on a go forward basis, my bet is old contracts will be grandfathered.

[PlayStation]

It will end up being on a go forward basis, my bet is old contracts will be grandfathered.

[CanuckinEdm]

I wonder if the cap hit would be adjusted to what is left owing? I find this idea very stupid obviously the trading team wants this player then maybe in 4 years they have someone that can takeover that position so now they force the big contract out cause they have no repercussions. If anything it should be a 50-50 split.

[Provost]

How? When the NHL puposes this

• Maximum contract length of five (5) years.

• The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA.

[MashedBananas]

The Isles wont have to worry about the DiPietro contract going against the cap, he's always on the LTIR

[Wilbur]

Ah well, could be worse. With Carter, Richards, Simmonds, Hartnell, and Bryz Paul Holmgren won't be able to use his balls again until 2020.

[canucksnhl]

I can see why they would do this. But I think the original club should only have to cover half the contract or the amount of the player's contract divided by the number of teams that acquire the player during that contract. And of course the contact would not count against the cap.

[sam13371337]

if it goes ahead, i could see the current deals getting grandfathered as a compromise. only 8 dissenters are needed to block any deal in the NHL.

Bettman is a nobody and would not last a second if he didnt have the owners support.

also, the PA would be against this clause. if half the teams in the NHL are handcuffed financially because of this, it means they have less money to spend on new signings, and less money going into the PA's pocket...

i am 100% sure the NHL threw that in there as another negotiating tool. something they can compromise with by "giving away"

[bobopan]

This proposed CBA is GARBAGE for the Canucks.. Just horrible. I've heard some ppl say this increases Luongos trade value, i bet to differ. If he retired before his cap would of been wiped off the map so its not like things are changing for any team that would aquire Luongo. Now this just screws the canucks..not to mention a cap of 59 million and teams have 1 year to get in line? I hate this proposed CBA.!!!

I was counting on a rollback of salaries as much as the players don't want that its the only way were going to realistically be able to keep this team in tact. If not were screwed. No amnesty buy-outs either i notice.. Say goodbye to the Sedins after next season...or hope to hell they sign for dirt cheap.

[Dogbyte]

Luongo contract is NOT bad..........damn you haters and fake fans there are worse contract out there that affect their team...5.3 cap hit is a bargain

[CmdrAdama]

Exactly. And the contract is designed so he only makes $1 million in the last 3 years, which means that he is likely to retire after 7 years (rather than 10)

[elvis15]

The years of his contract in which Luongo earns the minimum amounts actually fall after this CBA would expire. It would depend upon the next CBA including that same clause for it to have any impact to us, not to mention it'd have to make it's way into the final cut of this CBA.

[Canuck Surfer]

It would certainly dissuade teams from handing out such big contracts!

I wonder if there will be a (partial or full) "heritage" or "grandfather" clause allowing a free pass or out clause for existing contracts?

Edit; also chiming in on discussion as to whether this helps Lou's trade value??? The fact / possibility we wear the risks on his cap hit, you would think, makes him substantially more trade able. But the core fact, read that carefully, FACT, is that real money remains more important than cap hit. It is only 6 or 8 teams perennially at the cap ceiling (Vancouver) where it will impact behaviours handing out money. In contrast, one reason Florida likes a contract (prior to this proposal) such as Lou's is we have already paid the really fat front end load on the deal. They would have picked up 10 years worth of cap hit to hit the cap basement minimum (valuable to low budget teams) without ACTUALLY paying real $$$'s should he retire! As there are more Florida's in the league than Buffalo's or Philly's, his value goes inherently down with such teams?

But it opens the door for teams like Toronto.

Haha, Voice of Reason. Dramatic much?

You post that as if it's likely to be part of the new CBA.

A voice or reason would wait to see how that proposal plays out.

Like a lead balloon would be my guess.

It would effectively apply the terms that were exclusively applied to 35+ contracts, to all existing contracts, and make the cap space untradeable.

Oddball clause that would create a lot of conflict when a deal is going to require consensus.

[elvis15]

It would certainly dissuade teams from handing out such big contracts!

I wonder if there will be a (partial or full) "heritage" or "grandfather" clause allowing a free pass or out clause for existing contracts?