Alex Burrows 14 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 If he doesn't want to play here: 'retire' and get out of the contract and come back to the NHL next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Trying to make sense of this....Essentially Lu could retire and have Canucks management agree to it. He could sit out a year and spend time with his young family in Florida for a season (something that may be quite appealing to him). He could then decide to return to the game the following season without a contract although the Canucks would retain his RFA rights for up to three years. The Canucks would incur a re-capture penalty on their salary cap of 825-850k for the next nine years but would not actually have to pay any salary out to Luongo. They could then trade his RFA rights to another team who was willing to negotiate a new contract with him. Is that correct? Wow, this could indeed happen and might be a mutually beneficial transaction for both parties. Hard to see how the league could punish the Canucks over this any more than the new CBA already has. It would free up 4.2 million in cap and potentially rid the Canucks of this albatross of a contract plus allow Luongo to play where he wants for the remainder of his career. The money he gives up this year could be made up in a shorter term contract elsewhere. It's not as though he was going to play until the end of it anyway. Very interesting....bet the Canucks would have liked to consider this prior to trading Scneider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hd71 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Do you guys honestly believe a player could retire and come back the next year and be free to sign where-ever? It's not possible, otherwise it would have happened a hundred times already.. Luongo's contract has at least 2 outs, one for Luongo after the 5th year and one for the Canucks after the 7th year. http://capgeek.com/player/683 CLAUSES: Full NTC (Exception 1: Player can supply five-team trade list following final game of 2013-14, valid through July 15, 2014; Exception 2: If player does not submit trade list as documented in Exception 1, team can request a five-team trade list following final game of 2017-18 season, valid through Sept. 1, 2018. If player submitted a trade list in 2014 and was not moved, team loses right to request trade list in 2018.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Do you guys honestly believe a player could retire and come back the next year and be free to sign where-ever? It's not possible, otherwise it would have happened a hundred times already.. Luongo's contract has at least 2 outs, one for Luongo after the 5th year and one for the Canucks after the 7th year. http://capgeek.com/player/683 CLAUSES: Full NTC (Exception 1: Player can supply five-team trade list following final game of 2013-14, valid through July 15, 2014; Exception 2: If player does not submit trade list as documented in Exception 1, team can request a five-team trade list following final game of 2017-18 season, valid through Sept. 1, 2018. If player submitted a trade list in 2014 and was not moved, team loses right to request trade list in 2018.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Trying to make sense of this....Essentially Lu could retire and have Canucks management agree to it. He could sit out a year and spend time with his young family in Florida for a season (something that may be quite appealing to him). He could then decide to return to the game the following season without a contract although the Canucks would retain his RFA rights for up to three years. The Canucks would incur a re-capture penalty on their salary cap of 825-850k for the next nine years but would not actually have to pay any salary out to Luongo. They could then trade his RFA rights to another team who was willing to negotiate a new contract with him. Is that correct? Wow, this could indeed happen and might be a mutually beneficial transaction for both parties. Hard to see how the league could punish the Canucks over this any more than the new CBA already has. It would free up 4.2 million in cap and potentially rid the Canucks of this albatross of a contract plus allow Luongo to play where he wants for the remainder of his career. The money he gives up this year could be made up in a shorter term contract elsewhere. It's not as though he was going to play until the end of it anyway. Very interesting....bet the Canucks would have liked to consider this prior to trading Scneider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 You seem to have nicely distilled the ramifications it could have for Van. Question is, does Bettman allow the same ruling for a robust Cdn franchise, as he allows a struggling US market? Wouldn't lay $ on that. If it's obviously beneficial to our boys, odds are he'll try to quash it one way, or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Trying to make sense of this....Essentially Lu could retire and have Canucks management agree to it. He could sit out a year and spend time with his young family in Florida for a season (something that may be quite appealing to him). He could then decide to return to the game the following season without a contract although the Canucks would retain his RFA rights for up to three years. The Canucks would incur a re-capture penalty on their salary cap of 825-850k for the next nine years but would not actually have to pay any salary out to Luongo. They could then trade his RFA rights to another team who was willing to negotiate a new contract with him. Is that correct? Wow, this could indeed happen and might be a mutually beneficial transaction for both parties. Hard to see how the league could punish the Canucks over this any more than the new CBA already has. It would free up 4.2 million in cap and potentially rid the Canucks of this albatross of a contract plus allow Luongo to play where he wants for the remainder of his career. The money he gives up this year could be made up in a shorter term contract elsewhere. It's not as though he was going to play until the end of it anyway. Very interesting....bet the Canucks would have liked to consider this prior to trading Scneider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 And when the league changes the rules after we do this and then fines the Canucks to the tune of 3 first round picks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hd71 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Not just 3 draft picks but Fines in the millions to both the team and player, draft choices, and money taken away from their salary cap as well...Article 26 in the CBA covers Circumventions..and retiring to get out of a contract and then come back with a different team would be that.. http://www.nhlpa.com/inside-nhlpa/collective-bargaining-agreement pges 159-166 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 That is not correct, not by my reading of the letters of the law. If Luongo were to retire tomorrow: -he would not be allowed to play in the NHL for 3 years -he would still be held to his previously signed NHL contract -he would not be allowed to play for any other NHL team (unless of course he was traded/bought-out) Basically by retiring, all he would be doing is putting this soap opera on pause for 3 years, unless he wants to play in a different league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 There is a better way-out for Luongo. It's called "mutual termination of contract". You have to be on $100 waivers first and then both parties can void the contract. If it works the same as the amnesty buyout, with his NTC Luongno wont have to go thru waivers. The only problem is to convince Luongo to say good buy to 40M. Kovalchuk left 77M on the table, but will probably earn 10-15 tax free in Russia for the nextd 3-4 years. If Luongo leaves his contract behind he will probably sign a new 3-4 years deal at 3-4M per year. Its not a loophole it's a legal move, it's a matter if the player is ok leave M$$$$ on the table, which Kovalchuk did, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Do you guys honestly believe a player could retire and come back the next year and be free to sign where-ever? It's not possible, otherwise it would have happened a hundred times already.. Luongo's contract has at least 2 outs, one for Luongo after the 5th year and one for the Canucks after the 7th year. http://capgeek.com/player/683 CLAUSES: Full NTC (Exception 1: Player can supply five-team trade list following final game of 2013-14, valid through July 15, 2014; Exception 2: If player does not submit trade list as documented in Exception 1, team can request a five-team trade list following final game of 2017-18 season, valid through Sept. 1, 2018. If player submitted a trade list in 2014 and was not moved, team loses right to request trade list in 2018.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 There is a better way-out for Luongo. It's called "mutual termination of contract". You have to be on $100 waivers first and then both parties can void the contract. If it works the same as the amnesty buyout, with his NTC Luongno wont have to go thru waivers. The only problem is to convince Luongo to say good buy to 40M. Kovalchuk left 77M on the table, but will probably earn 10-15 tax free in Russia for the nextd 3-4 years. If Luongo leaves his contract behind he will probably sign a new 3-4 years deal at 3-4M per year. Its not a loophole it's a legal move, it's a matter if the player is ok leave M$$$$ on the table, which Kovalchuk did, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hd71 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 You think there are 100's of players that would voluntarily rip up there contract not get paid for a year and still have there rights owned by there team when they return anyway? OK... The out clause in Lou's contract have no reticence to the situation, in fact Lou was on the trading block recently if you recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I hope that I understood that first comment correctly.. I don't think it is possible that's why I was saying players would have been doing it already if they could.. And for Luongo being on the block, yes, I know he was but he has also said he was never asked about any particular deal so he did not have to say if he would waive the NTC or not. GM can talk to and have lots of deals brewing but both of the sides would have needed to agree at the same time, which in this case it appears they did. The out clauses can push one side one way or the other without needing the others approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hd71 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 My point was, what player would want to rip up there contract? That's why it was never done till recently. The trade clause in the contract is a mute point and has no reverence to anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 demanded a trade? retired? mutually agree to void the contract? pretty sure they're all options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The NHL isn't stupid. This is basically a free buyout for teams that want to void contracts. Don't think that there won't be penalties if any other teams try it. Kovalchuk's story of wanting to be in Russia with his family is at least believable. If Luongo did it, the NHL would see right through his motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 My point was, what player would want to rip up there contract? That's why it was never done till recently. The trade clause in the contract is a mute point and has no reverence to anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 How about comes back... dominates and puts a sock in all u haters mouths. Although even if he won 82 games and got a 0gaa and a perfect save percentage the haters would deflect it and say it was all because of the team. The same team Cory choked infront of for games 3 and 4 vs the sharks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.