Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Serious question, why can't Lu and Canucks scrap his contract?


Del Rio

Recommended Posts

I do not get this. Omark had is contract terminated recently and other's have too. In real world contracts, if both parties mutually agree, a contract can be voided.

So why can't Lu and the Canucks mutually agree to void the contract? I have no idea why they can't, because I am very sure both parties would not hesitate to do it and would have been done by now.

Someone explain to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because the aquilini family doesn't like to buy out contracts. Ballard was the only exception. Otherwise Booth or Luongo would have been gone already.

If I am not mistaken buy outs and contract termination are different. Scott Gomez was bought out. Rusty Olesz had his contract terminated by the Devils early in the season.

Again in the real world in contract law, a contract can be voided if both parties mutually agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mutual termination would require Luo to walk away from all the guaranteed money and then go play in Europe or a league that isn't affiliated to the NHL.

He's turning 35 in April, therefore this situation constitutes as eliminating a whole year without NHL play for an aging goaltender who wants a cup badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsure really but it's a pet peeve of a lot of professionals in the hockey world that the NHL doesn't have the same structure as MLB NFL and NBA that non production can result in demotion or termination.

Get Chychrun and Macdavid!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mutual termination would require Luo to walk away from all the guaranteed money and then go play in Europe or a league that isn't affiliated to the NHL.

He's turning 35 in April, therefore this situation constitutes as eliminating a whole year without NHL play for an aging goaltender who wants a cup badly.

I see. He could never play in the NHL again or after a certain time period? If that's the case, I find that stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsure really but it's a pet peeve of a lot of professionals in the hockey world that the NHL doesn't have the same structure as MLB NFL and NBA that non production can result in demotion or termination.

Get Chychrun and Macdavid!!!

Buddy your making me too drunk I don't want to die at the end of this day..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsure really but it's a pet peeve of a lot of professionals in the hockey world that the NHL doesn't have the same structure as MLB NFL and NBA that non production can result in demotion or termination.

Get Chychrun and Macdavid!!!

I think that is so stupid in the NHL if players can't play again if both parties agree to scrap a contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is so stupid in the NHL if players can't play again if both parties agree to scrap a contract.

Ya it's weird.

Someone had an awesome write up about it. Cannot remember if it was elvis, Oldnews or J.R. but they had a solid breakdown and articles supporting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's asking a valid question, he's just not articulating it well. Contracts can be terminated mutually, between the GM and the player. However, I believe the player is refrained from signing with another NHL team.

Worth noting is the NTC in Luongo's contract, described here: 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.)

So, I guess we'll see if Luongo really wants to stay or force a limited trade list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did ask for an explanation..

Lol.

He didn't ask for an explanation on waivers, it's hard to form a proper answer without clarifying his base knowledge first.

I think that is so stupid in the NHL if players can't play again if both parties agree to scrap a contract.

While you may think so, if that wasn't the case then there'd be no consequences for a team to do so and avoid other penalties (i.e. cap recapture).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes sense that you cannot void the contract as it would be the most blatant kind of cap circumvention. The Canucks have enjoyed the benefits of having elite goaltending at a bargain price. Had Luongo been on the open market he would have quite easily had offers of 7m+. The league's stance on these type of contracts has never changed, they don't like it and its hard to blame them. Tacking on extra years at the end of the contract just to drop the cap hit is circumvention. The Hawks are going to suffer the consequences of the Hossa contract as well, unless we all luck out and the NHL decides to hand out more compliance buyouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple answer is that Lou doesn't want to "terminate" his contract because it would cost him millions of dollars. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

I think Luongo could get a 4 year contract paying him 7m+. And assuming he ages well, he could easily get Brodeur money till he retires. You have no idea what the market for goaltending will look like and there will be quite a few teams with the cap space to give Luongo a much better deal. So while your assertion is that it would cost him millions, I would say there is a good chance he ends up making more. Brodeur is making 4.5m at age 41. With the cap projected to go much higher who knows what Luongo could make if he left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...