Pouria Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Everything is a conspiracy against the Canucks. No, but the way NHL makes up rules or have some double standards it really pisses off Canucks fans. It isn't fair to other teams if NJ is let off the hook. That means other teams also have the right to get the same penalty reducing relief in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghewlash Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Guys, relax. I don't like to see the NHL waffle on things as much as the next guy, but this is probably the right move. When the Devils were originally penalized, everyone including myself thought it was garbage. They didn't deserve the punishment they got, considering they were the only ones hit with it. Cap circumvention? Sure. But so was Luongo's contract, and many others as you all pointed out. Devils should have never got slammed like they did by the league, and at least the league is kinda-sorta making up for it. Right end, wrong means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Well, technically no, Luongo's contract wasn't circumventing the cap since the league ruled it (and the others before and after it) were legal. The Kovy deal took it all a step further and the NHL drew the line in the sand. The problem was they decide to move that line in the new CBA. There had already been talk about the NHL not liking the back diving deals, even to the point of wanting to potentially investigate the Luongo deal in September 2009, and then again in August 2010. The Hossa deal was a part of the 2009 investigation but he had already played a year of his deal when the second investigation came around. There was no way the NHL would risk invalidating Luongo's contract and then also having to invalidate Hossa's since the Hawks had won the Stanley Cup that spring. The league would have to invalidate the games played by Chicago with a player on an illegal contract and that would invalidate their Cup win. New Jersey knew at least about the 2009 investigation and still chose to try and pass the Kovy deal through. They could have asked for guidance from the NHL or NHLPA (or both) since the deal they proposed did go a little further in term and back diving but they chose to just sign it and hope it was fine. That was when the NHL had to provide clear language on what the limit could be, and it probably prompted the second investigation into the Luongo deal. I'm fine with the penalty imposed since the first deals were okay'ed by the NHL but were investigated. That should have been a sign for New Jersey, and now they get a break. Cap recapture is still in effect though, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoaltenderInterference Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 No wonder NJ didn't forfeit their pick in 2012, they new knew the league would later reduce the penalty. All planned in advance LOL. That was my first thought too. I remember wondering why the Devils wouldn't choose to forfeit 29th overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs50 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 God forbid of course but say Luongo gets hurt long term with 1-3 or how many ever years left on his contract. ie concussion etc etc... So if Florida puts him on ltir and he never plays, do we still get hit with the salary cap recapture?? Anyone have a clue?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck or Die Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 What's bush league is the stupid league making up these rules in the first place with a contract they STILL approved. That is such a joke. They already fixed it by changing the CBA. So why still punish teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The REAL crime here is that this has cost the Canucks organization very dearly. Lu's original contract was so GOOD that the NHL deemed it unfair, although they couldn't do anything about it as it was legal. Then comes the new CBA with its penalties. Suddenly GMMG can't move Lu because of these penalties (scares possible trade partners away). So we trade Schneider. Then the league back-pedals. If teams knew ahead of time that there would NOT be such a steep penalty for taking on Lu's contract then we could have moved him earlier and retained Cory. Thanks NHL...you really screwed us big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mollyworld Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Using the Leafs as an example, but I am sure there are more. TO signed Eddie Belfour to a perfectly valid, legal contract prior to the first lockout. Afterwards, when Belfour retired the Leafs were hit with a cap penalty because he signed an over 35 deal and thus they were on hook for the penalty. The league has retroactively punished teams before, so it is not like this is out of the ordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Anyone have a clue?? I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The REAL crime here is that this has cost the Canucks organization very dearly. Lu's original contract was so GOOD that the NHL deemed it unfair, although they couldn't do anything about it as it was legal. Then comes the new CBA with its penalties. Suddenly GMMG can't move Lu because of these penalties (scares possible trade partners away). So we trade Schneider. Then the league back-pedals. If teams knew ahead of time that there would NOT be such a steep penalty for taking on Lu's contract then we could have moved him earlier and retained Cory. Thanks NHL...you really screwed us big time. The contract was at the borders of what the NHL could consider a good contract. The language around contract approval is/was general enough that they could review a contract like Luongo, Hossa and Zetterberg's and deny it. They chose not to do so for the first contracts signed and then had to find a way to draw a line in the sand once the contracts continued coming and got worse for back diving and term. Who knows what the NHL was thinking when they allowed the first few contracts. Perhaps they thought they'd be an isolated occurrence. Maybe they felt there would be legal backlash for denying them and they didn't want that attention. I don't know what their reasoning was, but they had the opportunity to rule on those deals well before Zetterberg and Hossa played a game under the new contracts and failed to do so, only investigating once the Luongo deal (and the Pronger deal) was signed. Using the Leafs as an example, but I am sure there are more. TO signed Eddie Belfour to a perfectly valid, legal contract prior to the first lockout. Afterwards, when Belfour retired the Leafs were hit with a cap penalty because he signed an over 35 deal and thus they were on hook for the penalty. The league has retroactively punished teams before, so it is not like this is out of the ordinary. I'm not sure that's true. I don't remember the structure of the contract he signed with the Leafs but he played with them for 3 years (plus one for the lockout year, so under contract for 4 calendar years). The Leafs declined to exercise their option to extend the contract and Belfour signed with the Panthers as a free agent. He then retired from the NHL after playing with Florida, and went and played in Sweden for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 The timing is perfect Lu gets traded and the penalty to the Devils is reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunshygillis Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 That was my first thought too. I remember wondering why the Devils wouldn't choose to forfeit 29th overall. Haha me too! Lesson here kids: Procrastinate! It actually does pay off sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcrguy Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I'm confused............this thread has a bunch of posts about how its unfair if Luo retires early and the Canucks have to take a cap hit for it, but it also has a bunch of posts that think its unfair NJ wasn't penalized MORE for the Luo type of contract they gave Kovalchuk. We can't have it both ways, so either we should get punished, just like NJ, or neither team should be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 retarded. If it was the Canucks the penalty stays. Bank on this! Screw you NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcrguy Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 retarded. If it was the Canucks the penalty stays. Bank on this! Screw you NHL. I'm not sure if people are actually paying attention, but NJ did get penalized. They lost what would likely be a top 10 pick for the 30th pick in the draft (they moved down approx. 20 spots) and have to pay a financial penalty as well. The Canucks haven't been penalized at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I'm not sure if people are actually paying attention, but NJ did get penalized. They lost what would likely be a top 10 pick for the 30th pick in the draft (they moved down approx. 20 spots) and have to pay a financial penalty as well. The Canucks haven't been penalized at all. They will be when Luongo retires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Industrious1 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I'm not sure if people are actually paying attention, but NJ did get penalized. They lost what would likely be a top 10 pick for the 30th pick in the draft (they moved down approx. 20 spots) and have to pay a financial penalty as well. The Canucks haven't been penalized at all. I think the point being made was the fact that NJ didn't get punished the way the League said they were going to be punished. It points to a credibility issue with League brass and whether clubs should take their "rules" seriously in the future. Personally I think the rulebook is read differently for various teams in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 So the canucks' penalty will be reduced too, right? Oh for sure lol ...as if Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I'm confused............this thread has a bunch of posts about how its unfair if Luo retires early and the Canucks have to take a cap hit for it, but it also has a bunch of posts that think its unfair NJ wasn't penalized MORE for the Luo type of contract they gave Kovalchuk. We can't have it both ways, so either we should get punished, just like NJ, or neither team should be punished. It's not that we want it both ways, it's that we just know that we will have neither way, and will be punished with no leniency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.