CanucksJay Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Hi guys, I haven't read much about this on the forums but I wanted to double check, if Lu retires in 2020,do we have a call penalty of 4.3m? And does it go up to 8m if he retired in 2021? If true, I heard this would have happened whether he was traded or not but in all seriousness, it looks like lu can give us the final finger in 2021 by forgoing his crappy salary and putting us on the hook for 8m.this looks like almost a given at this point. MG is a lawyer. Why the hell didn't he put up a bigger stink when this happened? There were other long term contracts and a rule change like this AFTER a contract was already given does not really have a legal leg to stand on... Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfruits Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 ya it is pretty fishy how they instituted this rule for existing contracts it should of been for new contracts GM's signed these front loaded contracts unaware they would flip flop on penalties doubt Gillis or any other GM for that matter can do i doubt Luongo plays that long just to screw a previous organization he probably retires in 4-5 years most likely possibly sooner depending on any upcoming injuries and other things that could contribute to an early retirement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share Posted March 8, 2014 Also if this was the case, why was there so much talk about his contact not being tradeable? I mean in the end, it looks like the penalty is pretty much on the canucks anyway. For instance, if he retires in 2020,the panthers cap hit is only 16 grand while 2021,panthers cap hit is 0? That seems like a pretty good contact to trade for then? An Olympic gold medallist goalie with a 5.3 cap hit with the canucks pretty much on the hook of he retires early? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 you know he will trolling the canucks on twitter when he retires early and the canucks have to pay for it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 ya it is pretty fishy how they instituted this rule for existing contracts it should of been for new contracts GM's signed these front loaded contracts unaware they would flip flop on penalties doubt Gillis or any other GM for that matter can do i doubt Luongo plays that long just to screw a previous organization he probably retires in 4-5 years most likely possibly sooner depending on any upcoming injuries and other things that could contribute to an early retirement It's not fishy at all actually. When it is almost officially referred to as the 'Luongo rule' it's just another example of the league screwing the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share Posted March 8, 2014 Also having said this, an 8m cap hit in 7 years could cripple us. That could be like Horvat, shink and Jensen in between their 2nd and 3rd contacts where we will be pushing near the cap. A penalty of 8m would be like playing a whole season without your best player in a year when we could be potentially challenging for a cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 you deserve and probably will get a patented Elvis spanking for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 http://capgeek.com/news/roberto-luongo-cap-advantage-recapture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share Posted March 8, 2014 Having said this, would a buyout have been a smarter choice if we are thinking about long term success? I know it's not my money but if I was truly committed to winning rather than my account balance, I would have bought out lu rather than risking an 8m cap hit that would pretty much guarantee no cup in year 6 or 7. By trading lu instead of buying him out, Aquilini is passing on the tab to Florida for Lu's paycheck while taking a 8m cap hit risk (which actually doesn't cost him anything) Maybe the plan is to sell the team in a few years when they are no longer his cash cow so the cap penalty isn't his concern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share Posted March 8, 2014 http://capgeek.com/n...ntage-recapture Thanks for linking what I read which led to my questions. Can you actually help by answering the questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where's Wellwood Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Hopefully the cap is so high by 2020 that 8 mill isn't really that much. And the Sedins will be off the books by then so who knows how our cap structure will work under our new GM (no way Gillis stays till 2020). Maybe they plan for the eventuality of Luo retiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share Posted March 8, 2014 you deserve and probably will get a patented Elvis spanking for this. Can you tell me why? Do I have my facts wrong? Try to contribute instead of adding zero value to the topic at hand. I am genuinely puzzled by that cap geek link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 you know he will trolling the canucks on twitter when he retires early and the canucks have to pay for it . I would argue that Luongo also signed the contract so he would be mocking himself as well. He wont bring it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Can you tell me why? Do I have my facts wrong? Try to contribute instead of adding zero value to the topic at hand. I am genuinely puzzled by that cap geek link Really? You're puzzled? You lead your thread with a few simple questions that are easily answered by referencing the link that I've posted for you, and you're puzzled why I posted the link for you? I could have made it more difficult and simply posted a link to google or LMGTFY if you prefer. Your questions have been answered lots of times in the countless Luongo threads that have graced these boards. Yes, retroactively changing the rules was a bunch of convenient and hypocritical NHL bullcrap after permitting cap circumvention deals at the time for years. Are you missing something? Do you want some help with the search button on these boards as well? Don't like the sarcasm? It's a signature of your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Also having said this, an 8m cap hit in 7 years could cripple us. That could be like Horvat, shink and Jensen in between their 2nd and 3rd contacts where we will be pushing near the cap. A penalty of 8m would be like playing a whole season without your best player in a year when we could be potentially challenging for a cup I'm pretty sure the Canucks will file a complaint with the league if it comes to that. Look how the league reverted some of the penalties to NJD for Kovalchuk contract. This rule is ridiculous. Since signing such contract was allowed in the previous CBA, there was nothing wrong with it and it's just Bettman trying to show who's the boss and nothing more than that. Having said this, would a buyout have been a smarter choice if we are thinking about long term success? I know it's not my money but if I was truly committed to winning rather than my account balance, I would have bought out lu rather than risking an 8m cap hit that would pretty much guarantee no cup in year 6 or 7. By trading lu instead of buying him out, Aquilini is passing on the tab to Florida for Lu's paycheck while taking a 8m cap hit risk (which actually doesn't cost him anything) Maybe the plan is to sell the team in a few years when they are no longer his cash cow so the cap penalty isn't his concern Buyout indeed would have been a smarter choice but the owners didn't want to cough up that much cash. You said it well, this goes to show that they are not committed to winning but rather committed to scraping money off of our pocket. I wouldn't be surprised if they sell the team few years later as you said so yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share Posted March 8, 2014 Really? You're puzzled? You lead your thread with a few simple questions that are easily answered by referencing the link that I've posted for you, and you're puzzled why I posted the link for you? I could have made it more difficult and simply posted a link to google or LMGTFY if you prefer. Your questions have been answered lots of times in the countless Luongo threads that have graced these boards. Yes, retroactively changing the rules was a bunch of convenient and hypocritical NHL bullcrap after permitting cap circumvention deals at the time for years. Are you missing something? Do you want some help with the search button on these boards as well? Don't like the sarcasm? It's a signature of your own. Haha. Ok so u are angry because everything I posted is correct and you linked me to exactly what I was saying which I wanted to affirm to make sure I read it right because the rule change was so obtuse? So then here is a question for ya. Why was his contract viewed as so untradeable? It looks like Florida actually has a pretty sweet deal? it looks like the worst case scenario for Florida (according to cap geek) was a 1m cap penalty as opposed to Vancouver's 8m.Why wasn't there any refute in newspapers when everyone thought that the contract and rule change was so awful that a trading team would not want it? It basically made it sound like the trading team would be taking all the liability when in fact, it was and will always be Vancouver that is getting the shafts either way. Regardless, I'll sleep well tonight knowing that somewhere along the way, I've deeply upset Oldnews who loves to follow me around hoping that I get "spanked"Cheers bro. Enjoy your weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 you deserve and probably will get a patented Elvis spanking for this. I don't believe in hitting to reform children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Having said this, would a buyout have been a smarter choice if we are thinking about long term success? I know it's not my money but if I was truly committed to winning rather than my account balance, I would have bought out lu rather than risking an 8m cap hit that would pretty much guarantee no cup in year 6 or 7. By trading lu instead of buying him out, Aquilini is passing on the tab to Florida for Lu's paycheck while taking a 8m cap hit risk (which actually doesn't cost him anything) Maybe the plan is to sell the team in a few years when they are no longer his cash cow so the cap penalty isn't his concern No. A buyout would not have been a wiser decision. First, you obviously receive no assets in return. Second, you burn a mountain of money (something no one wants to do with their own money.) Third, the cap has been raising at a fairly consistent rate since it's inception, so the impact of a cap penalty in one or more years, 6, 7, or 8 years in the future isn't truly and accurately predictable. It makes more sense to take the risk of having to adjust cap than take the greater loss in the present, not actually knowing the penalty in the future. The likelihood that Luongo is still playing at 42/3 years of age...Not worth the dramatic panic at this stage. Four, the NHL contradicts itself all the time, and things change - take the latest about-face on the Kovalchuk penalty for example. All things considered, Luongo's contract is obviously relatively serviceable - given he is still performing reasonably, has a moderate cap hit for goalies in his range, and in fact was a contract that was able to be moved. A buyout was a non-starter that only morons in the eastern media were actually suggesting, as part of their more political than reasonable devaluation campaign. Yes Gillis is a lawyer. The Florida Panthers also retain and will continue to retain lawyers. The Panthers will also share some interest with the Canucks in avoiding any penalty, albeit to a lesser extent. Loopholes aren't that difficult to imagine - ie. Luongo is not a 35+ contract, Luongo retires due to a "LTI." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Haha. Ok so u are angry because everything I posted is correct and you linked me to exactly what I was saying which I wanted to affirm to make sure I read it right because the rule change was so obtuse? So then here is a question for ya. Why was his contract viewed as so untradeable? It looks like Florida actually has a pretty sweet deal? it looks like the worst case scenario for Florida (according to cap geek) was a 1m cap penalty as opposed to Vancouver's 8m.Why wasn't there any refute in newspapers when everyone thought that the contract and rule change was so awful that a trading team would not want it? It basically made it sound like the trading team would be taking all the liability when in fact, it was and will always be Vancouver that is getting the shafts either way. Regardless, I'll sleep well tonight knowing that somewhere along the way, I've deeply upset Oldnews who loves to follow me around hoping that I get "spanked"Cheers bro. Enjoy your weekend. You've fundamentally misunderstood the response CJ. What you got was anything but 'anger' - it was sarcasm that found it difficult to take your dramatic panic and protest very seriously. For someone who regularly purports to know better than the GM, there's a comic level of uninformed here. You lead with protest and follow with a request to inform/ agree with you. Trying that in reverse order - inform yourself and then protest - and there'll probably be less sarcasm in response to your dramatizing. In jumps CJ with the signature 'knows-better-than-the-simpleton-GM" line. But he's protesting not having bought Luongo out. Almost as obtuse as trying to sell the contract as untradeable. Captain hindsight is also, ironically, protesting the NHL's hindsighting on this matter. But you're bursting in here as if you've glimpsed a fraction of genius that has gone ungrasped. Aghast! These contradictions were taken to pieces throughout the Luongo threads, and the lockout threads. Yes, the campaign to devalue Luongo (as if unmoveable) that was waged by halfwits in Toronto was pretty ridiculous / self-serving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.