Caboose Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Pretty interesting stuff, shows who would be on the hook for what depending on when a player retires. http://capgeek.com/recapture-grid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gross-Misconduct Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 capgeek! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I don't know about you guys, but, as much as I liked Ehrhoff, that penalty scares the ever living crap out of me when paired with Luongos. So, when does the betting pool for the first retirement start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Should Lu contemplate lawn bowling, his fam would likely get fish in the mail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 +1, thanks Caboose! Saw capgeek tweet about this new page they made earlier today but laziness caused me to not check it out. Excellent info on here. ...Canucks are pretty much screwed for a few years. Lu is 35. Let's say he plays until 40, that's 5 mor years and then retires. We will have a $3.2 mill cap penalty for 3 years. If he retires a year earlier, it'll be $2.5 mill for 4 years. A year later at age 41 which is pushing it, it'll be $4.3 mill for 2 years. And considering that's when our prospects will be in the mid 20's/in their prime when money will have to be dished out, that's a huge set of handcuffs that'll restrict a lot of what we can do financially. Damn Burke...that prick screwed us over :@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rawkdrummer Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Lu will not retire but instead have an injury that just doesn't seem to heal. aka "cap recapture", screw you Burkie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undrafted Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Interesting to note that the Canucks aren't the only ones who'll be stiffed by the "cap recapture". In fact, there's a bunch of teams who'll get it worse than the Canucks because they have multiple contracts subject to the rule and as the Canucks know already, trading away those contracts won't help. I'm kind of stunned that the owners went along with this. After all, this isn't something the players would have demanded or cared about: this is a case of owners screwing over other owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 +1, thanks Caboose! Saw capgeek tweet about this new page they made earlier today but laziness caused me to not check it out. Excellent info on here. ...Canucks are pretty much screwed for a few years. Lu is 35. Let's say he plays until 40, that's 5 mor years and then retires. We will have a $3.2 mill cap penalty for 3 years. If he retires a year earlier, it'll be $2.5 mill for 4 years. A year later at age 41 which is pushing it, it'll be $4.3 mill for 2 years. And considering that's when our prospects will be in the mid 20's/in their prime when money will have to be dished out, that's a huge set of handcuffs that'll restrict a lot of what we can do financially. Damn Burke...that prick screwed us over :@ Everyone is just going to do the Pronger-style "retirement" which involves being on LTIR for the remaining year(s). It's not hard to circumvent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 Interesting to note that the Canucks aren't the only ones who'll be stiffed by the "cap recapture". In fact, there's a bunch of teams who'll get it worse than the Canucks because they have multiple contracts subject to the rule and as the Canucks know already, trading away those contracts won't help. I'm kind of stunned that the owners went along with this. After all, this isn't something the players would have demanded or cared about: this is a case of owners screwing over other owners. If it deters these contracts in the long run the owners are happy. They don't want to pay out monster back diving contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undrafted Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 If it deters these contracts in the long run the owners are happy. They don't want to pay out monster back diving contracts. They didn't have to bring in the cap recapture clause to prevent front-loaded, back-diving contracts from happening going forward. They just had to close the loophole that existed in the previous CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 They didn't have to bring in the cap recapture clause to prevent front-loaded, back-diving contracts from happening going forward. They just had to close the loophole that existed in the previous CBA. Yes, and they approved all those deals above at the time, which is what makes retroactively punishing them, as opposed to intervening at the time and insisting upon compliance in principle with the terms of the previous CBA , pretty much a mickey mouse contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.