RUPERTKBD Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Not a bad analogy re: Nonis.Big difference is that in this case, the Leafs win, not Lose. They dump a big long-term cap hit and all it will cost them is money that doesn't count against the cap going forward. Yes it's a classic case of a "have" team making a deal with a "have-not" team, but I have give props to Nonis for being able to rid himself of a contract nobody believed could be traded. I disagree. The fact that the season is basically done and the franchise is entering a complete rebuild signifies a "loss", IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I disagree. The fact that the season is basically done and the franchise is entering a complete rebuild signifies a "loss", IMHO. And he still cost the owners a significant amount of money, regardless of how deep their pockets are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 This trade should have been denied for Cap circumvention The league will do nothing about it because it is being done by the big boys PHI, BOS, and now TOR The purpose of the Cap is to allow smaller market teams to compete and to control spending of Big market teams. Trades for a LTIR player for the purposes of blatant Cap Circumvention should be denied James Mirtle @mirtle 1h1 hour agoBill Daly says the league had "no concerns" about the Clarkson-Horton deal. "We look at every trade" for CBA compliance, he says Gee! Wasn't Luongo's contract CBA compliant and now VAN will get bent over when Luongo retires Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The NHL would never look into a trade they likely sanctioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Next thing you know the Leafs will acquire Pronger for a 1st round pick from the Flyers..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALGARY! Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Thats a pretty solid trade for Columbus, for Toronto, it could be really good. Nathan Horton hasnt been the same player since he got rocked in the playoffs 2011 but if he bounces back then this is a solid deal for both teams. Leafs sure werent joking when they said everyone must go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Next thing you know the Leafs will acquire Pronger for a 1st round pick from the Flyers..... Pronger allows PHI to overspend the Cap by $4.921429M every season Savard allows BOS to overspend the cap by $4.027143M every season Horton allows TOR to overspend the cap by $5.3M every season At least Pronger and Savard were injured while playing for their team Trading for a LTIR player should have been denied! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangosteens Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 This trade should have been denied for Cap circumvention The league will do nothing about it because it is being done by the big boys PHI, BOS, and now TOR The purpose of the Cap is to allow smaller market teams to compete and to control spending of Big market teams. Trades for a LTIR player for the purposes of blatant Cap Circumvention should be denied James Mirtle @mirtle 1h1 hour agoBill Daly says the league had "no concerns" about the Clarkson-Horton deal. "We look at every trade" for CBA compliance, he says Gee! Wasn't Luongo's contract CBA compliant and now VAN will get bent over when Luongo retires I get what you are saying, and I used to think the same thing, but there is another side to this. Horton had his career ended with an injury. While it is unlikely that he will come back, he is still entitled to try and comeback and be paid to do so. Sure, Toronto is using the rules to their advantage to move along a bad contract in Clarkson, but it is within the CBA rules to have players on LTIR and receive cap relief for those players. The Philly and Boston situations are a little worse IMO because Savard and Pronger have started other careers. Those two should have just kept a lower profile within their respective organizations until their contracts expire. Same thing is happening with Ohlund in Tampa Bay. It would be heavy handed and in bad taste for the league to crack down on injured players and force them to retire and stop collecting salary that would otherwise be due them. As for Luongo, the Pronger, Savard, and Horton situations should teach us that there will never be a penny paid by any team in cap recapture penalty. The Canucks (or some other team) will simply pick up Luongo at the end of his career, put him on LTIR with some sort of injury, and pay out the remainder of his contract. There might even be a team that wants him at the end of his contract to help them reach the cap floor while spending less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangosteens Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Pronger allows PHI to overspend the Cap by $4.921429M every season Savard allows BOS to overspend the cap by $4.027143M every season Horton allows TOR to overspend the cap by $5.3M every season At least Pronger and Savard were injured while playing for their team Trading for a LTIR player should have been denied! Matthias Ohlund lets Tampa go over by 3.607M. Souray lets Anaheim go over by 3.67M. The CBA allows for LTIR and it allows for trading injured players. I don't like the fact that the Leafs got out of a bad contract, but it didn't break any rules. As I said in an earlier post, I'd rather teams do this then stop paying injured players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 vancouver will sue the nhl if we have a massive cap recapture fee when luo retires, if it goes to arbitration we will win or at least face less of a harsh penalty sorta like devils and kovalchuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 We definitely have case on that Luongo recapture BS and should take legal actions when the time comes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Matthias Ohlund lets Tampa go over by 3.607M. Souray lets Anaheim go over by 3.67M. The CBA allows for LTIR and it allows for trading injured players. I don't like the fact that the Leafs got out of a bad contract, but it didn't break any rules. As I said in an earlier post, I'd rather teams do this then stop paying injured players. All those teams are using the rule for its purpose Having a player on your team that gets seriously injured and going on LTIR so the team gets cap relief so the team can remain competitive is one thing! Acquiring a player that is on LTIR from another team through trade, just so they can abuse the LTIR rule is Cap Circumvention and the trade should be denied. The League denied the Devils first deal with LAK for the Kovalchuk deal because of Salary Cap Circumvention because it was a Blatant abuse of the rule July 21, 2010 In a statement released Wednesday, Bill Daly, the deputy commissioner of the league, said: “The contract has been rejected by the league as a circumvention of the collective bargaining agreement.” He said Kovalchuk, who became an unrestricted free agent July 1, could not play under the contract. A person with knowledge of the agreement, who did not want to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss it, said the league considered the contract a circumvention of the salary cap because Kovalchuk was to be paid $3.5 million over the last six years, with $550,000 in each of the last five seasons. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/sports/hockey/22devils.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Pronger allows PHI to overspend the Cap by $4.921429M every season Savard allows BOS to overspend the cap by $4.027143M every season Horton allows TOR to overspend the cap by $5.3M every season At least Pronger and Savard were injured while playing for their team Trading for a LTIR player should have been denied! But when has there ever been a perfect world when players don't get injured and end up on the LTIR? While I see what you're saying, I think the only way to prevent such actions taking place would be the take out the LTIR period. Should teams like Toronto really be hampered because they signed such contracts? We don't know what other teams were offering Clarkson at the time. For all we know, we could have been offering Clarkson 5mil a season and Toronto beat us out. It's one of those things we'll never know. Whether you like it or not, Toronto is an important team to the NHL. They are one of the most popular teams. If you were the NHL, would you want one of your biggest money-makers, that are HELPING lesser teams like Arizona stay afloat, being forced to retain such contracts? This is a business we're talking about. If you're running a franchise chain, do you hamper your most profitable locations? Is it also really fair to a player like Clarkson if he's stuck in Toronto because of his contract? Put yourself in his shoes. You're being offered these big contracts. You like Toronto and they're offering you a lot of money, but when you start playing, everything starts to go wrong with your game and you can't seem to find your groove. Do you want to be stuck in Toronto because of your contract? In a competitive environment, teams are going to do whatever they can to navigate the cap hits whether you like it or not. I'd say there are a lot more factors that the NHL probably look at than what you are implying. At the end of the day, it's a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Changing the rule to 30 years of age would help. Considering you can sign guys for 7 years that seems fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Nonis already came out and said that CBJ called him up with the proposal and that they wanted Clarkson Nonis practically tripped and fell into a gold mine Yeah, this is what I figured (and found out when I had a chance to look into the situation later in the day). I would agree with oldnews' and your positions on this. Lucky break for Nonis (and the Leafs, to a certain extent) and the Blue Jackets. Two negatives being moved to provide a lesser bad situation for each club. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Yeah, this is what I figured (and found out when I had a chance to look into the situation later in the day). I would agree with oldnews' and your positions on this. Lucky break for Nonis (and the Leafs, to a certain extent) and the Blue Jackets. Two negatives being moved to provide a lesser bad situation for each club. regards, G. It's more lucky for Nonis' legacy than his job security. It's a salted Earth policy. He should still get fired for it and probably will in the next few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Matthias Ohlund lets Tampa go over by 3.607M. Souray lets Anaheim go over by 3.67M. The CBA allows for LTIR and it allows for trading injured players. I don't like the fact that the Leafs got out of a bad contract, but it didn't break any rules. As I said in an earlier post, I'd rather teams do this then stop paying injured players. Actually, Anaheim is under the cap by over $4M, they don't have Souray on LTI as you have to be within a certain amount from the cap to qualify for LTI relief. I do agree that trading for a player who has obvious hurdles to get to be healthy again from a living life standpoint never mind a playing hockey standpoint is something the league should step in on. If it didn't help Columbus, I'd be very up in arms about it, but really what should happen is Horton should just make a decision to retire if he doesn't see any chance of reasonable future improvement. As pointed about about the Kovalchuk deal, the league has the authority to step in at any point where there's a grey area and the cap is possibly being circumvented. The argument would have to be very convincing (supported by independent doctors assessments and team statements) that they truly believe the player could return to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 It's more lucky for Nonis' legacy than his job security. It's a salted Earth policy. He should still get fired for it and probably will in the next few weeks. True enough about Nonis' legacy, but I'm still not that confident that the Leaf's hierarchy will actually get around to firing him (even after the season is over). There appears to be a lot of indecision at that head table. As a lateral move in this topic, who is/might be available as a replacement for Nonis when he does go? Do the Leafs have anyone internal to their organization who could be a viable replacement (Dubas, Pridham or Fletcher)? They may go with a retread from another team. If things hold true to form then the Leafs will continue their trend of taking on former Canucks' GM's (Gillis?). I suppose there is a hot GM prospect out there with another organization (who is the Jim Benning of 2015?). regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 True enough about Nonis' legacy, but I'm still not that confident that the Leaf's hierarchy will actually get around to firing him (even after the season is over). There appears to be a lot of indecision at that head table. As a lateral move in this topic, who is/might be available as a replacement for Nonis when he does go? Do the Leafs have anyone internal to their organization who could be a viable replacement (Dubas, Pridham or Fletcher)? They may go with a retread from another team. If things hold true to form then the Leafs will continue their trend of taking on former Canucks' GM's (Gillis?). I suppose there is a hot GM prospect out there with another organization (who is the Jim Benning of 2015?). regards, G. Ray Shero, probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 True enough about Nonis' legacy, but I'm still not that confident that the Leaf's hierarchy will actually get around to firing him (even after the season is over). There appears to be a lot of indecision at that head table. As a lateral move in this topic, who is/might be available as a replacement for Nonis when he does go? Do the Leafs have anyone internal to their organization who could be a viable replacement (Dubas, Pridham or Fletcher)? They may go with a retread from another team. If things hold true to form then the Leafs will continue their trend of taking on former Canucks' GM's (Gillis?). I suppose there is a hot GM prospect out there with another organization (who is the Jim Benning of 2015?). regards, G. Ray Shero, probably. Mike Gillis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.