'NucK™ Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 1 hour ago, peaches5 said: Nashville could just trade for Weber and then not dress him for a single game and they would have a far less cap hit. You can do the same with Lou. He can just tie up an active contract and not be dressed for a single game. The NHL could do nothing about it. It would only be less cap hit per year if they traded for him in 2024-25, 2015-26 though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Fivehole0 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 8 hours ago, Baggins said: The CBA is also a legal contract. I'm pretty sure there have been talks of the Canucks being able to pursue that penalty legally as it was legal under the CBA it was negotiated under. Legally if the CBA that the contract was negotiated under is null and void with the new CBA then the contract that was negotiated would legally be null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 8 hours ago, Warhippy said: Lou won't retire until he's top 5 in almost all goalie categories which...well he's actually close too being top 5 for all so 3-5 more years is far from out of the question Seriously, check those stats out and the company he is Considering that the league allows contracts for players who have career ending injuries be traded around like candy for the sole purpose of screwing the numbers, it is hypocritical for them to bare down on this. But like Henrik once said, no other professional league changes its rules mid-season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 11 hours ago, Raymond Luxury Yacht said: Correct me of I'm wrong, but Lu's contract was within the legal boundaries of the CBA at the time of signing. Why does the legality of the CBA come into question? When a new CBA is signed any changes apply to all contracts. The players themselves agreed to those clauses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 3 hours ago, 5Fivehole0 said: I'm pretty sure there have been talks of the Canucks being able to pursue that penalty legally as it was legal under the CBA it was negotiated under. Legally if the CBA that the contract was negotiated under is null and void with the new CBA then the contract that was negotiated would legally be null and void. Basically the new CBA applies a penalty for circumventing the salary cap. If Lou plays out the contract he agreed to, there's no penalty. But we all know that deal was meant to circumvent the cap. I have no problem with there being a penalty for that even if my team is one of the teams facing it. I disagreed with that deal from day 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I think Lu's hip has a timer on it and it will give in at some point before the end of his contract. Florida will get a high pick and maybe a prospect out of us, and we'll get an injured Luongo back who will go on our LTIR. I can't see Lu retiring early and giving up the paycheques and if we don't trade something for him he'll just retire and screw us one last time. So there will be pressure for some kind of deal. Now if that doesn't happen, then it will come down to whether or not we have a contending team or not. If we do, Benning can go over the cap and then suffer the loss of picks as a penalty most likely. If we're on a run, it will sting but not that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 This from the league who sent a player to the hall of fame and gave him a job while his cap hit was used against the cap on LTIR so a team could circumvent the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Fivehole0 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 10 hours ago, Baggins said: Basically the new CBA applies a penalty for circumventing the salary cap. If Lou plays out the contract he agreed to, there's no penalty. But we all know that deal was meant to circumvent the cap. I have no problem with there being a penalty for that even if my team is one of the teams facing it. I disagreed with that deal from day 1. But the CBA in which the contract was negotiated under didn't have a penalty, the contract was legal at the time. You can't change the rules in how something is negotiated after its negotiated. Good contract or not, the NHL can only apply that fine to future contracts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methany878 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 23 hours ago, mll said: They enforced it for Mike Richards. Isn't it also the recapture penalty one of the reasons why Buffalo (Ehrhoff) and the Rangers (Brad Richards) used their compliance buyout. They knew they wouldn't be able to trade them as it increases the penalty. Nashville might have an argument - it was an offer sheet and in fact they could have had Weber at a 14M cap hit (which was Weber's salary over those 4 years) and still be under the cap. They weren't trying to get an advantage unlike the other teams. Blackhawks, Kings, Red Wings would not have the roster they had when they won the Cup without that trick. What irks me about this is the fact that we (and Nashville, for that matter) CAN'T use our compliance buyouts any more, since we no longer have the players under contract. How much of the risk are their new teams actually carrying? A share of the risk would obviously make such players harder to move, but wouldn't that be a more effective (and realistic) deterrent than imposing a fine that - at least in Nashville's case - will probably ruin a franchise until they've recovered from that one -20 million season? Sorry if this has been asked before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeneedLumme Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 1 hour ago, 5Fivehole0 said: But the CBA in which the contract was negotiated under didn't have a penalty, the contract was legal at the time. You can't change the rules in how something is negotiated after its negotiated. Good contract or not, the NHL can only apply that fine to future contracts Tell that to Christie Clark re: foreign buyer tax, which was applied to contracts that had already been negotiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 19 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said: Yeah, I've mostly moved on at this point but I still get a little pissed off when the topic comes up. There was an article in the Columbus Dispatch a few years back (link to online version is dead unfortunately) that said the NHL Central Registry actually rejects almost 20% of the contracts teams submit and forces changes. Sometimes this is due to simply typos or wrong dates but there was certainly a process in place to review and reject the Luongo deal if the league had issues. They rejected the Kovalchuk deal for circumvention. But they reviewed and accepted the Luongo deal. That's where things should have ended. And any deals registered prior to the new CBA should have been "grandfathered" in. Agreed that it should have ended after the contract was approved (along with the previous two deals in Hossa's and Zetterberg's), but when they went back and had a special meeting to discuss these contracts and still approved them at that point then it pretty much tied it all up in a pretty little bow to finalize it. Of course, by then the Hawks had already won a Stanley Cup with Hossa on the roster, so they couldn't very well go back and invalidate a contract that had already had one year played on it. The NHL isn't dumb though, and they saw what these contracts were right away yet chose not to act until they became overly ridiculous in the case of Kovy's contract. They absolutely could negotiate to prevent further contracts like these in a new CBA, but to go back and penalize the teams who'd already signed and had them approved by the NHL was absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeeHahn Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Let's just circumvent the cap again! When Lu wants to retire, Florida trades his rights back to us. Then we can claim he has some bum injury and put him LTIR over the finals years of the contract rather than him retiring outright and hurting our cap numbers. Win-win for us and him. The League would undoubtedly have issue, but if we can do it legally some way...well, then bobs your uncle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RomanP Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 I believe that in cases of Luongo and others who signed these deals prior to the change in the CBA, when it was perfectly legal to sign them, if the league will try to enforce the recapture, we'll see the affected clubs challenge it in court. There's no point in challenging the rule right now since no one is affected yet. However, I don't see NHL's argument standing in any normal court with regards to contracts legally signed and approved by NHL under the previous CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Fivehole0 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 5 hours ago, WeneedLumme said: Tell that to Christie Clark re: foreign buyer tax, which was applied to contracts that had already been negotiated. That is completely different circumstances. That literally has no relevance to what I was saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 8 hours ago, 5Fivehole0 said: But the CBA in which the contract was negotiated under didn't have a penalty, the contract was legal at the time. You can't change the rules in how something is negotiated after its negotiated. Good contract or not, the NHL can only apply that fine to future contracts Actually when it comes to a CBA, anything can be negotiated. As long as both sides agree to the clause what happens in the previous CBA doesn't matter. The new CBA didn't make those contracts illegal and void them, both sides simply agreed to a penalty if those contracts weren't fullfilled. If those contracts were cap circumvention there's a penalty. If the players live up to their deal there is no penalty. Again, both sides, players and owners, agreed to the penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Basically when MG sent the deal to League office, they should have rejected it outright. Then stated it was all to circumvent the cap, and make another deal. Probably would have been better for everyone. And we might have moved Luongo sooner. Would Vancouver have gotten more? No idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 4 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Basically when MG sent the deal to League office, they should have rejected it outright. Then stated it was all to circumvent the cap, and make another deal. Probably would have been better for everyone. And we might have moved Luongo sooner. Would Vancouver have gotten more? No idea. But then they would have had to reject the two contracts prior to Luongo signing, and that would have meant Chicago couldn't sign Hossa and get their 1st Stanley Cup of the modern era. For an original six darling, that wasn't what the NHL wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 On 10/12/2016 at 10:11 PM, 'NucK™ said: It would only be less cap hit per year if they traded for him in 2024-25, 2015-26 though... I think you're confused. The cap hit is only that high if he retires in his final year of the contract. If he retired 5 years before his contract ended there wouldn't be that high of a cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 9 hours ago, peaches5 said: I think you're confused. The cap hit is only that high if he retires in his final year of the contract. If he retired 5 years before his contract ended there wouldn't be that high of a cap hit. nope, not confused.. you were talking about trading for weber... if they traded for him in 2023-24 only to bench him, w/o MTL retaining any salary, their cap hit would be higher.. which is why: "It would only be less cap hit per year if they traded for him in 2024-25, 2015-26" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 1 minute ago, 'NucK™ said: nope, not confused.. you were talking about trading for weber... if they traded for him in 2023-24 only to bench him, w/o MTL retaining any salary, their cap hit would be higher.. which is why: "It would only be less cap hit per year if they traded for him in 2024-25, 2015-26" Yes, which is what i was implying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.