Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Signing] Capitals Sign Brooks Orpik


JV77

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, apollo said:

Lol you gotta be kidding me? Is this a video game?

 

This is flat out cheating and the league should step in and fine Washington a 1st round pick.

 

Caps are one of the few American teams I cheer for actually... but this is wrong and they have to pay. What BS.

They worked within the rules.  Not their fault it was written poorly and we'd want Benning to take advantage if we were in their position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

They worked within the rules.  Not their fault it was written poorly and we'd want Benning to take advantage if we were in their position.

I agree. Within the rules so is what it is. But what if they change the rules in a few years and come back to punish this trade as cap circumvention? Like they did with the back diving contracts. That's what I have an issue with. Its Mickey Mouse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I think the much larger problem loophole that needs to be closed is the LTIR cap dodge for players who will never play again. And passing around their contracts to help irresponsible teams.

Just don't close it before we can use it on Luongo so avoid the equally bull$&!# cap recapture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, apollo said:

Id kill for a guy like Orpik on our team man... he brings such toughness and is so reliable defensively.

 

He's a beefed up Willie Mitchell.

Toughness doesn't mean anything when he skates with two bricks attached to his feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't see the problem. Avs willingly traded for and then bought out Brooks Orpik. It's within the CBA and it's really not circumvension. I bet Orpik weighed his options too before returning to D.C. It's a good, savvy, and creative move in a league that's highly uncreative with how its players are dealt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rekker said:

I agree. Within the rules so is what it is. But what if they change the rules in a few years and come back to punish this trade as cap circumvention? Like they did with the back diving contracts. That's what I have an issue with. Its Mickey Mouse. 

The problem is the criminals in the NHL office, specifically Bettman.  The Canucks should seriously consider suing the NHL if they actually get tagged for Luongo after they a,lowed Hossa to fake an "allergy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, King Heffy said:

They worked within the rules.  Not their fault it was written poorly and we'd want Benning to take advantage if we were in their position.

Honestly I'm just butthurt we didn't take advantage of it.

 

Also, regarding the bolded... wasn't Luongo's contract within the rules? It went unpunished until the NHL handed out the most unjust punishment ever in the history of the NHL. They just made up a freakin rule without grandfathering it!!!

 

Never in league history... has a super star's trade value fallen so quickly than it did when the NHL made up the "Luongo Rule". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said:

Just don't close it before we can use it on Luongo so avoid the equally bull$&!# cap recapture.

True but the damage is already done...

 

We traded the decades most consistent and overall best goalie for Shawn Matthias and Markstrom... and retained 800K cap.

 

Where would our rebuild be had we got actual superstar trade value for Luongo? Surely at least a 1st round pick from Florida coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quantum said:

Don't see the problem. Avs willingly traded for and then bought out Brooks Orpik. It's within the CBA and it's really not circumvension. I bet Orpik weighed his options too before returning to D.C. It's a good, savvy, and creative move in a league that's highly uncreative with how its players are dealt.

Fully agree with this.  COL took on Orpik's contract as part of the deal to get Grubauer for cheaper; they had no intention of keeping him as their D corps is already set and they have the cap space to afford the buyout.

 

Since then, Orpik's been a UFA for almost a month and he ends up settling for a 1-yr, $1M deal.  That shows the kind of demand there was for his services as a 37, soon to be 38-year-old dman whose best days are long past.  So what's remotely 'wrong' about this?  If anything, it shows how limited WSH's options were because of their cap space--they couldn't afford anything better.

 

39 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

The problem is the criminals in the NHL office, specifically Bettman.  The Canucks should seriously consider suing the NHL if they actually get tagged for Luongo after they a,lowed Hossa to fake an "allergy".

Well, Luongo and Hossa weren't the only ones with those contracts.  Another test case may emerge this season in DET with Zetterberg's status being in question.  If he retires, then DET will be stuck with a cap-recapture penalty of $4.3M for the next three years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, apollo said:

By that judgement NJD should a never been fined for Kovalchuk deal... which was reversed anyways and they got a later 1st round pick.

 

And by that judgement, there was nothing wrong with the Luongo deal, which was a mirror image of the Hossa deal. But they still managed to make up a new dumb rule to make arguably the generations best goalie, have absolutely 0 trade value.

 

This is cheating if you ask me... Colorado better hope that 2nd rounder doesn't turn into anything and Grubauer becomes a star goalie...

FWIW Grubauer is legit in NHL 18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Is it just me, or is the NHL the only professional sports league that allows this mickey mouse BS?

I don't see the issue with this or any other cap manipulation. The CBA is designed in a way that allows teams to use cap space as an asset and also allows wealthy teams to buy out their mistakes for a reduced cap hit. Nevermind pointing fingers at the league, we should be asking why JB/ownership isn't doing the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

Fully agree with this.  COL took on Orpik's contract as part of the deal to get Grubauer for cheaper; they had no intention of keeping him as their D corps is already set and they have the cap space to afford the buyout.

 

Since then, Orpik's been a UFA for almost a month and he ends up settling for a 1-yr, $1M deal.  That shows the kind of demand there was for his services as a 37, soon to be 38-year-old dman whose best days are long past.  So what's remotely 'wrong' about this?  If anything, it shows how limited WSH's options were because of their cap space--they couldn't afford anything better.

 

Well, Luongo and Hossa weren't the only ones with those contracts.  Another test case may emerge this season in DET with Zetterberg's status being in question.  If he retires, then DET will be stuck with a cap-recapture penalty of $4.3M for the next three years.

There have been rumblings of Zetts ongoing back issues getting worse. Odds are he retires because of that and Wings are off the hook. Canuck luck says we will be stuck with Lu's recapture penalty though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rekker said:

There have been rumblings of Zetts ongoing back issues getting worse. Odds are he retires because of that and Wings are off the hook. Canuck luck says we will be stuck with Lu's recapture penalty though.

No, the rule is that if Zetterberg retires before his contract is finished, then the cap-recapture penalty applies.  The only way the Wings are off the hook is if he plays through his entire contract.  The 'test' part I mentioned is whether Zetterberg's back issues are allowed to be declared LTIR--that would blatant circumvention of the cap-recapture rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...