aGENT Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: oh no, you don't really think that has anything to do with the NHL do you? whats the point of making a "Luongo clause" if someone doesn't get punished? we'll get punished as we're an easy team to set an example with. They wanted to put an end to those types of contracts. Mission accomplished. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 21 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said: And your point is? Luongo’s hips are *#$&@! and he knows he can go on LTIR for legitimate reasons whenever he wants. If rest allows him to recover and he is cleared to play sometime down the road his LTIR will be revoked, and he will be considered on early retirement triggering the recapture penalty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: oh no, you don't really think that has anything to do with the NHL do you? whats the point of making a "Luongo clause" if someone doesn't get punished? we'll get punished as we're an easy team to set an example with. LA has Mike Richard's recapture penalty on their books (on top of that settlement penalty): https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/kings The recapture penalty is in the CBA and it's been approved by the Board of Governors and the NHLPA. Owners would have to walk back what they have implemented. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SingleThorn Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 1 minute ago, mll said: LA has Mike Richard's recapture penalty on their books (on top of that settlement penalty): https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/kings The recapture penalty is in the CBA and it's been approved by the Board of Governors and the NHLPA. Owners would have to walk back what they have implemented. Didn't LA get a big 'freebie' with ending a high cost contract ? It may have been Richards too, but I seem to recall them 'getting away' from a tough contractual situation. Giving them two freebies might have been too much for, even, Bettman. I would be more than surprised if we are not punished for an early NHL exit by Luongo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 42 minutes ago, mll said: If rest allows him to recover and he is cleared to play sometime down the road his LTIR will be revoked, and he will be considered on early retirement triggering the recapture penalty. from a risk pov I suppose it might be better for everyone if he did retire this year, there's no way we can be under the cap if it all comes in one year, and then we will lose even more cap space and probably pick(s) if Gary rules circumvention. I guess there's the potential in CBA negotiations that somehow there's a buyout scenario allowed again that lets us off the hook but i'm not holding my breath on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealistOptimist Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 1 hour ago, mll said: If rest allows him to recover and he is cleared to play sometime down the road his LTIR will be revoked, and he will be considered on early retirement triggering the recapture penalty. His hips aren’t getting any better. It apparently takes him a really long time to get ready for games. He feels he can retire due to injury (Hips) at any time and be justified in in it. There is no real worry of him getting healthy and passing a physical. No doctor is going to tell a 40+ year old player who has retired because of an injury, that he is healthy and has to play in the league. It just won’t happen. You know how they say every player in the league has nagging injuries throughout the season, and the older you get the more you feel it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 I think the bigger question is will it really matter? This was a terrible contract at the time and still is for the franchise now no doubt, but we aren’t going to be spending to the cap for a few years including this one, the owners will make back the money as a result and if you look at the contracts that are up before he’s off the books it’s hard to see us getting into any sort of cap issues as a result. We are not a contender looking to add a key support piece, there’s time before EP and Hughes will get paid nobody else is playing themselves into a big contract except perhaps Markstrom if we even kept him. The title of this OP is overly dramatic, this is like compaining about Dorset’s contract about the same amount of course he’s no longer playing with us but if you add it to our total cost of goalies it isn’t terrible ATM anyways. This is a non-issue in my mind, we shouldn’t be going after high paid UFAs yet anyways so don’t see a problem with our overall cap been a little lower as a result for a few more years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squamfan Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 5 hours ago, mll said: LA has Mike Richard's recapture penalty on their books (on top of that settlement penalty): https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/kings The recapture penalty is in the CBA and it's been approved by the Board of Governors and the NHLPA. Owners would have to walk back what they have implemented. I Believed the kings voided it because richards was caught with pills when he crossed the border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squamfan Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 Robidas Island Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) Easy. Let’s trade for Luongo as backup and let him retire a Canucks. Void the whole thing up. well of course I’m kidding. Edited March 28, 2019 by Me_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Considering we were already covering 800k(retained salary)..this is no big deal. So it would be like a 2 mill penalty for 3 yrs. Best if he retires this summer. No need to spend to the cap for the next few yrs(leave 5-10% open for manoeuvrability, in-season) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 On 3/28/2019 at 4:51 AM, Nuxfanabroad said: Considering we were already covering 800k(retained salary)..this is no big deal. So it would be like a 2 mill penalty for 3 yrs. Best if he retires this summer. No need to spend to the cap for the next few yrs(leave 5-10% open for manoeuvrability, in-season) It also costs Florida, so there will be 2 teams that could voice their displeasure to the League Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 On 3/27/2019 at 11:59 PM, Squamfan said: I Believed the kings voided it because richards was caught with pills when he crossed the border. They tried to void his contract but it got re-instated. The buyout window closed as the league was still deciding on the situation. A special settlement was then set-up. On CapFriendly there is the recapture penalty + another line for the settlement penalty under "terminated". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cory40 Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 The Canucks have been the NHL's whipping team more than once. They will try to force this as hard as they can. But in the end they will not be penalized to the full degree. It stopped the contracts from finding loopholes that actually existed. Its kind of like trading salary to a team that needs to hit the cap floor. This is a big boys club and they will find a way to hide it. Could they trade the Luongo contract to a team needing to hit the cap floor? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gong_8 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 If we do have to be penalized obviously hope that Luongo retires this year. $2.8 m is easier (well since we are already paying $800 k then its really only $2 m more) to absorb the next 3 years than the other options. I just hope we win the lottery as a trade off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 On 3/27/2019 at 10:02 AM, mll said: If rest allows him to recover and he is cleared to play sometime down the road his LTIR will be revoked, and he will be considered on early retirement triggering the recapture penalty. Unless your name is Lupul and unfortunate enough to be under contract to the Leafs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 (edited) On 3/27/2019 at 4:55 PM, aGENT said: They wanted to put an end to those types of contracts. Mission accomplished. 100%..... The whole idea was to ensure the penalty would be so severe it would discourage anyone from attempting to do the same. Fair to say it worked. I don’t see us getting hammered as is being portrayed.... if other teams could get out of it, surely so can Canucks. Precedence an all.... Edited March 30, 2019 by spook007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 9 hours ago, spook007 said: 100%..... The whole idea was to ensure the penalty would be so severe it would discourage anyone from attempting to do the same. Fair to say it worked. I don’t see us getting hammered as is being portrayed.... if other teams could get out of it, surely so can Canucks. Precedence an all.... The CBA doesn't allow those type of contracts anymore. They've implemented rules against future contracts so that the issue doesn't arise anymore. At the same time they've also also introduced penalties for the past ones. It's been approved by the Board of Governors - i.e. the owners as well as the NHLPA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannuck59 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 On 3/29/2019 at 6:24 AM, Mackcanuck said: It also costs Florida, so there will be 2 teams that could voice their displeasure to the League Why cant he be placed on LITR and just stay on LTIR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Cheers mll... Yes I know. That was the most disgusting way of dealing with the issue. It was obviously their way of saying to the teams, that we know, you were smarter than us, but by circumventing the rules you were drawing an advantage. For this we will nail you. No where in real life will you be hammered for having followed the existing rules at any given time... If they did, most rich people would be behind bars... What I still don't quite understand is, why Canucks didn't fight it harder at the time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.