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

SCSF: (1) Vegas Golden Knights vs. (4) Montreal Canadiens | Canadiens win series 4-2

Rate this topic


2021 Stanley Cup Semifinals  

128 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win the series?

    • Golden Knights in 4
      9
    • Golden Knights in 5
      32
    • Golden Knights in 6
      21
    • Golden Knights in 7
      4
    • Canadiens in 4
      2
    • Canadiens in 5
      8
    • Canadiens in 6
      21
    • Canadiens in 7
      30

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 06/17/2021 at 01:00 AM

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mll said:

Nashvillle didn't even benefit.  

yes they did, they got the player they wanted. 

 

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

His salary was 14M the 4 years he was in Nashville under that contract and they weren't a cap team then and had the cap space to fit a 14M AAV.

irrelevant to cap recapture punishment 

 

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

 

As of a year or so ago Weber thought he would - he was telling Arpon Basu that Chara can do it.  Weber has always assured in Nashville that he will play his full contract.  If Montreal can remain competitive it doesn't feel like he would retire.  Bergevin has always insisted that as long as he was GM they would not trade him - his value goes beyond just his on ice play.  

 

He could be forced to retire due to injury though - that could be a Luongo situation for Nashville if he decides to retire rather than go on LTIR.

Bettman won't ever let what happened to us happen to Nashville. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I started the series thinking the same, and really wanting the Habs to lose.  Now I see myself actually cheering for them.  

Why is Vegas so easy to dislike?  

They are no longer the underdogs and, as Jimmy said, they've never really suffered. As Canuck fans, I think we associate a lot with teams that have gone a while without great success and the Canadiens haven't been to the finals since they won it all in '93.

 

I think Vegas formed a lot of identity around being the underdogs and undervalued players, but they don't have that anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yes they did, they got the player they wanted. 

 

irrelevant to cap recapture punishment 

 

Bettman won't ever let what happened to us happen to Nashville. 

He was their player. 

 

It should be.  Vancouver wouldn't have the roster that got them to the 2011 finals without that trick.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Vegas altered that pic of Celine. Trolls.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/celine-dion-quebec-habs-vegas-1.6078397

 

Gotta laugh at the righteous folks in the comment section of that article.

You don't... like, know, care about hockey? cool...move on.  

Righteous folks in the comments section of an online news article? Say it ain't so!:lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mll said:

He was their player. 

He was an RFA.

 

Just now, mll said:

 

It should be.  Vancouver wouldn't have the roster that got them to the 2011 finals without that trick.

 

It was within the rules. It was a badly conceived retroactive punishment that they've already adjusted once that's been unfair to us. Bettman will adjust it again for Nashville if it needs doing, you watch mll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see Weber sent back to NASH his last few seasons. They'll honour him with a banjo-fiddle symphony, or something ludicrous. It'll be a marginal cost, as Mtl will have been viewed as the absolute winners from the big swap, yrs back.

 

Then he'll LTIR(headaches, something or other) & perhaps pocket a few more mill, endorsing heavy duty mtn wear, etc...

 

In truth, the orig deal served both markets in a variety of ways. & something for media heads to blather about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

He was an RFA.

 

It was within the rules. It was a badly conceived retroactive punishment that they've already adjusted once that's been unfair to us. Bettman will adjust it again for Nashville if it needs doing, you watch mll. 

Still their RFA.  Would you be saying that if it was a Canuck that signed an offer sheet and Vancouver at risk of being penalised for it.

 

Doubt it - surely they did the math for the few contracts left before deciding on how to more reasonably structure the penalty.  There are so few recapture contracts left - Parise, Suter, Weber, Quick, Crosby, Keith and Carter. 

 

Edited by mll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mll said:

Still their RFA.  Would you be saying that if it was a Canuck that signed an offer sheet and Vancouver at risk of being penalised for it.

 

Doubt it - surely they did the math for the few contracts left before deciding on how to more reasonably structure the penalty.  There are so few recapture contracts left - Parise, Suter, Weber, Quick, Crosby, Keith and Carter.  Bettman is commissioner and represents the owners - his mandate is defined by them.  Any agreement would have to be with approval by the NHLPA. 

they did do the math, and revised their penalty scheme. For some reason you don't believe that Bettman will do that again, even though he's adjusted it once already. What more proof do you need?

 

Sure, their RFA. But you've said many times teams were warned about these contracts, implying that teams like the Canucks are partially to blame for the recapture. And yet for some reason you have sympathy for Nashville, I don't really get it. They did what everyone else did with these deals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

they did do the math, and revised their penalty scheme. For some reason you don't believe that Bettman will do that again, even though he's adjusted it once already. What more proof do you need?

 

Sure, their RFA. But you've said many times teams were warned about these contracts, implying that teams like the Canucks are partially to blame for the recapture. And yet for some reason you have sympathy for Nashville, I don't really get it. They did what everyone else did with these deals. 

It was an offer sheet.  Nashville had the choice between losing a D1 or matching.  It's not Nashville that structured the contract but Philadelphia.  The Canucks structured the Luongo contract with Gillis admitting a couple of seasons ago that they always expected Luongo to end up on LTIR.

 

The math is done and the penalty structure was adjusted in the CBA approved last summer.  The CBA is approved by the board of governors and the NHLPA.  Not something that Bettman can just change.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:

I just never usually read them.

Shoulda stuck to trusting my instincts. 

It's truly a cavalcade of overinflated egos and embittered opinions that are all masked in the protective cloak on anonymity. Wait.....

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mll said:

It was an offer sheet.  Nashville had the choice between losing a D1 or matching.  It's not Nashville that structured the contract but Philadelphia.  The Canucks structured the Luongo contract with Gillis admitting a couple of seasons ago that they always expected Luongo to end up on LTIR.

 

The math is done and the penalty structure was adjusted in the CBA approved last summer.  The CBA is approved by the board of governors and the NHLPA.  Not something that Bettman can just change.

 

 

but mll, they accepted it. It doesn't matter if it was an offer sheet or not, they chose to go with that kind of front loaded deal. 

 

There isn't a special protection clause in the CBA that says everyone but Nashville must be subject to offer sheets.

 

That CBA change was very unfair to us. Other teams got mitigation on their penalties, we didn't get that chance. Other recapture teams got a benefit, we didn't. 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but mll, they accepted it. It doesn't matter if it was an offer sheet or not, they chose to go with that kind of front loaded deal. 

 

There isn't a special protection clause in the CBA that says everyone but Nashville must be subject to offer sheets.

 

That CBA change was very unfair to us. Other teams got mitigation on their penalties, we didn't get that chance. Other recapture teams got a benefit, we didn't. 

 

I’d like to point out that the restructuring of the recapture penalty in no way reduced the formula that calculated the penalty. Just how it’s applied.  Instead of Nashville potentially getting hit with a $24+ million penalty for 1 season now the penalty per season caps out at the players AAV. (In this case $7.85m per year) It would have been ridiculous to hit Nashville with a 1 year $24 m penalty 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but mll, they accepted it. It doesn't matter if it was an offer sheet or not, they chose to go with that kind of front loaded deal. 

 

There isn't a special protection clause in the CBA that says everyone but Nashville must be subject to offer sheets.

 

That CBA change was very unfair to us. Other teams got mitigation on their penalties, we didn't get that chance. Other recapture teams got a benefit, we didn't. 

 

Vancouver's penalty is less than his cap hit.  If it was higher that rule would have applied.

 

Of course they matched - he was a D1.  They couldn't change the structure of the deal though - that was out of their control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mll said:

Vancouver's penalty is less than his cap hit.  If it was higher that rule would have applied.

which is the point. They could have allowed us some kind of relief as well, but they chose not to do that. 

 

You refuse to see that some teams benefited by the change. It was constructed to benefit other teams. 

 

3 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Of course they matched - he was a D1.  They couldn't change the structure of the deal though - that was out of their control.

it was totally in their control mll, they had plenty of time before the offer sheet to get a deal done with Weber. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

I’d like to point out that the restructuring of the recapture penalty in no way reduced the formula that calculated the penalty. Just how it’s applied.  Instead of Nashville potentially getting hit with a $24+ million penalty for 1 season now the penalty per season caps out at the players AAV. (In this case $7.85m per year) It would have been ridiculous to hit Nashville with a 1 year $24 m penalty 

 

thats right, its the re-tooled application that screws the Canucks. Why should other teams get a benefit, and we get none? thats totally unfair. We should have been given some options to restructure our penalty too. 

 

Its like if your neighbour got a tax break from the city and you didn't, and you being told to be happy because your taxes didn't go up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

thats right, its the re-tooled application that screws the Canucks. Why should other teams get a benefit, and we get none? thats totally unfair. We should have been given some options to restructure our penalty too. 

 

Its like if your neighbour got a tax break from the city and you didn't, and you being told to be happy because your taxes didn't go up.

 

How exactly did retooling it screw the Canucks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we didn't receive a break on our penalty schedule, others did. 

All they did was cap how much the penalty could be per season at the Players AAV. Luongo’s penalty was less than his AAV. Nashville is still going to get hit with a $7.85m penalty a year for multiple years. Would you like Vancouver to trade places with them since they benefited from the restructuring and Vancouver didn’t? 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -Vintage Canuck- changed the title to SCSF: (1) Vegas Golden Knights vs. (4) Montreal Canadiens | Canadiens win series 4-2
  • -Vintage Canuck- unpinned this topic

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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