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

Just now, qwijibo said:

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? 

other teams got relief on their situation, we did not. Why is that hard to understand?

 

Why did Nashville deserve a measure relief from the original formula and we don't? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

other teams got relief on their situation, we did not. Why is that hard to understand?

 

Why did Nashville deserve a measure relief from the original formula and we don't? 

If Luongo had waited until the last year retire his penalty could have been $9m in one season. The restructuring would have limited it to $5.33m. Luongo retired earlier and the restructuring didn’t need to be applied.  Do you think it would have made sense to hit Nashville with a potential $24m penalty for 1 season? It was adjusted in a fair way to avoid completely decimating a team 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

If Luongo had waited until the last year retire his penalty could have been $9m in one season. The restructuring would have limited it to $5.33m. Luongo retired earlier and the restructuring didn’t need to be applied.  Do you think it would have made sense to hit Nashville with a potential $24m penalty for 1 season? It was adjusted in a fair way to avoid completely decimating a team 

I think the whole recapture thing was ill conceived in the first place, it never should have happened. But it did.

 

The fact is, and it is a fact, Nashville benefits greatly from the change, and we didn't. I suspect they will get even more relief some way from Bettman if need be.

 

We should have been offered something as well. Maybe we decide to take Lu's hit over 2 years instead of 3. Maybe we would have liked to spread it out over 6. Something like that. 

 

Its simply fundamentally unfair to give one team a benefit over another. 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

I think the whole recapture think was ill conceived in the first place, it never should have happened. But it did.

 

The fact is, and it is a fact, Nashville benefits greatly from the change, and we didn't. I suspect they will get even more relief some way from Bettman if need be.

 

We should have been offered something as well. Maybe we decide to take Lu's hit over 2 years instead of 3. Maybe we would have like to spread it out over 6. Something like that. 

 

Its simply fundamentally unfair to give one team a benefit over another. 

They didn’t give Nashville a choice. They restructured the way all the remaining penalties are administered if they meet the simple criteria of the penalty being higher than the players AAV. If they don’t meet that criteria then they stay the same as they were always intended.  It’s just a way to make sure the penalty isn’t completely crippling. At the end of the day it’s still a penalty and it’s intended to be so 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, qwijibo said:

They didn’t give Nashville a choice. They restructured the way all the remaining penalties are administered if they meet the simple criteria of the penalty being higher than the players AAV.

I'd call that quite the benefit. Nashville is quite relived I'm sure, and you know there were discussions about it between NSH and Bettman. 

 

Just now, qwijibo said:

 

If they don’t meet that criteria then they stay the same as they were always intended.

right, which they knew didn't and wouldn't apply to us. 

 

Just now, qwijibo said:

 

 

It’s just a way to make sure the penalty isn’t completely crippling. At the end of the day it’s still a penalty and it’s intended to be so 

sure, it was a dumb penalty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'd call that quite the benefit. Nashville is quite relived I'm sure, and you know there were discussions about it between NSH and Bettman. 

 

right, which they knew didn't and wouldn't apply to us. 

 

sure, it was a dumb penalty. 

I love how you’re glossing over the fact that Nashville will still get hit with close to a $8m cap penalty for multiple years.
 

Also. Like somehow Bettman is entirely responsible for it.   He acts on behalf of the owners. All the owners. He’s not some omnipotent entity who does as he pleases.  The moves made both with regards to the penalty and the restructuring of the penalty had to be written into the CBA and ratified by both the board of governors and the NHLPA.
 

All teams were warned well in advance to not make use of the loophole to circumvent the cap. They were warned that there would be repercussions. A handful of GM’s felt they had a cup contender and the benefit outweighed to potential penalty and ignored the warning. This wasn’t some random out of the blue thing.  

Edited by qwijibo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

I love how your glossing over the fact that Nashville will still get hit with close to a $8m cap penalty for multiple years.
 

Also. Like somehow Bettman is entirely responsible for it.   He acts on behalf of the owners. All the owners. He’s not some omnipotent entity who does as he pleases.  The moves made both with regards to the penalty and the restructuring of the penalty had to be written into the CBA and ratified by both the board of governors and the NHLPA.
 

All teams were warned well in advance to not make use of the loophole to circumvent the cap. They were warned that there would be repercussions. A handful of GM’s felt they had a cup contender and the benefit outweighed to potential penalty and ignored the warning. This wasn’t some random out of the blue thing.  

No way the league will penalize Nashville that kind of money.  That’s a good way to cripple a franchise that is already in a fickle market.  Weber will go on LTIR and join that group on Robidaus island.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

I love how you’re glossing over the fact that Nashville will still get hit with close to a $8m cap penalty for multiple years.

I'm not glossing over anything. I think thats stupid. 

 

6 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

 


 

Also. Like somehow Bettman is entirely responsible for it.   He acts on behalf of the owners. All the owners. He’s not some omnipotent entity who does as he pleases.  The moves made both with regards to the penalty and the restructuring of the penalty had to be written into the CBA and ratified by both the board of governors and the NHLPA.
 

All teams were warned well in advance to not make use of the loophole to circumvent the cap. They were warned that there would be repercussions. A handful of GM’s felt they had a cup contender and the benefit outweighed to potential penalty and ignored the warning. This wasn’t some random out of the blue thing.  

If Weber wasn't someone on your favourite team I think you'd not make excuses for this. Its a terrible penalty, that is applied unequally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm not glossing over anything. I think thats stupid. 

 

If Weber wasn't someone on your favourite team I think you'd not make excuses for this. Its a terrible penalty, that is applied unequally. 

It’s not applied unequally. The penalty  is calculated in the exact same manner for every contract involved. All they’ve done is limit the maximum the penalty can be in any year.  That’s not unfair. Vancouver’s penalty didn’t exceed the maximum. Good for them. If it had then it would have been restricted to the max per year. It’s that simple 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

It’s not applied unequally. The penalty  is calculated in the exact same manner for every contract involved. All they’ve done is limit the maximum the penalty can be in any year.  That’s not unfair. Vancouver’s penalty didn’t exceed the maximum. Good for them. If it had then it would have been restricted to the max per year. It’s that simple 

what benefit did Nashville receive from the CBA change? a way out from a crushing penalty.

 

what benefit did Vancouver receive from the CBA change? nothing.

 

Thats the definition of an unequally applied rule change. It wouldn't stand in the real world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

what benefit did Nashville receive from the CBA change? a way out from a crushing penalty.

 

what benefit did Vancouver receive from the CBA change? nothing.

 

Thats the definition of an unequally applied rule change. It wouldn't stand in the real world. 

Nashville is still getting hit with a massive penalty that’s almost 3 times higher than Vancouver’s. How are you not factoring that in? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, qwijibo said:

Nashville is still getting hit with a massive penalty that’s almost 3 times higher than Vancouver’s. How are you not factoring that in? 

I am. How are you not factoring in the rule change didn't benefit Vancouver?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I am. How are you not factoring in the rule change didn't benefit Vancouver?

It was intended to limit how big an impact the penalty could have in one season. Luongo’s penalty wasn’t close to his AAV so it didn’t apply.  It’s not like Nashville is going to be celebrating when they have a $8m penalty applied for multiple years. But they’ll be able to continue icing a team. If they had been hit with a $24m penalty in one season they couldn’t have iced a team. That’s all the restructuring was meant to do. 

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...