Luongo

[moon111]

Vancouver should have little problem dealing Luongo so long as they aren't under the false assumption that they'll get good assets in return.

Luongo will go cheap because Burke (and others) will offer Schneider a contract offer and Vancouver will face either moving Luongo, or be handcuffed and not improve their team at any other position.

 

[Tigger]

If it's really low cost and the Leafs retain their financial muscle down the line, I don't have a real problem with it. If the cost is excessive or the outside chance of cap issues arising down the line are realized, no way.

I mean, I've already maintained that the Leafs could go with what they had last year but then I'm thinking long term, Luongo would probably band aid the Leafs for a bit and let them develop with a little more confidence but I don't know that's any more likely to end up in a positive result. 

Minus long term flexibility, cap wise, for the Leafs it seems crazy to get him.

 

[bustaheims]

Seems like there are at least a few other teams that don't fret too much about that sort of thing (ie. the Devils with Kovalchuk's contract and the Kings taking on the Carter/Richards never-ending deals) that do pretty well.

Hell, just do what Philly does, and once a player signed to a ridiculous deal is nearing the end, stick them on long-term IR and let them live with Mike Rathje on that island they shipped him off to.

It's much easier to hide an aging forward than it is to hide an aging goalie, never mind the fact that Carter and Richards' deals take them into their late 30s rather than their early 40s. As for putting them on the IR, if the league suspects any funny business (and, knowing the Leafs' luck, they will) they can have their own doctors check a player out to see if they're fit to play, and if they are, then no IR. Philly got lucky in that the players they wanted to hide on the IR were legitimately injured - in fact, both Hatcher and Rathje had troubling injury histories before they signed in Philly.

 

[bustaheims]

I'll eat my hat if a rule like that goes in and it's not grandfathered.

I really won't be surprised if it's not. Since the league couldn't punish teams when they signed those deals because of an oversight on their part, I almost expect them to find a way to find a way to hit them on them now.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'll eat my hat if a rule like that goes in and it's not grandfathered.

I really won't be surprised if it's not. Since the league couldn't punish teams when they signed those deals because of an oversight on their part, I almost expect them to find a way to find a way to hit them on them now.

The NHL has already altered the CBA to govern against those types of contracts, and the new rules were grandfathered in. At the same time Bettman announced that the previous "retirement" contracts were completely legal. I really can't see him being so spiteful that he'll spend the CBA negotiations trying to stick it to owners who pulled a fast-one on him. Especially since it's almost a quarter of the teams in the league with a contract like that. If the owners start fighting against themselves Donald Fehr is going to have a field-day with these negotiations.

 

[bustaheims]

The NHL has already altered the CBA to govern against those types of contracts, and the new rules were grandfathered in. At the same time Bettman announced that the previous "retirement" contracts were completely legal. I really can't see him being so spiteful that he'll spend the CBA negotiations trying to stick it to owners who pulled a fast-one on him. Especially since it's almost a quarter of the teams in the league with a contract like that. If the owners start fighting against themselves Donald Fehr is going to have a field-day with these negotiations.

The league had to grandfather in the Kovalchuk rule because some of those contracts had already been executed and that rule changed the nature of them. Alter the 35 and over rule wouldn't. And, really, only Vancouver, New Jersey and Chicago have contracts that take players into their 40s that aren't already 35+ deals. The rest of the deals are cap shenanigan deals, not player is expected to retire before the finish deals.

 

[dappleganger]

I've never seen changes to the CBA in any pro sport where contracts that didn't align with the new CBA were not grandfathered in.

 

[bustaheims]

I've never seen changes to the CBA in any pro sport where contracts that didn't align with the new CBA were not grandfathered in.

The thing is, the contracts will still align with the new CBA. It's the rules regarding the cap that will change. There will be no changes to terms of the contracts, no changes the way the cap hit is calculated, etc. Nothing about the contracts themselves changes, just the 35 and over rule becomes more broad.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The NHL has already altered the CBA to govern against those types of contracts, and the new rules were grandfathered in. At the same time Bettman announced that the previous "retirement" contracts were completely legal. I really can't see him being so spiteful that he'll spend the CBA negotiations trying to stick it to owners who pulled a fast-one on him. Especially since it's almost a quarter of the teams in the league with a contract like that. If the owners start fighting against themselves Donald Fehr is going to have a field-day with these negotiations.

The league had to grandfather in the Kovalchuk rule because some of those contracts had already been executed and that rule changed the nature of them. Alter the 35 and over rule wouldn't. And, really, only Vancouver, New Jersey and Chicago have contracts that take players into their 40s that aren't already 35+ deals. The rest of the deals are cap shenanigan deals, not player is expected to retire before the finish deals.

You're assuming then that the NHL will try to make the 35+ rules apply to all contracts, not just the ones signed after a player turned 35 years old? And then have that rule applied to contracts signed during the old CBA? I just can't see that happening. That rule would potentially solve the problem of these contracts, but it makes every long-term deal a complete hazard. You'd be potentially punishing any team that gives a long-term contract to a player in his late 20s or early 30s with legitimate dollar values attached to it.

If they're going to redefine a rule in the CBA, it needs to be the 50% decrease rule. The fact that Richards is well within his rights to go from $7mil one year to $1mil the next is a problem. Tweaking that rule is how you fight the "cap shenanigan" deals. 

 

[bustaheims]

That rule would potentially solve the problem of these contracts, but it makes every long-term deal a complete hazard. You'd be potentially punishing any team that gives a long-term contract to a player in his late 20s or early 30s with legitimate dollar values attached to it. 

I disagree. The 35+ rule really only punishes teams for players that retire or are sent to the minors. Otherwise, they're treated in the exact same manner as any other contract. What it would mean is teams wouldn't be signing players past the point where they feel they'd still be useless. We'd see a lot more contracts ending when a player is 35 and having these players sign short-term deals from there on out. You'll see see guys in their late 20s getting 8 year deals or so, they just won't be getting the 12 year deals a few have so far. If a team legitimately feels a player on the wrong side of 30 will contribute at a high level until they're 37/38 (or whatever), they'll still get deals that take them to that age, just not beyond, like those some have received so far.

If they're going to redefine a rule in the CBA, it needs to be the 50% decrease rule. The fact that Richards is well within his rights to go from $7mil one year to $1mil the next is a problem. Tweaking that rule is how you fight the "cap shenanigan" deals.

I don't think the league really has that big an issue with the cap shenanigan deals, to be entirely honest. It's the retirement contracts that are the problem - contracts that take players into their 40s. That's why the 35+ rule is there in the first place - to discourage teams from massively front-loading deals to older players and adding a bunch of years on to the end that the player won't play. The contracts that guys like Carter and Richards signed are fine, it's the contracts that Kovalchuk, Luongo and, to a lesser extent, Hossa signed that are the issue.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I don't think the league really has that big an issue with the cap shenanigan deals, to be entirely honest. It's the retirement contracts that are the problem - contracts that take players into their 40s. That's why the 35+ rule is there in the first place - to discourage teams from massively front-loading deals to older players and adding a bunch of years on to the end that the player won't play. The contracts that guys like Carter and Richards signed are fine, it's the contracts that Kovalchuk, Luongo and, to a lesser extent, Hossa signed that are the issue.

Alright, so retirement contracts are the problem then. But like I said before, hasn't the new Kovalchuk rule already completely solved that problem going forward? There aren't any benefits anymore to signing a player into his 40s by adding a bunch of cheap years onto the end of the contract. We'll probably never see another Luongo-type contract anymore because of that. So if the NHL is adjusting the 35+ rule to fight against retirement contracts, they are literally putting that rule in place just blow raspberries at 2, maybe 3 contracts.

 

[bustaheims]

Alright, so retirement contracts are the problem then. But like I said before, hasn't the new Kovalchuk rule already completely solved that problem going forward? There aren't any benefits anymore to signing a player into his 40s by adding a bunch of cheap years onto the end of the contract. We'll probably never see another Luongo-type contract anymore because of that. So if the NHL is adjusting the 35+ rule to fight against retirement contracts, they are literally putting that rule in place just blow raspberries at 2, maybe 3 contracts.

The Kovalchuk rule helps, but, I don't think it completely solves the issue. When it came out, it really struck me as a temporary solution to a problem they'd tackle head on when negotiating the next CBA.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think we can both agree that it sure will be fun getting to read through a new CBA. I haven't been this excited since Deathly Hallows. 

 

[bustaheims]

I think we can both agree that it sure will be fun getting to read through a new CBA. I haven't been this excited since Deathly Hallows.

I imagine it will be the highlight of the fall season. Also, I expect it to contain a number of delightfully confusing sections.

Though, on a more serious note, I definitely expect it will go as far as possible to close the few loopholes the current CBA has.

 

[Kin]

If Schneider is a problem, just say "I hope you like Columbus or the Islanders" and move him. I don't see that as a terrible option for a contender like the Canucks. They'll be set in goal and will very likely get something young that can help them now.

I don't know the effectiveness of that sort of hardball if Schneider can say to Columbus or the Islanders, as busta hints, "I'm going to sign a one year offer sheet with someone else" so they, best case scenario, match the sheet and have him for a year. Schneider, for all of his promise and potential, is still an untested #1 a year away from UFA status. That's not going to have a ton of value either.

 

[Kin]

I really can't see him being so spiteful that he'll spend the CBA negotiations trying to stick it to owners who pulled a fast-one on him.

I think a lot of that depends on what is said behind closed doors. If Bettman and company have been warning people ever since those deals started being signed that they were bad ideas and might come back to bite them if the CBA changes then I don't think that coming to fruition will be done out of spite.

Keep in mind, it's fairly unlikely that this CBA will be like the last one where the NHL basically got to write it themselves and present it to a broken union.

 

[bustaheims]

I don't know the effectiveness of that sort of hardball if Schneider can say to Columbus or the Islanders, as busta hints, "I'm going to sign a one year offer sheet with someone else" so they, best case scenario, match the sheet and have him for a year. Schneider, for all of his promise and potential, is still an untested #1 a year away from UFA status. That's not going to have a ton of value either.

Yeah. The reality is that, unless the Canucks jump the gun and move him early in the process, Schneider holds a pretty significant hammer here. The potential for him to sign a one year offer sheet significantly diminishes his trade value when it comes to teams he doesn't want to commit to, as they could easily be left in a situation where they trade value to get him, are forced to match an offer sheet and can no longer trade him before he's free to walk as a UFA. Even without the offer sheet, Schneider can choose to take the Canucks to arbitration, and, considering his age/proximity to UFA status, the 2 year decision is unavailable to them, leaving Schneider with the impending UFA hammer to wield, though, leaving the Canucks with the trade route still available to them.

The only thing the Canucks can really do if Schneider doesn't sign long-term is hope he doesn't sign an offer sheet before July 5th, at which point, they can take him to arbitration to remove that option, but, still leaves the very real potential of a one year deal with Schneider walking the next July.

 

[rdowdall]

Anyone know what the rumoured deal between the Leafs and Canucks has as principles from the Leafs?

 

[Zee]

Anyone know what the rumoured deal between the Leafs and Canucks has as principles from the Leafs?

You're moving dangerously into Eklund territory now.

 

[Corn Flake]

Anyone know what the rumoured deal between the Leafs and Canucks has as principles from the Leafs?

We've heard piles of rumor and speculation but nothing even close to resembling what it really could be.  Just piles of things.