Luongo
- Thread starter slapshot
- Start date
bustaheims
Active member
DarrenDreger: @mirtle @strombone1. Gillis has said there were discussions before lockout, but, there can't be player transaction talk during lockout.
DarrenDreger: Unsurprisingly, based on my earlier tweet, Canucks gm Mike Gillis says all rumors of Luongo to the Leafs are "untrue".
DarrenDreger: Unsurprisingly, based on my earlier tweet, Canucks gm Mike Gillis says all rumors of Luongo to the Leafs are "untrue".
maplesyrup
New member
Nik V. Debs said:
I have to think the difference here would be the (potential) ability to move money around making it somewhat different than the Richards deal. Or, maybe Gillis will take some junk back or pony-up some other assets. If not than yeah, zoiks.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/article/1274114--roberto-luongo-trade-to-leafs-isn-t-a-done-deal-at-least-not-yet-cox
the majority of owners and the Bettman administration are intent on punishing teams that insisted on doing quasi-legal backsiding contracts like Luongo?s. It was no surprise, then, the owners? proposal of earlier this week included a provision that for contracts longer than five years, every year of the contract would count against the cap even if the player didn?t play.
Morever, if a player with such a contract was traded and then retired before the contract expired, the remaining annual cap hit would revert to the team that signed the player in the first place.
So for Luongo, if the Leafs acquired him and he retired after the 2017-18 season, the Canucks would then have to swallow the $5.33 million cap hit for the final four years.
In the NHL proposal
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570
In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.
If Vancouver has to eat part of Luongo's contract as a part of the new CBA (the first quote) and/or if a part of the trade is cap space (in the second quote), then the talent value Luongo could return would be very likely to climb significantly because the Canucks would be eating cap bucks.
Therefore, all the banter about a potential trade is pretty fruitless because it won't be until the new CBA is signed that the components of the trade can be properly haggled.
Under the recent CBA, I still wouldn't take Luongo for a 7th round pick but I think we've beaten that one pretty hard. Under the potential new CBA rules quoted above, depending on whether they survive the CBA negotiations, I do think it's a potential deal worthy of revisiting.
the majority of owners and the Bettman administration are intent on punishing teams that insisted on doing quasi-legal backsiding contracts like Luongo?s. It was no surprise, then, the owners? proposal of earlier this week included a provision that for contracts longer than five years, every year of the contract would count against the cap even if the player didn?t play.
Morever, if a player with such a contract was traded and then retired before the contract expired, the remaining annual cap hit would revert to the team that signed the player in the first place.
So for Luongo, if the Leafs acquired him and he retired after the 2017-18 season, the Canucks would then have to swallow the $5.33 million cap hit for the final four years.
In the NHL proposal
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570
In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.
If Vancouver has to eat part of Luongo's contract as a part of the new CBA (the first quote) and/or if a part of the trade is cap space (in the second quote), then the talent value Luongo could return would be very likely to climb significantly because the Canucks would be eating cap bucks.
Therefore, all the banter about a potential trade is pretty fruitless because it won't be until the new CBA is signed that the components of the trade can be properly haggled.
Under the recent CBA, I still wouldn't take Luongo for a 7th round pick but I think we've beaten that one pretty hard. Under the potential new CBA rules quoted above, depending on whether they survive the CBA negotiations, I do think it's a potential deal worthy of revisiting.
Corn Flake
New member
cw said:
I'm not completely sure it will change a lot. Eating some of the cap hit is nice, but Luongo's annual hit isn't really that steep. If it is the Leafs they would most likely prefer to not pay more in trade to get a break on the cap hit.
I think if Luongo was a $7.5 mil cap hit Burke would be fine with it so long as the guy is playing and he knows he is not going to inherit the false part of a back-loaded cheater deal.
As far as the retirement clause, the assumption today is that Luongo packs it in, the team is off the hook anyway based on today's rules. If this new provision in the CBA came to pass, then the receiving team is still not on the hook. Good for the Leafs, bad for Van. So I don't think a lot changes for the team acquiring Luongo, but it sure does for Van, no matter how you slice it.
Corn Flake said:
I think it can potentially change plenty for the team acquiring Luongo - they may have to pay more in talent assets to get him than they otherwise would.
Under the recent CBA deal, I felt he was close to worthless because of his contract. I think it's slowly transitioning to becoming a younger man's position. I haven't seen lots of press on this but when Bozak is mentioned as a centerpiece and we don't see lots of disbelief and outrage at that notion, I think the notion he wasn't worth all that much is more widely settling in and is probably a key part of the reason he hasn't been moved.
Corn Flake
New member
cw said:
I fully agree with you that under the old deal he was pretty much worthless, but I do think if the trade had been made prior to sept 15 that Burke was going to send something of value to the Nucks in the range of a Bozak or a propspect. I think that had more to do with moving out an excess body or two and playing nice than it had to do with Luongo's pure trade value. This whole "Gardiner, Frattin, 1st, +++" floated concept by Gillis was pure hogwash, but I don't think the premise you could get him for zilch was ever going to happen either.
I think concept that your goalie can be your franchise player and should be locked up accordingly is all but ancient history. Age may not be a factor as much as consistency is, and that is harder and harder to come by. Tim Thomas is a good example, before he went crazy.
Corn Flake
New member
Someone pointed out that there is a possibility - a fairly strong one - that the Canucks may find it in their best interest to just buy out Luongo and not have that retirement package/albatross floating over the franchise for years.. probably years after Gillis and others are long gone.
If there is a one-time grace provision for buy outs to not count against the cap, I could see it happening. Depending of course on a million other factors in the CBA.
If there is a one-time grace provision for buy outs to not count against the cap, I could see it happening. Depending of course on a million other factors in the CBA.
L K
Active member
lamajama said:
1- On the premise of opening up a roster spot I understand the Bozak move. However, while I think Bozak is really nothing more than a 3rd liner, the fact that he has been a .50 PPG player while not being an awful defensive player makes me wonder why a terrible contract on a guy who is being let go because of his poor playoff performance is worth anything.
2 - HA
OldTimeHockey
Active member
lamajama said:
Because of all the wild and crazy deals he's been making lately?