Luongo
- Thread starter slapshot
- Start date
KW Sluggo said:
I'm not for the trade, but I was just making a point that the whole "it depends on defense" has been beaten to death and it's only partially true. You can have poor team defense and still great goaltending and great team defense and bad goaltending, that's all.
The hit isn't the problem, its a great price for a goaltender like that. Its what can we do once he declines that is the real issue since he may have a few years left on his deal.
bustaheims
Active member
RedLeaf said:
I love how the article is about how the new CBA doesn't hurt Luongo and it proceeds to illustrate exactly how it could have a very negative impact on his trade value.
princedpw said:
Regardless... oh good god, please don't trade for him! The contract has become even more of an albatross than before! Wow. A team'd have to be pretty desperate to mortgage the future cap like that. Maybe someone will come out of the dressing room and give him a good lead pipe to the knee before he decides to retire normally.
A few interesting examples popped up on twitter regarding this rule a little bit ago. Friedman wrote that if Luongo was traded before the season the Canucks would be stuck with a $6mil cap penalty, which would be divided by the number of unused years on his contract. So if he retires with only 1 year left Vancouver gets hit with a $6mil cap hit? That's pretty extreme I think.
But the real extreme examples came from Daniel Tolensky who was looking at the Zach Parise contract. Assuming his math is correct, if Minnesota trades Parise after 3 yrs and he retires with 1 year left on deal, the Wild would be dinged with a $12.4mil cap penalty. If he's dealt after 9 seasons and retires with a year left Minnesota would get a $20.1mil cap penalty. Something just seems very strange about that.
edit: An even funnier example of this that Dan posted involves Shea Weber. I checked the math on this myself. If Weber is traded after 6 seasons with Nashville and he retires with 1 year left on his contract, the Predators would be hit with a $32.85mil cap hit in 2025-26. There's got to be something to this rule that we aren't seeing.
But the real extreme examples came from Daniel Tolensky who was looking at the Zach Parise contract. Assuming his math is correct, if Minnesota trades Parise after 3 yrs and he retires with 1 year left on deal, the Wild would be dinged with a $12.4mil cap penalty. If he's dealt after 9 seasons and retires with a year left Minnesota would get a $20.1mil cap penalty. Something just seems very strange about that.
edit: An even funnier example of this that Dan posted involves Shea Weber. I checked the math on this myself. If Weber is traded after 6 seasons with Nashville and he retires with 1 year left on his contract, the Predators would be hit with a $32.85mil cap hit in 2025-26. There's got to be something to this rule that we aren't seeing.
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
Yeah, it's a harsh rule that really punishes teams for having contracts like this on the books. It's even worse for Nashville and Weber. They didn't create the contract, and the situation is even more severe. Assuming this rule is still in play in the next CBA (or this CBA is simply extended), if they trade Weber after 11 seasons and he retires with one left, they get hit with a ~$20.6M penalty. After 9 seasons? ~$27.3M.
These teams better hope guys either play out their entire contracts. Especially if they get traded.
bustaheims said:
Yeah I edited my post with a Weber example as well. Like I said there, I wonder if we just don't have all the details for this rule quite yet. Although I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it's accurate I guess. Bettman would have pretty much been able to write this one up himself as it doesn't really effect the NHLPA in any way.
Redleaf
Active member
My understanding is that deals/trades cannot be announced until after the new CBA gets ratified either tomorrow or Thursday. So we'll find out soon enough if there is any truth to these Luongo to Toronto rumours, or if its just the media looking for a good story to fill the time before the season starts.
bustaheims
Active member
RedLeaf said:
It's unlikely the CBA is ratified before the weekend. It'll take a few days for the PA to sort their vote out.
bustaheims
Active member
FriedgeHNIC: Updated notes about Luongo blog from last night. Contracts "in excess of 6 years" affected; Long-Term injury rules are unchanged, as for...
FriedgeHNIC: big penalties at end of contracts, there is no "limit" mentioned in note sent to clubs. Looking for further info.
FriedgeHNIC: big penalties at end of contracts, there is no "limit" mentioned in note sent to clubs. Looking for further info.
Good article over at MLHS on the risks involved if we take on Luongo:
http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/01/08/better-know-the-risk-roberto-luongo/
I've been vehemently against the idea of trading for Luongo from the beginning, and maybe this article will help sway some of you.
http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/01/08/better-know-the-risk-roberto-luongo/
I've been vehemently against the idea of trading for Luongo from the beginning, and maybe this article will help sway some of you.
bustaheims
Active member
Bender said:
On buyouts or on the cap recapture stuff? Because, I'm pretty sure we know pretty much what we need to know about the buyouts.