And So The Axe Falls

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17385
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by Strangelove » Sun Aug 24, 2014 10:21 pm

ClamRussel wrote: I believe Hossa's contract was the same type of deal, no?
Yup.
ClamRussel wrote: Pronger's should apply on some level. There were others.
Yes, the "Roberto Luongo Rule" would apply to Pronger if he wasn't seriously fucked up.

It's the Pronger situation that gives twits like Friedman these silly ideas.

These injuries must be verified by unbiased doctors.

Pronger was suffering from vision impairment + concussion symptoms for 2 years before the new CBA.

Does anyone seriously think the Flyers started parking a healthy 36-year-old Pronger for some other reason?

That's right, I called Friedman a twit. :drink:

The following players were bought out at least in part to avoid recapture penalties:

Brad Richards, Ehrhoff, Lecavalier, Briere, Bryzgalov.

But yeah a 'smrt guy' like Friedman would've just waited until rules changed or simply used the LTIR. :roll:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
Posts: 3992
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by ClamRussel » Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:01 pm

Faking the injury or not is besides the point. It is possible it could conceivably happen, unlikely but there are ways. So, why should injuries be exempt but retirement not? In the case of retirement, it hurts the team and not the player at all. A team has no control over an injury occurring but they also have no control over a player retiring early either. The spirit of this rule seems based on the theory that all these deals had built in early retirement plans & none of these players intended on honouring their deals. So why are injuries 100% exempt? It's still in relation to the same sketchy (but legal) contracts that these players apparently had no intention on finishing. Fair would be pro-rated based on them playing longer then retiring early. As it is, the official assumption is an exempt injured player would have played the full 15 yrs or so of the contract until they were 48ish. Riiight.

Nash getting an exemption is BS no matter how it's sliced. All prior contracts should have been grandfathered in.
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 13266
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by Hockey Widow » Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:40 am

ClamRussel wrote:I believe Hossa's contract was the same type of deal, no? Pronger's should apply on some level. There were others.
Pronger has not retired, he will be put on LTIR again. I suspect he is done and the Flyers will never have to deal with the cap recapture.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 13266
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by Hockey Widow » Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:44 am

ClamRussel wrote:Faking the injury or not is besides the point. It is possible it could conceivably happen, unlikely but there are ways. So, why should injuries be exempt but retirement not? In the case of retirement, it hurts the team and not the player at all. A team has no control over an injury occurring but they also have no control over a player retiring early either. The spirit of this rule seems based on the theory that all these deals had built in early retirement plans & none of these players intended on honouring their deals. So why are injuries 100% exempt? It's still in relation to the same sketchy (but legal) contracts that these players apparently had no intention on finishing. Fair would be pro-rated based on them playing longer then retiring early. As it is, the official assumption is an exempt injured player would have played the full 15 yrs or so of the contract until they were 48ish. Riiight.

Nash getting an exemption is BS no matter how it's sliced. All prior contracts should have been grandfathered in.

Well if a player is injured he is still eligible for 100% of his salary and the full salary counts towards the cap. No exemption given. But the team has the choice to put said player on LTIR. Still no exemption. The team now has to be as close to the cap max in order to get any relief,and it's not cap relief. They can add a player or players up to the amount of the player on LTIR. Totally different.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 13266
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by Hockey Widow » Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:47 am

In the Luongo presser with the Panthers he was asked about the likelihood of him playing out his contract and he replied much more likely now than before the trade. We can only hope he does. But I can't lose sleep over what might happen 4,6,8 years from now. It was a horrible change to the CBA.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by rikster » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:47 am

Elliotte Friedman does a good job of explaining the gist of the re capture penalties in this article...
As I said, he does a good job of explaining the gist of the re capture penalty...

And Friedman gave his opinion prior to the league introducing a third reason which was that the league can just change its mind, as it did in the New Jersey situation....

The Devils re capture cost of $250,000 per season is $2,000,000 less than their carry over bonus for this year which in itself should dispel the notion that the re capture penalty was what killed the market for Luongo...

For one, carry over bonuses and the problems they are causing are just another example of GM's and owners working in the "here and now" with less regard for "down the road"....

And two, the penalty is paid in todays cap limit dollars and in the case of the Panthers and Luongo the cost to either team is minor and in the case of the Canucks, the cost becomes major only in the last 3 years, and the only year the Canucks penalty exceeds what the Bruins are paying in carry over bonuses this year is the last year of the contract in 2021..

The Panthers are paying about as much in retained salary this year as their total re capture penalty cost would be should Luongo retire this season....

My point is that re capture penalties or the Luongo rule as its often called is not the Boogey Man in the Room as the media likes to tell us....

And when Luongo sat in front of the media and said that the reason he wasn't dealt was because his contract sucked he wasn't being honest...

I think if he was being honest he would have admitted that the reason he hadn't been dealt was because of his refusal to increase the number of teams he'd be willing to move to....

A year later the player with the great contract that everybody wanted gets dealt for what some feel was too little a return and the reason was the same as in the Luongo deal, no movement clauses...

Take care...

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by dbr » Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:40 am

Strangelove wrote:The following players were bought out at least in part to avoid recapture penalties:

Brad Richards, Ehrhoff, Lecavalier, Briere, Bryzgalov.
Briere was bought out to avoid recapture? He sure didn't retire last off season and I don't think anyone thought he'd retire this offseason..

Bryzgalov, sure he would have been eligible for recapture eventually.. but the Flyers did not want him as their starter anymore at that point and we all know how fun it is to try to contend with a $5m+ backup goaltender.

Lecavalier, Tampa has spent less money the last two seasons on his CBO + Filppula (a better player) than they would have just keeping him. You could make a case that what they care about most is the recapture but the bottom line is that he was already failing to earn his salary and they got out of a 3 year $30m commitment (plus all those extra years) and improved the team at the same time.

Richards, I might believe that but at the same time he's like Vinny and Bryz - a terrible value in the here and now and that's likely the main reason for the buy out.

Ehrhoff, no argument here. Easily worth his salary and cap hit, game doesn't appear to be sliding much, only real X factor is the possibility of recapture right around the time McJesus' second contract kicks in. :roll:

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17385
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by Strangelove » Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:37 pm

rikster wrote:
rikster wrote: Elliotte Friedman does a good job of explaining the gist of the re capture penalties in this article...
As I said, he does a good job of explaining the gist of the re capture penalty...

And Friedman gave his opinion prior to the league introducing a third reason which was that the league can just change its mind, as it did in the New Jersey situation....

The Devils re capture cost of $250,000 per season is $2,000,000 less than their carry over bonus for this year which in itself should dispel the notion that the re capture penalty was what killed the market for Luongo...
So you completely ignore my response and respond to yourself? :scowl:

Couldn't you at least thank me for pointing out the recapture penalty has already "come to light" (Kovalchuk).

(Friedman was wrong)

Seriously, wtf dude, are you talking to me or are you talking to yourself?

Please stop muddling the issue with "carry over bonuses".

Apples and oranges.

Okay... after I inform you of the recapture penalties NJ is paying Re: Kovalchuk

... you use that relatively small amount to conclude:

"the re capture penalty was NOT what killed the market for Luongo"

:roll:

Pineapples and coconuts.

Read this: http://canucksarmy.com/2013/7/13/musing ... re-penalty

The Luongo recapture penalties will dwarf the Kovalchuck recapture penalties.

You said: "the league can just change its mind, as it did in the New Jersey situation"

For clarification, the league did not change it's mind in regards to the recapture penalty.

Actually the Devils asked the league to reduce the penalty on an earlier Kovy contract that was ruled illegal.

The Devils cited "changes in circumstances".

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=708210

Now if the league were ever in the future to decide to do away with recapture penalties

.... how would they ever reimburse the Devils for cap-space lost in the past?

How could they reimburse teams that CBOed players based upon the threat of recapture penalties?

No Rikster, the genie is out of the bottle.

Recapture penalties loom large.
rikster wrote: My point is that re capture penalties or the Luongo rule as its often called is not the Boogey Man in the Room as the media likes to tell us....
Isn't your man Friedman a part of the media? :eh:

Wasn't your original point in fact that the media (Friedman) backed your view

... that the "Luongo rule is not the Boogey Man in the Room"? :crazy:

If you just wanted to talk to yourself, sorry for interrupting.

But for the rest here, trust me folks: The Luongo Rule is the Boogey Man in the Room. :mex:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17385
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by Strangelove » Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:43 pm

dbr wrote:
Strangelove wrote:The following players were bought out at least in part to avoid recapture penalties:

Brad Richards, Ehrhoff, Lecavalier, Briere, Bryzgalov.
Briere was bought out to avoid recapture? He sure didn't retire last off season and I don't think anyone thought he'd retire this offseason..

Bryzgalov, sure he would have been eligible for recapture eventually.. but the Flyers did not want him as their starter anymore at that point and we all know how fun it is to try to contend with a $5m+ backup goaltender.

Lecavalier, Tampa has spent less money the last two seasons on his CBO + Filppula (a better player) than they would have just keeping him. You could make a case that what they care about most is the recapture but the bottom line is that he was already failing to earn his salary and they got out of a 3 year $30m commitment (plus all those extra years) and improved the team at the same time.

Richards, I might believe that but at the same time he's like Vinny and Bryz - a terrible value in the here and now and that's likely the main reason for the buy out.

Ehrhoff, no argument here. Easily worth his salary and cap hit, game doesn't appear to be sliding much, only real X factor is the possibility of recapture right around the time McJesus' second contract kicks in. :roll:
Okay Dave, I'll give you Briere.

Would you agree that those other players "were bought out at least in part to avoid recapture penalties"? :wink:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by rikster » Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:53 pm

So you completely ignore my response and respond to yourself
No, I reminded you that I said Friedmann gave a good gist of how re capture works and you went on a tirade and called him a twit....

So I thought I should point out that you were being a twit for calling him a twit...

As for not responding to your response, I'm still shaking my head over you bringing up the Jersey situation again to back up your argument that re capture was the Boogey Man in the Room and why Luongo was so hard to deal...

The Devils have a re capture penalty of $250,000 per year, that's not a typo and is your Boogey Man in the Room...

And just to prove that rules are meant to be broken, the league reduced the penalty and gave half the money back and gave them a first round pick...

They showed them alright!

And the Panthers must be worried sick over the notion of Luongo retiring early, what with potential re capture penalties of any where from $32,000 to just over $1 million...

You think that GM's would walk away from a player who can help them win today because of a penalty that likely won't be around years from today when the player may retire?

I don't and gave you the carry forward bonuses teams like Boston are dealing with to illustrate that contrary to your opinion GM's do look at the here and now because its wins and losses that keeps them employed, not worrying about a penalty that may be called years from now....

Heck, some owners won't be around when those penalties have a chance of being triggered....

As for your claim regarding Richards and the others being bought out to avoid re capture penalties, another shake of the head but whatever you think....

I would be curious to learn what the re capture penalty would be if say Ehroff would have been dealt ...

Maybe you could give us an idea of what his Boogey Man in the Room cost would be....

Take care...

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17385
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by Strangelove » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:35 pm

rikster wrote:
Strangelove wrote: So you completely ignore my response and respond to yourself
No, I reminded you that I said Friedmann gave a good gist of how re capture works
Yeah no, that was just you trying to muddle the issue (yet again).

The real reason you quoted the Friedman article is very plain to see.

You were looking for a respected hockey pundit to back your claims that the recapture penalty will go away.

You didn't just say "gist" you also said:

"Interesting that he also doesn't think the penalty will be applied"

Unfortunately you quoted an article from 19 months ago

... and since then the penalty has indeed been applied (Kovalchuk)

... which makes you wrong along with your pal Friedman The Twit. :mrgreen:
rikster wrote: and you went on a tirade and called him a twit....
One need not necessarily be on a tirade to call one a "twit".
rikster wrote: So I thought I should point out that you were being a twit for calling him a twit...
Are you on a tirade?

I called Friedman a "twit" for very good reason.... I proved the point.

There is no rational reason for you to call me a "twit" however.
rikster wrote: As for not responding to your response, I'm still shaking my head over you bringing up the Jersey situation again to back up your argument that re capture was the Boogey Man in the Room and why Luongo was so hard to deal...

The Devils have a re capture penalty of $250,000 per year, that's not a typo and is your Boogey Man in the Room...
I brought up Kovalchuk again because you missed the point.

You are... still... missing the point. :roll:

Point was: The recapture penalty was already applied (Kovalchuk).

You and your old Friedman article were suggesting it would never be applied.

You and your old Friedman article were wrong.

*knocks on Rikster's forehead*

IS ANY OF THIS GETTING THROUGH?!! :evil:
rikster wrote: And just to prove that rules are meant to be broken, the league reduced the penalty and gave half the money back and gave them a first round pick...

They showed them alright!
I've already told you that the recapture penalty was applied unmodified in the Kovalchuk case.

I've already told you that the reduced penalty was for a previous Kovalchuk contract.

Are you really this fucking stupid (not on a tirade)... or are you just trying to muddle things again?
rikster wrote: And the Panthers must be worried sick over the notion of Luongo retiring early, what with potential re capture penalties of any where from $32,000 to just over $1 million...
Yeah $32K if Luongo retires right now. :scowl:

Let's get real.

Most have speculated from the day the Luongo deal was signed that he would retire in 2018 or 2019

(when the actual salary drops off).

Panther's share of the recapture penalty will be

... $1.2m times 4 years if he retires in 2018

... $1.1m times 3 years if he retires in 2019.

These number have been reduced by 15% due to the fact Cats insisted Canucks retain salary in the deal.

These numbers would have been higher if it didn't take 2 years to trade Mr Luongo (I blame Recap fears). :drink:
rikster wrote: You think that GM's would walk away from a player who can help them win today because of a penalty that likely won't be around years from today when the player may retire?
I think the owners call the shots in these kinds of trades.

I think future recapture penalties played a big factor in holding up the Luongo trade.
rikster wrote: As for your claim regarding Richards and the others being bought out to avoid re capture penalties, another shake of the head but whatever you think....

I would be curious to learn what the re capture penalty would be if say Ehroff would have been dealt ...

Maybe you could give us an idea of what his Boogey Man in the Room cost would be....
Google is your friend.

You can dig up quotes from GMs saying they CBOed players because of the recapture penalty.

I've already done it for myself, I just want to see if you're capable.

Here, let me help.

"PLAYER'S NAME" + "recapture" + "buy out" + "GM's name"

Happy hunting there chief...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
BingoTough
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:16 am

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by BingoTough » Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:26 am

Strangelove wrote: "PLAYER'S NAME" + "recapture" + "buy out" + "GM's name"
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22brad+richards%2 ... 2sather%22

User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by rikster » Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:38 am

"
Interesting that he also doesn't think the penalty will be applied"

Unfortunately you quoted an article from 19 months ago
And then they took it away leaving the Devils with a token "slap on the wrist" ...

So the precedent has been set...Which makes his article visionary in the sense that he was talking, as we were talking, about Luongo....
You are... still... missing the point. :roll:
Point was: The recapture penalty was already applied (Kovalchuk).

You and your old Friedman article were suggesting it would never be applied.

You and your old Friedman article were wrong.

*knocks on Rikster's forehead*

IS ANY OF THIS GETTING THROUGH?!! :evil:
Ummm, we were talking about Luongo ...Friedmann was talking about Luongo...

The Kovalchuk modification, which came over a year after the Friedmann article, shows that worrying about potential penalties that are years away is not productive...

And is not something GM's worry about...I gave the carry forward bonus cap costs as an example, you could look to every July 1st as another example of GM's worrying about the here and now and not tomorrow...

And the other example I gave was the Kesler trade....He was not subjective to re capture, is in the prime of his career and has a cap friendly contract yet he didn't get the return most thought he would, including the media...

We all can agree that The Boogey Man in the Room in the Kesler trade was the number of teams on his go to list....

You and most fans and media are of the opinion that The Boogey Man in the Room in the Luongo trade was the re capture worries...

I say no, the Boogey Man in the Room was the same as it was in the Kesler situation...the number of teams on his go to list....

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22brad+richards%2 ... 2sather%22

Neat link...

So which was it?...
Richards, 34, will clear waivers and become an unrestricted free agent capable of negotiating with any NHL team other than the Rangers. GM Glen Sather will have an extra $6.67 million in annual cap space, which he needs with eight of his starting 20 players either restricted or unrestricted free agents as of July 1
or
If Richards had remained a Ranger and retired prior to the expiration of his contract in 2020, the Blueshirts would have had to pay back the money saved on Richards through the end of the deal. Penalties would have been as follows based on his year of retirement, per Capgeek.com: 2014: $2.167 million for six years; 2015: $2.966 million for five years; 2016: $4.166 million for four years; 2017: $5.666 million for three years; 2018: $5.666 million for two years; 2019: $5.666 million for one year.
I'd suggest that the Rangers chose the here and now and the need to free up cap space over worrying about what might happen years from now...

Remember the Bruins and their $4.8 cap hit for carry over charges?

And finally, back to Friedmann suggesting that the rules won't be the same when and if Luongo retires before the end of his contract....
Glen Sather, "Amazing how rules change sometimes. It's not something I can comment on. That's something you'd have to ask Mr. Bettman"
Take care...

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17385
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by Strangelove » Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:10 pm

rikster wrote:
Strangelove wrote: "Interesting that he also doesn't think the RECAPTURE penalty will be applied"

Unfortunately you quoted an article from 19 months ago

... and since then the penalty has indeed been applied (Kovalchuk)

... which makes you wrong along with your pal Friedman The Twit.
And then they took it away leaving the Devils with a token "slap on the wrist" ...

So the precedent has been set...Which makes his article visionary
Seriously.

How. :roll: Many. :roll: Times. :roll: Do. :roll: I. :roll: Have. :roll: To. :roll: Say. :roll: This. :roll:

They did not "take away" any part of the RECAPTURE penalty WHATSOEVER!

Also, what Friedman prophesied was that the RECAPTURE penalty would never be applied.

And then it was applied in full force in the Kovalchuk case which proved Friedman dead wrong.

Seriously bro, you should change your handle to Brick Wall. :scowl:
rikster wrote:
Strangelove wrote: You are... still... missing the point. :roll:

Point was: The recapture penalty was already applied (Kovalchuk).

You and your old Friedman article were suggesting it would never be applied.

You and your old Friedman article were wrong.

*knocks on Rikster's forehead*

IS ANY OF THIS GETTING THROUGH?!! :evil:
Ummm, we were talking about Luongo ...Friedmann was talking about Luongo...
UMMMM NO, we were talking about THE RECAPTURE PENALTY.

I brought up the fact the recapture penalty was applied in the Kovalchuk situation

... to establish the fact Friedman was wrong with his prophecy from 19 months ago (the prophecy you linked to)

... and that you are a twit for not realizing that.

The fact that you continue to miss that makes you a supertwit. Image

rikster wrote: We all can agree that The Boogey Man in the Room in the Kesler trade was the number of teams on his go to list....

You and most fans and media are of the opinion that The Boogey Man in the Room in the Luongo trade was the re capture worries...
In the Luongo case there were two Boogeymen in the room: Recapture and NTC.
rikster wrote: I'd suggest that the Rangers chose the here and now and the need to free up cap space over worrying about what might happen years from now...
I'd suggest in the Richards case it was obviously... both... there Mr Blackandwhite.
rikster wrote: And finally, back to Friedmann suggesting that the rules won't be the same when and if Luongo retires before the end of his contract....
Glen Sather, "Amazing how rules change sometimes. It's not something I can comment on. That's something you'd have to ask Mr. Bettman"
Well that quote has nothing to do with Friedman... :look: ... but whatever.

Sather quote, earlier this summer, in proper context:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/why- ... h-parties/

What this is more than anything is a pound of flesh for league executives who came to loathe contracts like Richards’ because they were designed to circumvent the salary cap. That is why they dreamed up the cap recapture rule, which would have seen the Rangers penalized by more than $16-million over four years if they held on to Richards and he retired in 2016.

Gary Bettman and Bill Daly sternly warned GMs to stop signing back-diving deals under the last CBA. Then they made sure everyone knew they were serious, much to the chagrin of those that didn’t follow orders. The most frustrating part of the cap recapture rule for people like Sather is that the league approved the contracts that are now being affected by it.

“We could have a long debate about that one,” Sather said at the outset of the Stanley Cup Final. “Amazing how rules change sometimes. It’s not something I can comment on. That’s something you’d have to ask Mr. Bettman."


Sather is complaining about the grandfatherless Recapture penalty being brought in.

He's complaining about how contracts (Richards) that were once approved by the league now are penalized.

The quote has nothing to do with Friedmann or Sather "suggesting that the rules won't be the same". :hmmm:

I don't know if you're trolling me or you're just completely out to lunch...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17385
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: And So The Axe Falls

Post by Strangelove » Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:49 pm

.


Hey Rikster, spent 10 minutes on a little googling...

Over the last 19 months Friedman's "thoughts" have changed regarding the impact of the Recapture Rule:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey ... dline.html

“For all the potential changes Sabres GM Darcy Regier makes now, it will be interesting to see where things stand with Christian Ehrhoff in a year. One exec suggested he could see the defenceman having value because almost $22 million of his salary will be paid by then. From 2014-15 to 2020-21, he is to earn $18 million. It comes down to how well he plays and any fear of a ‘cap recapture’ penalty since he has a backdiving deal.” - April 2, 2013


http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey ... heets.html

“Gillis was more concerned about future "cap recapture" penalties if Luongo retired early rather than a limited return.” - Jul 2, 2013


http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey ... ttery.html

“Murray said there was no offer remotely close enough to make him consider dealing either Myers or Christian Ehrhoff. The GM added the "cap recapture" possibilities at the end of Ehrhoff's contract (eg., a $10-million penalty if he retires with one year remaining) are a concern and affect trade scenarios.” - March 17, 2014


We all know Friedman, if he "thought" these Recapture fears were unfounded, he would've said so! :drink:

By the way did you Google all those CBOed players and what their GMs had to say about Recapture?

... cuz I can do that and post my findings if you like. :mrgreen:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

Post Reply