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.
and you went on a tirade and called him a twit....
One need not necessarily be on a tirade to call one a "twit".
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.
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.
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?!!
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?
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.
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).
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.
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...