No, but close.damonberryman wrote: Jesus Doc.

This is why they call me Strangelove.damonberryman wrote: You are fucking strange. All that effort to educate someone. Either yoou are a saint...

Moderator: Referees
No, but close.damonberryman wrote: Jesus Doc.
This is why they call me Strangelove.damonberryman wrote: You are fucking strange. All that effort to educate someone. Either yoou are a saint...
Strangelove wrote:No, but close.damonberryman wrote: Jesus Doc.![]()
This is why they call me Strangelove. [img]http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys- ... l/smileys-damonberryman wrote: You are fucking strange. All that effort to educate someone. Either yoou are a saint...
angel-343110.gif[/img]
Even the devil desguises himself to be an angel of the light. *jk* *jk* Just joking buds.damonberryman wrote: You are fucking strange. All that effort to educate someone. Either yoou are a saint...
Strange wrote:This is why they call me Strangelove.
Fine, if this point is so important to u. I'd point out that if those guys were so "easily" tradable, surely another team would have offered a similar contract to the one that was being bought out. However, fact is, all they could get were peanuts compared to their previous deals (a big decrease in annual salary and way less term). Maybe just 1-2 year deals. That is not a sign of a player that is highly coveted in the market place.Strangelove wrote: OMG I am soooo sick of you not being able to grasp Recapture Penalties + Compliance Buyouts.![]()
Of the players you mention, Ehrhoff, Lecavalier, Richards... were easily trade-able at the time.
However they were CBOed in order to escape future (crippling) Recapture Penalties.
It should be clear to you by now that I had ZERO interest to use the CBO on Lou and that I'm willing to take on any potential recap penalties. I think the cons heavily outweighs the pros in using the CBO. I'd only buyout Lou if he sucked, nobody wanted him and his cap was killing the team. Not if I know there are interested suiters out there, even if I have to pay a portion of the salary or get hit with a recap penalty. Getting nothing for a star goalie is a setback to the organization as well. U can afford to get nothing for guys like Burr, Higgy, Booth, but not a star calibre player. BTW: you conveniently leave out what I really said.Strange wrote:I was trying to explain to you (yet again) about how Compliance Buyouts got rid of future Recap penalties
... and you responded saying these buyouts made ZERO sense.
Bersnooz wrote:It makes ZERO sense to pay a guy like $22M simply to NOT play for u and u get ZERO assets in return.
Sure, the numbers might be a little off now, but I liked the Pap article because it beautifully summed up the pros and cons in using the CBO to buyout. The heart of this "debate".Strange wrote:Ummm that article is from 3 years agoalmost a full year before Lou was traded
.... so the numbers are off.
You still don't get how the Recapture Penalty works.
The future Canuck Recap Penalty number was growing because Luongo was still playing for the Canucks.
By the time Lou was traded, that number had grown to $8,520,273 (spread over remaining years of contract)
Why would you chose a 3-yr-old article when there are thousands of more recent (read: relevant) ones?
(don't answer that)
The recapture penalty sucks for sure, but I won't say it's a "harsh punishment". It can be overcome with some cutbacks and smart mangement of salaries. The players you mentioned that are overpaid are all the reasons more that we have to smart with our salaries, especially if we know we might get dinged when Lou retires.Strange wrote:Whether it's $2.8M over 3 years... or $4.26M over 2 years... that is a harsh punishment.
Haven't you heard the Pee Squad SCREAMING about what they say is:
"$1.5M too much for Sbisa, $1M too much for Dorsett, $500K too much for Sutter"
And of course, change your $7.5M to $8.5M and increase your percentage estimates...
I was not thinking about buying out guys as a response to the recap. I'd agree this would create a huge snowball effect and turn into a logistical nightmare. I was thinking more of trading them. I know, "getting rid" were probably not the best words. That's where smart mgmt comes in. You gotta trade those guys before their values plumet to nothing or better yet, don't sign them to those contracts in the first place.Bersnooz wrote: b) Getting rid of some of the players who are not really contributing to the team like Booth/Ballards or more recent Burr/Higgy can help lower our salary to cover the penalty.
Strange wrote: In (a) you say the Recap penalties are no big deal, in (b) you talk about taking drastic steps because of them.
LOFL you're now talking about buying out contracts as a response to Recap!
My point with the Rangers and the time with no salary cap was to point out that teams could spend way above the average salarys of most teams, yet they did not have a better on ice product. A few million dollars spread out over 2-3 years will not be the end of the world. That's basically instead of having a Sbisa, we'll just have to settle for a Bartkowski/Stanton type. Instead of Dorsett, we'll settle for Cracknell. Instead of Sutter, we'll have to keep a Bonino type. These personel adjustments will not be the doom of our season. We're talking about 3rd-4th liners here, bottom 6 forwards + 6th/7th D-men with limited roles/minutesStrange wrote: My sentence above was a response to you saying "CBOs make ZERO sense financially".
My sentence was about how Compliance Buyouts on Recap-contracts do in fact make sense financially.
(more future cap-room = better future chance to ice a better product = more fans/revenue)
*LOL* I can counter with the fact that you blindly support GMs who makes bad trades/signings that hurt the team to compete for Cup, therefore you are not a true Canucks fan. True fans voice their displeasure when they see moves that they know will hurt their team in the long run. You really don't care if the Canucks never win a Cup, all you like to do is troll and mock those fans who speak up when bad moves are made. A devil disguised as an angel of the light; a wolf disguised in sheep's clothing.Strange wrote:It's okay buddy, everyone already knew you hate the team.
The way you mock the great Todd Bertuzzi with your handle + avatar is a dead giveaway.
There is a difference, ownership has great business sense, but they lack hockey team mgmt knowledge. The Lou move was more of a business transaction than just a hockey transaction.Strange wrote:"Smart/rich ownership" that leaves you with "no confidence" because their team "won't win anytime soon".![]()
Strangelove wrote:
Fair point... but what took you so long?Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Fine, if this point is so important to u. I'd point out that if those guys were so "easily" tradable, surely another team would have offered a similar contract to the one that was being bought out. However, fact is, all they could get were peanuts compared to their previous deals (a big decrease in annual salary and way less term). Maybe just 1-2 year deals. That is not a sign of a player that is highly coveted in the market place.Strangelove wrote: OMG I am soooo sick of you not being able to grasp Recapture Penalties + Compliance Buyouts.![]()
Of the players you mention, Ehrhoff, Lecavalier, Richards... were easily trade-able at the time.
However they were CBOed in order to escape future (crippling) Recapture Penalties.
I told you NOT to answer that!Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Sure, the numbers might be a little off now, but I liked the Pap article because it beautifully summed up the pros and cons in using the CBO to buyout. The heart of this "debate".Strangelove wrote: Ummm that article is from 3 years agoalmost a full year before Lou was traded
.... so the numbers are off.
You still don't get how the Recapture Penalty works.
The future Canuck Recap Penalty number was growing because Luongo was still playing for the Canucks.
By the time Lou was traded, that number had grown to $8,520,273 (spread over remaining years of contract)
Why would you chose a 3-yr-old article when there are thousands of more recent (read: relevant) ones?
(don't answer that)
So 3 of the 4 players you chose just happened to have been bought out (4th guy talked as a buyout)Todd Bersnoozi wrote:I was not thinking about buying out guys as a response to the recap. I'd agree this would create a huge snowball effect and turn into a logistical nightmare. I was thinking more of trading them. I know, "getting rid" were probably not the best words.Strangelove wrote:In (a) you say the Recap penalties are no big deal, in (b) you talk about taking drastic steps because of them.Todd Bersnoozi wrote: b) Getting rid of some of the players who are not really contributing to the team like Booth/Ballards or more recent Burr/Higgy can help lower our salary to cover the penalty.
LOFL you're now talking about buying out contracts as a response to Recap!![]()
WRONGTodd Bersnoozi wrote: My point with the Rangers and the time with no salary cap was to point out that teams could spend way above the average salarys of most teams, yet they did not have a better on ice product.
Your point was that you agree with the "Smart/rich ownership" that made this transactionTodd Bersnoozi wrote:There is a difference, ownership has great business sense, but they lack hockey team mgmt knowledge. The Lou move was more of a business transaction than just a hockey transaction.Strangelove wrote: "Smart/rich ownership" that leaves you with "no confidence" because their team "won't win anytime soon".![]()
It's not $7.5M-$8.5M cap spaceTodd Bersnoozi wrote: In the end of this "debate", this is what it all comes down to:
Bersnooz:
$22M-$27M (American dollars I might add) + Assets (Markstrom + Matthias) > a potential cap hit of $7.5M-$8.5M cap hit spread over X (undetermined) number of years
Strange:
Perverving a $7.5M-$8.5M cap space spread over X amount of years > $22M-$27M + Assets (Markstrom + Matthias).
I think that if he did, that would have been the last time we even heard a rumour about meddling ownership, so I'm afraid I must disagree.micky107 wrote:The hands of Aquilini are just so all over the Luongo situation from start to finish, (well, not quite finished), the only thing that matters now is did Aquilini learn anything?
I think he did, for the time being.
HW continues to provide accurate rumours despite the change in management. How's that for starting a rumour?Ronning's Ghost wrote:I think that if he did, that would have been the last time we even heard a rumour about meddling ownership, so I'm afraid I must disagree.micky107 wrote:The hands of Aquilini are just so all over the Luongo situation from start to finish, (well, not quite finished), the only thing that matters now is did Aquilini learn anything?
I think he did, for the time being.
Anxiously awaiting my posts I see? *hehe* Sorry man, don't have the free time like yourself to be so active on the board.Strangelove wrote: Fair point... but what took you so long?![]()
(you just quoted an earlier post, not my most recent).
So 800k out of his $6.7M annual salary, that's like 12%? That's fine, it's peanuts to his salary. It's like just having to pay the tax and getting someone else to pay the bulk of the cost to something that you don't really want anymore.Strange wrote:It's not $7.5M-$8.5M cap space![]()
... it's $8.5M cap space.
It's not $22M-$27M non-cap real-dollars![]()
... it's $22M non-cap real-dollars spread over 16 years.
Also, you must count the retained $800K actual-cap + real-dollars spread over X number of years
(2.5 years thus far)
I'd disagree. Matthias was a great secondary scorer for us and a solid depth player. I remember I had this chat with you last year. For a 2nd-3rd liner to get close to 20Gs (like our 3rd leading goal scorer) with virtually zero power-play time, it's nothing to sneeze at. He's also cheap, which is huge in today's cap world. If you want to make the playoffs, you need a few of those guys in the lineup (cheap and a solid contributer). JB was close to the cap last year, went with a youth movement and got rid (doesn't mean buyout *hehe*) of a trio of those guys and we all know what happened this past season. Guys like Matthias are basically in their prime, not too much milage on them like Higgy/Burr and not green ass rookies like Virtanen/McCann; if you want to compete, those are the guys you want to make up the bulk of your roster. I'd say guys like Vey, Cracknell, Bartkowski are a dime a dozen players, a guy like Matthias is a proven solid NHLer.Strange wrote:Matthias was a dime-per-doz depth player who was here for a cup of coffee.
You never know. Another team may have grabbed him first on the waiver wire. Florida might have shopped him around as well and could have possibly picked up a mid round pick or a similar calibre prospect who was going through some similar growing pains that they liked. As of now, Lou got us back a pretty good young goalie who looks like he has not reached his ceiling yet. A guy who will cover for us when Miller is no longer here and he'll carry the load, so that we don't have to rush Demko.Strange wrote:Markstrom took a lot of coaching to go from waiver-wire fodder to Demko-placeholder
(if we didn't trade for him, we could've likely have had him for free on waivers).
*haha* At least I don't go around mocking his beloved children.Strange wrote:God is going to get you for mocking the great Todd Bertuzzi...
*haha* Good guess, never really thought he'd be the guy.BladesofSteel wrote:Steamer
Just pointing out how fast + loose you were with the numbers in your 'summary'.Todd Bersnoozi wrote:So 800k out of his $6.7M annual salary, that's like 12%? That's fine, it's peanuts to his salary. It's like just having to pay the tax and getting someone else to pay the bulk of the cost to something that you don't really want anymore.Strangelove wrote:It's not $7.5M-$8.5M cap spaceTodd Bersnoozi wrote: In the end of this "debate", this is what it all comes down to:
Bersnooz:
$22M-$27M (American dollars I might add) + Assets (Markstrom + Matthias) > a potential cap hit of $7.5M-$8.5M cap hit spread over X (undetermined) number of years
Strange:
Perverving a $7.5M-$8.5M cap space spread over X amount of years > $22M-$27M + Assets (Markstrom + Matthias).![]()
... it's $8.5M cap space.
It's not $22M-$27M non-cap real-dollars![]()
... it's $22M non-cap real-dollars spread over 16 years.
Also, you must count the retained $800K actual-cap + real-dollars spread over X number of years
(2.5 years thus far)
... that's how much it is costing them to have not bought out Lou.![]()
Matthias was 13th on the team in points-per-game, 6th on the team in goals-per-game.Todd Bersnoozi wrote:I'd disagree. Matthias was a great secondary scorer for us and a solid depth player. I remember I had this chat with you last year. For a 2nd-3rd liner to get close to 20Gs (like our 3rd leading goal scorer)Strangelove wrote: Matthias was a dime-per-doz depth player who was here for a cup of coffee.
"Cheap" - for a reason.Todd Bersnoozi wrote: He's also cheap, which is huge in today's cap world.
*sigh*Todd Bersnoozi wrote:You never know. Another team may have grabbed him first on the waiver wire.Strangelove wrote: Markstrom took a lot of coaching to go from waiver-wire fodder to Demko-placeholder
(if we didn't trade for him, we could've likely have had him for free on waivers).
Sooo "all plus".... except for that recapture penalty.Todd Bersnoozi wrote: We basically got someone else to foot the bill on Lou's contract and we got two solid returns in the trade, I'd say it's all plus. Sure, we may get dinged down the road with the recpature penalty, but I think it can be overcome with some smart mgmt.