Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

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

Moderator: Referees

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Rumsfeld » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:05 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:The reason I ask is this rumour that linguini is not happy with buyouts, as if its coming out of his kids college fund.

Seems to me that's illogical.


Yup, the rumour doesn't pass the sniff test.

And Botch and Iain Mac have both called bullshit on it.


Even if linguini is a cheap bastard he should still buy out Keith Ballard because he could probably get a better defenseman for the 1/3rd he saves on Ballards 4.25.


Yeah. If there isn't a trade market right now, he is the one guy you buy out.

Booth at least has the potential for a 25-goal season, which would make his contract somewhat palatable.
Cowards die a thousand times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2632
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Pissed in the Canyon

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Topper » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:09 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:I get your logic but I would doubt that if the contract is bought out thereby negating it moving forward there is anything left to penalize.


How about being penalized for the 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 seasons?

When we paid Lou $10mil, $6.7mil, and $6.7mil... with a mere $5.3mil cap hit.

We're supposed to pay for that with a future cap penalty according to the new "Cap Recapture" clause.

PERHAPS the Compliance Buyout erases that past transgression, but personally I have my doubts.

How about the media does it job and finds out, says I. :evil:


Tweet Dreger!

LOL

The existing contract is bought out - gone - extinguished - swimming with the fishes - wear cement golf shoes - holidaying in Italy with it's kid.

Pick a euphemism.

New team, new contract, with nothing to blow back on the old teams plate of spaghetti.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4783
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Strangelove » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:16 pm

Topper wrote:The existing contract is bought out - gone - extinguished - swimming with the fishes - wear cement golf shoes - holidaying in Italy with it's kid.

Pick a euphemism.

New team, new contract, with nothing to blow back on the old teams plate of spaghetti.


We circumvented the cap big time for 3 years.

Not to sound like Spuds and Coco at an S & M convention but...

WE NEED TO BE PUNISHED!!
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Topper » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:21 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Topper wrote:The existing contract is bought out - gone - extinguished - swimming with the fishes - wear cement golf shoes - holidaying in Italy with it's kid.

Pick a euphemism.

New team, new contract, with nothing to blow back on the old teams plate of spaghetti.


We circumvented the cap big time for 3 years.

Not to sound like Spuds and Coco at an S & M convention but...

WE NEED TO BE PUNISHED!!

why compliance buyouts are limited to two and why they were only a very late addition to the CBA
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4783
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Mondi » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:30 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Mondi wrote:I read your link, I'm aware of Reinprecht and Luko, and hiding a few vets in the minors. I just think those are relatively small fish when compared to what you're proposing.


What have I proposed exactly? :mex:


You are proposing, that every rich team WILL do it.

I presume that includes YOUR Vancouver Canucks. :shock:
User avatar
Mondi
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:02 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Strangelove » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:37 pm

Mondi wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Mondi wrote:I read your link, I'm aware of Reinprecht and Luko, and hiding a few vets in the minors. I just think those are relatively small fish when compared to what you're proposing.


What have I proposed exactly? :mex:


You are proposing, that every rich team WILL do it.

I presume that includes YOUR Vancouver Canucks. :shock:


Yes, every rich team, including YOUR Vancouver Canucks will use both compliance buyouts.
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Strangelove » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:42 pm

Topper wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Topper wrote:The existing contract is bought out - gone - extinguished - swimming with the fishes - wear cement golf shoes - holidaying in Italy with it's kid.

Pick a euphemism.

New team, new contract, with nothing to blow back on the old teams plate of spaghetti.


We circumvented the cap big time for 3 years.

Not to sound like Spuds and Coco at an S & M convention but...

WE NEED TO BE PUNISHED!!

why compliance buyouts are limited to two and why they were only a very late addition to the CBA


The Compliance Buyouts was designed to help teams get under a shrinking cap.

The Cap Recapture Penalty was designed to punish teams which circumvented the cap.

Your Vancouver Canucks circumvented the cap.

If I had to guess I'd say using a Compliance Buyout would erase past transgressions.

But I wouldn't be surprised either way.
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Vader » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:45 pm

From CapGeek
Per the CBA reached in January 2013, teams receiving a “cap advantage” from long-term contracts (defined as seven years or more) will be penalized in the event the player retires or “defects” from the NHL before the contract expires. A team receives a “cap advantage” when the player’s actual salary exceeds his cap hit in a given year. Please note, contracts that fall under the "over-35" rule do not qualify for cap benefit recapture, the NHL has confirmed. In these cases, the team is charged with the player's full cap hit. CapGeek's recapture calculator helps determine whether a team is on the hook for a recapture penalty and if it is, how much:
Parameters
Which player?

If Roberto Luongo retires or defects in the 2018 off-season (age 39 as of July 1 that year), and was traded to the Florida Panthers in the 2013 off-season, following is an estimated breakdown of the recapture penalties for the involved teams.
Team Benefit
Penalty
Vancouver Canucks (2018-19 through 2021-22) $7,430,000 $1,857,500
Florida Panthers (2018-19 through 2021-22) $6,903,333 $1,725,833

IMPORTANT NOTES [ Edited June 2, 2013 ]: Teams do not receive a credit for net negative cap benefit (where cap hit exceeds salary over the course of the contract prior to retirement). However, in calculating net "cap advantage," teams do receive a credit for seasons in which cap hit exceeds salary ... Calculations for players who have been traded during the season are rough estimates based on best information available and may differ from actual league numbers.


Now, if Luongo is bought down the road you'd have to assume no cap recapture as he didn't retire or defect from the contract
Last edited by Vader on Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Aaronp18 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:46 pm

I like your theory about using the buyouts to gain assets there doc.

That is exactly how the Canucks should use their buyouts. Screw buying out Ballard or Booth, they have value even if it's for a shitty prospect or late round pick.

Taking DiPietro and buying him out in order to get Bailey, Niederreiter or a high pick is the type of move Gillis needs to manufacture with these buyouts!
User avatar
Aaronp18
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby BurningBeard » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:02 pm

Topper wrote:The existing contract is bought out - gone - extinguished - swimming with the fishes - wear cement golf shoes - holidaying in Italy with it's kid.

I think Larry Brooks used this as an argument why the Rags may be put in a position where they consider buying out Brad Richards rather then face the Cap Recapture penalty. If Richards retires before his contract is up, they're probably going to be facing a 4 to 6 million dollar cap hit, depending on when he does it. Then again, most seem to assume LTIR is where these players will end their careers. It's an interesting situation. The Cap Recapture penalty appears to be poorly written.

This is a nice tool to use to figure out the various possibilities.
http://capgeek.com/recapture-calculator/
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
User avatar
BurningBeard
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Strangelove » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:16 pm

Vader wrote:Now, if Luongo is bought down the road you'd have to assume no cap recapture as he didn't retire or defect from the contract


Thanks Vader, but at sites like this it reads...

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/penguins-plus/119482-the-new-cba-whats-different

.... "retirement, “defection” from the NHL or otherwise (such that he is not playing and is not receiving Salary pursuant to the terms of his SPC)"


So yeah, it's not so clear amirite?
Last edited by Strangelove on Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Strangelove » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:21 pm

BurningBeard wrote:
Topper wrote:The existing contract is bought out - gone - extinguished - swimming with the fishes - wear cement golf shoes - holidaying in Italy with it's kid.


I think Larry Brooks used this as an argument why the Rags may be put in a position where they consider buying out Brad Richards rather then face the Cap Recapture penalty.


Yeah, I read that and some of the debates that followed.

But I'm gonna need more than just Brooksie's early take on the Cap Recapture Penalty.

Torts may have done well in writing off Larry Brooks as an idiot. :drink:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Strangelove » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:24 pm

Aaronp18 wrote:I like your theory about using the buyouts to gain assets there doc.

That is exactly how the Canucks should use their buyouts. Screw buying out Ballard or Booth, they have value even if it's for a shitty prospect or late round pick.

Taking DiPietro and buying him out in order to get Bailey, Niederreiter or a high pick is the type of move Gillis needs to manufacture with these buyouts!


Right on Aaron, keep the fan-interest high, bring in some exiting young players, and it will pay off for you.

A wise business investment. :thumbs:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Vader » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:30 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Thanks Vader, but at sites like this...

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/penguins-plus/119482-the-new-cba-whats-different

.... it reads "retirement, “defection” from the NHL or otherwise (such that he is not playing and is not receiving Salary pursuant to the terms of his SPC)"


So yeah, it's not so clear amirite?


No, it's not crystal clear, but the player wouldn't be receiving salary or playing pursuant to the SPC because the SPC would no longer exist....

Better question: What if the player retires for a year and comes back? Does the recapture penalty disappear? You would assume so, but I'd be surprised if the CBA covers that scenario
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

Re: Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, so buy me out baby...

Postby Vader » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:32 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Torts may have done well in writing off Larry Brooks as an idiot. :drink:


He wouldn't have been the first
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dchrist2, Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Hockey Widow and 1 guest