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 Strangelove » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:49 pm

Vader wrote: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....


.... which means it would fall into the same category as "retirement, “defection”... no?

Not sure why we care because no way are they gonna buyout Luongo.

It's just I remember this question being asked early after the signing of the new CBA.

The answer at the time was that we won't know until all the details come out.

And I still can't find anything to date which answers that question definitively.

Vader wrote: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


Quick, someone tweet Dreger! :lol:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7565
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

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

Postby BurningBeard » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:25 pm

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

You'll receive no argument from me on that one. I still remember the rumor he started in the NY Post about Burke trading Bertuzzi.
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
User avatar
BurningBeard
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 935
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 5:28 pm

Okay, found this...

Bob McKenzie said on TSN Radio Wednesday that Brad Richards was destined to be bought out the day the cap recapture clause was put into the CBA.

McKenzie said, “If Richards doesn’t play the final three years of his contract, the Rangers will be hit with a cap recapture penalty is going to get dinged and dinged pretty good. The final three years are bogus years and he isn’t playing them. There is going to be a cap penalty for the Rangers if Brad Richards retires before that contract is up. I think it’s a given that they will buy him out.”


So McKenzie also believes a buyout wipes out any future Cap Recapture penalty.

Then I checked at Capgeek, Les Canadiens are not getting dinged with any kind of penalty after the Gomez buyout.

So yeah, a buyout wipes out any future Cap Recapture penalty.

Nothing to see here folks.... :oops:

Although... maybe your Vancouver Canucks should buy out Luongo. Image
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7565
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 5:28 pm

Clearly the SPC has been bought out. Doc could advise Feaster.
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: 5015
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 5:33 pm

Topper wrote:Doc could advise Feaster.


keels over clutching privates, and says in a decidedly high-pitched squeaky voice:

LOW BLOW, LOW BLOW!!!

Butt hay at least I figured it out on my own.... eventually. :look:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7565
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

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

Postby Hockey Widow » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:40 pm

But wait, doesn't the cap recapture apply only if the player is traded of leaves the league for another league. If he retires before the contract is up since he signed it before age 35 and if he stays a Canucks there isn't a penalty no.

Oh never mind I read it again!
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

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

Postby Hockey Widow » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:43 pm

Strangelove wrote:Okay, found this...

Bob McKenzie said on TSN Radio Wednesday that Brad Richards was destined to be bought out the day the cap recapture clause was put into the CBA.

McKenzie said, “If Richards doesn’t play the final three years of his contract, the Rangers will be hit with a cap recapture penalty is going to get dinged and dinged pretty good. The final three years are bogus years and he isn’t playing them. There is going to be a cap penalty for the Rangers if Brad Richards retires before that contract is up. I think it’s a given that they will buy him out.”


So McKenzie also believes a buyout wipes out any future Cap Recapture penalty.

Then I checked at Capgeek, Les Canadiens are not getting dinged with any kind of penalty after the Gomez buyout.

So yeah, a buyout wipes out any future Cap Recapture penalty.

Nothing to see here folks.... :oops:

Although... maybe your Vancouver Canucks should buy out Luongo. Image


By the time he retires it will be at least 6 years from now. MG will be long gone, the twins, Kesler, Burrows, Bieksa , hamhuis will be gone, Lack will be our goalie and the cap will be at 80 million. No worries.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

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

Postby Strangelove » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:50 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:By the time he retires it will be at least 6 years from now. MG will be long gone, the twins, Kesler, Burrows, Bieksa , hamhuis will be gone, Lack will be our goalie and the cap will be at 80 million. No worries.


Yeah.

Luongo... FOR... Matthias + Petrovic. :thumbs:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7565
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

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

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:08 pm

Furthermore this will be challenged in the future by an army of litigators while that smarmy little asshole Bettman is tanning his hairy little carcass on some Mexican resort. I think there's a strong chance none of these cap recapture penalties never come to pass. I think it's bullshit that the league wants to penalize teams for contracts that they themselves okayed once upon a time.
Tell me how my ass tastes.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3146
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

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

Postby Hockey Widow » Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:17 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Furthermore this will be challenged in the future by an army of litigators while that smarmy little asshole Bettman is tanning his hairy little carcass on some Mexican resort. I think there's a strong chance none of these cap recapture penalties never come to pass. I think it's bullshit that the league wants to penalize teams for contracts that they themselves okayed once upon a time.



I'm with you on this Blob. This clause plus retaining cap/salary in a trade were BB babies. He was self righteous and indignant and wanted to have this penalty in there. But I think it is utter nonsense that they league signs off on them and then gets punitive in a new deal. If they were gonna do this they should have allowed the teams a window to re-negotiate the deals or the league should have tried to have them quashed or something but to penalize teams after the fact is BS.

As for Luongo, I expect he will play into his 40's. Maybe not the full term but close. I doubt he will want to penalize any team by retiring. He can pull a Thomas and just fail to report without retiring and get suspended which is the way I see it going should he decide he has had enough. By the time the Canucks may have to deal with it, it will be years from now, hell I expect to be dead so I say trade his ass, or trade CS. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

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

Postby Strangelove » Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:22 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:By the time the Canucks may have to deal with it, it will be years from now, hell I expect to be dead


Well now, that's mighty selfish of you!

I'LL still be here, what about ME??!! :evil:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7565
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 6:23 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Vader wrote: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....


.... which means it would fall into the same category as "retirement, “defection”... no?

Not sure why we care because no way are they gonna buyout Luongo.

It's just I remember this question being asked early after the signing of the new CBA.

The answer at the time was that we won't know until all the details come out.

And I still can't find anything to date which answers that question definitively.

Vader wrote: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


Quick, someone tweet Dreger! :lol:


Well, I suppose it begs the next question, "Can a team agree as part of the trade to buy out luongo if he retires?" Thus negating the cap recapture rule.
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

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

Postby Strangelove » Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:27 pm

Vader wrote:Well, I suppose it begs the next question, "Can a team agree as part of the trade to buy out luongo if he retires?" Thus negating the cap recapture rule.


LOL prolly not. :D

Vader I think we'd better drop all this cap recapture rule crap, cuz someone is liable to SNAP. :wink:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7565
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 6:53 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:
Blob Mckenzie wrote:Furthermore this will be challenged in the future by an army of litigators while that smarmy little asshole Bettman is tanning his hairy little carcass on some Mexican resort. I think there's a strong chance none of these cap recapture penalties never come to pass. I think it's bullshit that the league wants to penalize teams for contracts that they themselves okayed once upon a time.


I'm with you on this Blob. This clause plus retaining cap/salary in a trade were BB babies. He was self righteous and indignant and wanted to have this penalty in there. But I think it is utter nonsense that they league signs off on them and then gets punitive in a new deal. If they were gonna do this they should have allowed the teams a window to re-negotiate the deals or the league should have tried to have them quashed or something but to penalize teams after the fact is BS.


That's just it, this rule does not make any sense whatsoever, bordering on illegally vindictive.

So it wouldn't have surprised me if they had designed it so that you'd have a cap-penalty buyout or no.

*gives Topper dirty look whilst shielding balls with hands*
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7565
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 9:09 pm

Strangelove wrote:
LOL prolly not. :D

Vader I think we'd better drop all this cap recapture rule crap, cuz someone is liable to SNAP. :wink:


Neither of us should use the word liable, or libel for that matter. Just ask Aaronp18!
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests