Diehard1 wrote:Domi still tries a ton of dangles and dekes which work well in junior but likely won't in the NHL.
Topper wrote:Strangelove wrote:Topper wrote:and now that the trade has happened, folks are raving about the great contract and cap hit Lungo has.
Nope, folks are saying it was a great contract Gillis signed Luongo to.
Folks are saying the league then changed the rules, turning said great contract into a shitty one.
Here yes, elsewhere on he web I'm right
dbr wrote:Strangelove wrote:Cap-hit @ $5.3m + no such thing as a Recapture Penalty = more movable than your idea.
Like I say though, the so-called "Luongo Rule" turned this contract from awesome to awful. .
I'm not so sure. Like I really am ambivalent on the subject but Jesus we're going to have dead cap space on the books until guys like Chris Tanev and Zack Kassian are at that age where you think long and hard about a contract with any significant term on it. Bo Horvat will probably have signed his last RFA deal before we're out from under this contract. So that's colouring my views a bit right now.
But anyway, I think the cap recapture rule probably scared away most teams that plan to continue to spend to the cap, but there are teams that don't necessarily fit that profile that went out and got goaltenders this year and there was never much credible information suggesting they had any interest in taking on a seven year commitment either.
A few years back I thought Luongo's deal was good because the threat of a goaltender worth much less than his cap hit was twice as far off in my mind as the reality has been. Who cares about a backup with a $5.3m cap hit when he makes $3m, or $1m, and is an asset to the loser franchises in the league, right?
That hasn't worked out and he's lost his starting job twice before his 35th birthday.
Nor does the cap benefit recapture rule explain the team's failure to anticipate the plethora of relatively cheap, relatively strong goaltending available and the resulting devaluation of the position. Nor for that matter the NTC that apparently stood in the way of past deals.
Ultimately I think the recapture rule was dirty pool on the part of the league, an attempt at sticking a thumb in the eye of GMs who didn't want to follow Gary's unwritten rules. But if you put that aside and just look at the effects the Luongo contract has had on this team I think you can make a compelling argument that it's the worst contract in team history (as I guess any retirement contract has plenty of potential to turn into).
I recall Mike Gillis saying at the time that goaltender was the perfect position for a lifetime deal, of course the Sedins had proposed 12 year deals for themselves at a similar cap hit around this time and been rebuffed by the team. What a difference that would have made in hindsight, giving the Sedins their retirement contracts and paying full value for an All Star goaltender on a medium term deal.
Even YOU are convinced he would be worth top dollar until around that age
Vader wrote:A seven year deal would bring him to age 38 and would be done in 3 years from now. Do you not think the Canucks could move that contract and eat $1.5M a year and that would have been more palatable than 8 years and $4M ($26m * 15%) over that time? Certainly the player return would have been better.
Blob Mckenzie wrote:But Vader these same assholes that worked for the league also rubber stamped those contracts when they were registered. Only the Kovalchuk contract was penalized. It's hypocrisy really because if they felt this way about these contracts they should have done something at the time they were signed.
Strangelove wrote:Lou would've had played 8 years and retired versus your 7 year deal.
Lou would have had an actual salary of $6.7m versus your $7.5m actual salary.
Lou would've carried a $5.3m cap-hit versus your $7.5m cap-hit.
And yet you say your deal would've been more movable??
Vader wrote:Quick: What's Lunqvist's cap hit? Rinne's? Is Luongo in the same vacinity as those two?
Strangelove wrote:At the time it was signed most of the web was saying the Canucks were cheating, circumventing the cap.
Strangelove wrote:Dave, I was comparing Lou's contract (in a no Recapture world) to Vader's idea of a 7 year deal @ $7.5M per.
Lou was originally supposed to retire in 2018 with no penalties.
Topper wrote:Strangelove wrote:At the time it was signed most of the web was saying the Canucks were cheating, circumventing the cap.
I know that, I am talking about in the here and now.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Island Nucklehead, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests