Former Canucks: Players & Management V

[banme*]

Buyout? Moronic suggestion - especially when you consider Garrison's deal is *FRONT END LOADED*. Gee whiz....aren't the Bolts trying to re-sign Stamkos?

The Lightning are clearly not an internal cap team (they're right at the ceiling) so that would have no impact on being able to sign Stamkos.

 

[Hit the post]

The Lightning are clearly not an internal cap team (they're right at the ceiling) so that would have no impact on being able to sign Stamkos.

Fair enough. Though his cheap salary will make him more attractive (even if he's an otherwise unremarkable #4 D) to more teams that do have internal caps (easier to trade him). Islanders perhaps? (not sure if their a team that has an internal cap).

 

[banme*]

I would keep Garrison because he seems like a good guy and plays decent hockey at a fair price. I just thought calling him a #2 was... interesting.

 

[coldsteel79]

How different would this team look if garrison would have waived to St. Louis. Bergevin would have negated vey and probably sutter. Would be a completely different team.

 

[MS]

I would keep Garrison because he seems like a good guy and plays decent hockey at a fair price. I just thought calling him a #2 was... interesting.

He isn't a #2 but with Stralman injured he's playing #2 minutes for Tampa right now in a series they're looking like they're going to win.

 

[banme*]

He isn't a #2 but with Stralman injured he's playing #2 minutes for Tampa right now in a series they're looking like they're going to win.

Well to be fair the Wings are pretty poor for a playoff team. Will be more interesting to see how things go next round.

 

[PM]

How different would this team look if garrison would have waived to St. Louis. Bergevin would have negated vey and probably sutter. Would be a completely different team.

Still a bad trade, Berglund hasn't been a top-6 forward in a while now. I'd actually prefer the 2nd rounder if we kept it but would prefer keeping JG over all three.

 

[Toxic0n]

You guys might be interested in this: we had Kyle Wellwood on Real Good Show, and he was super nice and hilarious. Told some great stories about his time as a Canuck, and talked about the infamous poolside paparazzi photo. Also it turns out he's really into Dota 2. http://realgoodshow.com/blog/2016/4/20/episode-42-kyle-wellwood

That was great, thanks. Liked hearing him talk about the influence Sundin had on the Sedins and Kesler.

 

[geebaan]

That was great, thanks. Liked hearing him talk about the influence Sundin had on the Sedins and Kesler.

No, I am fairly certain that had no effect on them, and because you weren't literally there, my opinion can't be wrong.

 

[RobertKron]

You guys might be interested in this: we had Kyle Wellwood on Real Good Show, and he was super nice and hilarious. Told some great stories about his time as a Canuck, and talked about the infamous poolside paparazzi photo. Also it turns out he's really into Dota 2. http://realgoodshow.com/blog/2016/4/20/episode-42-kyle-wellwood

I love that Wellwood is actually more Wellwoodian than I'd even imagined.

 

[TARS]

Of all the things to complain about Gillis for, the penalty on Luongo's contract has to be the most absurd. It didn't even exist when he signed the thing.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Of all the things to complain about Gillis for, the penalty on Luongo's contract has to be the most absurd. It didn't even exist when he signed the thing.

The league was very clear it was working on a way to shut this down and there would be consequences for those teams who circumvented the cap in this fashion. Multiple statements from the league and Bill Daly corroborate this. Gillis chose to play with fire...and got burnt.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

I think you are confusing research or citations with fact. He puts forth an opinion, as many journalists do. Interviewing other people doesn't make his argument, or defense or Gillis in this case, any more true than a contrary one that also contains citation or research.

This is garbage and you lack a fundamental understanding of how journalism works.

When I say something like "Gillis attracted interest from other teams prior to taking the Canucks GM position" and using Dowbiggin's book as proof of that doesn't mean Dowbiggin is providing his "opinion" on things...especially when it is supported by an independent article I provided.

There is a big difference between saying something like "Gillis was a good GM" and "Gillis was hired by the Canucks." One is an opinion and another is a fact. Do you understand the difference?

If I were using Dowbiggin's book to support an argument that Gillis was a good GM, you might actually have a point. That isn't what I was doing and either you're being deliberately obtuse or lack [MOD].

Again: it is ridiculous the level of standards people put on here because they don't like Mike Gillis. I need three independently verified articles from approved sources and then maybe what I am saying isn't invalid. It is childish.

 

[Cupless44]

Of all the things to complain about Gillis for, the penalty on Luongo's contract has to be the most absurd. It didn't even exist when he signed the thing.

Let's not play naive.

That contract was a calculated gamble that Gillis took and lost. It was created and signed at a time when cap circumventing contracts were under close scrutiny. Brian Burke and others had launched a very public campaign against crazy long term cap circumventing contracts and it was a hot button issue at the time. Gillis rolled the dice there wouldn't be changes. The Canucks organization lost.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Let's not play naive.

That contract was a calculated gamble that Gillis took and lost. It was created and signed at a time when cap circumventing contracts were under close scrutiny. Brian Burke and others had launched a very public campaign against crazy long term cap circumventing contracts and it was a hot button issue at the time. Gillis rolled the dice there wouldn't be changes. The Canucks organization lost.

Why did the NHL ratify the contract if it was a "hot button issue"?

As mentioned by Gillis and other GMs, managers work with NHL officials in order to structure these deals. The league is kept apprised of the particulars until the actual deal is submitted and ratified. What were they doing throughout? What were they doing at the end?

This theory paints the NHL as being completely inept. They don't even have the awareness that it is essentially a contract they validated that they are punishing.

The retro-active punishment of BDCs is the stupidity of the NHL on full display.

 

[F A N]

Why did the NHL ratify the contract if it was a "hot button issue"?
.

Huh? That's like saying predatory hits to the head wasn't a hot button issue before the NHL banned it from the game.

I agree with the rest of your post though. Retroactive punishment makes the NHL look inept when it wasn't on a case to case basis where evidence of the intent to circumvent the cap was proven.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Huh? That's like saying predatory hits to the head wasn't a hot button issue before the NHL banned it from the game.

Not exactly. It's like saying: predatory hits occurred, became a hot button issue, league did nothing for some time, then more injuries occurred, then they banned hits and retroactively punished all offenders.

In other words, don't allow to happen something you think should not be happening, and then make up some sort of punishment in order to absolve earlier inaction on YOUR part... Damage already done. Because really, it just highlights your(metaphorically speaking)/their own stupidity.

 

[TARS]

Let's not play naive.

That contract was a calculated gamble that Gillis took and lost. It was created and signed at a time when cap circumventing contracts were under close scrutiny. Brian Burke and others had launched a very public campaign against crazy long term cap circumventing contracts and it was a hot button issue at the time. Gillis rolled the dice there wouldn't be changes. The Canucks organization lost.

As Bleach has already pointed out, the retroactive punishment on contracts the league approved is what makes blaming Gillis for that ridiculous. GMs that were making these contracts had far more access to the league and their views during this time than any fan or reporter. Obviously the feeling was that existing contracts would be grandfathered around the league.

Also, the league did reject contracts they felt were circumvention. They allowed Luongo's to be signed. The league had their say on that contract and others that are subject to the same penalty and botched it, apparently.

If you can find precedent for the league retroactively punishing players or teams for violating rules that didn't even exist, then I would consider your argument more seriously.

 

[Samzilla]

As Bleach has already pointed out, the retroactive punishment on contracts the league approved is what makes blaming Gillis for that ridiculous. GMs that were making these contracts had far more access to the league and their views during this time than any fan or reporter. Obviously the feeling was that existing contracts would be grandfathered around the league.

Also, the league did reject contracts they felt were circumvention. They allowed Luongo's to be signed. The league had their say on that contract and others that are subject to the same penalty and botched it, apparently.

If you can find precedent for the league retroactively punishing players or teams for violating rules that didn't even exist, then I would consider your argument more seriously.

The crazy thing is I can't think of a time anything else wasn't grandfathered in. For example, much more important safety issues like mandatory helmets and visors were grandfathered in. Clearly player safety comes secondary to Brian Burke getting his revenge. Shows what the NHL's priorities are. Half joking.

 

[Scurr]

Team's that signed those contracts were warned about the leagues view that they were circumventing the cap. There is (was) a post from someone on this board that called the Lu "penalty" way before it ever happened. Besides, it's not really a penalty at all… unless you really didn't mean for them to play the years at the end. Then it clearly was cap circumvention…. we all knew it was.

The real problem with that contract from the beginning was that there were signs Luongo didn't want to be here long-term.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Gillis and Gilman thought they could outsmart the league. They were wrong and now the franchise will pay for it. The best goalie on the Canucks payroll played for a different team this year.

 

[Hodgy]

Gillis and Gilman thought they could outsmart the league. They were wrong and now the franchise will pay for it. The best goalie on the Canucks payroll played for a different team this year.

That's not really correct. The contract itself, provided value to the Canucks. We were a cap strapped team, and had Luongo at a $5.3 million dollar cap hit, when in reality, his cap hit should have been $6.5 million to $7.5 million. As mentioned above, Gillis and Gilman may well have known that they would be penalized at a later time for this contract, but it still would have made sense to go through with the contract. It's easily worth taking a cap hit at a later time in order to save cap room when you are an elite team, actually competing for the Stanley Cup. If/when we are penalized, you can bet we are going to be a worse team than the 2009-2013 Canucks teams.

It really isn't any different than trading futures at the deadline to improve your team, or giving out NTCs.

Obviously things didn't work out long term with the contract, but that isn't to say the logic behind the contract was poor, or that it didn't ever provide the Canucks value

 

[Diamonddog01]

As Bleach has already pointed out, the retroactive punishment on contracts the league approved is what makes blaming Gillis for that ridiculous. GMs that were making these contracts had far more access to the league and their views during this time than any fan or reporter. Obviously the feeling was that existing contracts would be grandfathered around the league.

Also, the league did reject contracts they felt were circumvention. They allowed Luongo's to be signed. The league had their say on that contract and others that are subject to the same penalty and botched it, apparently.

If you can find precedent for the league retroactively punishing players or teams for violating rules that didn't even exist, then I would consider your argument more seriously.

They didn't reject them as they were legally unable to. Which seems to be consistently confused with approved as in supported, or allowed. When you are looking at bargaining agreements you don't get to chose what you can reject in the way most are interpreting that here.

There can be no, "do this or we'll reject the contract, even if it's valid; and if you do what we ask, we'll approve the contract, even if it's a circumvention." There is only "we reject it because it is prohibited by the CBA," or alternatively, "we approve it because it is allowed by the CBA."

These contracts were grandfathered in - under the terms of the 'penalty' if you chose to view it as such.

"A well placed source reports that the league has informed the Players' Assn. that the league will grandfather the recently submitted Kovalchuk 15-year, $100M contract, Luongo's [...] and Hossa's [...] deal [...] into the CBA under the following conditions:

1. That the cap hit on future [...] contracts will not count any seasons [...] with the player over 40 years of age. [...]

2. That the cap hit on future contracts longer than five years will be calculated under a formula granting additional weight to the five


years with the highest salary.

The league has given the PA [...] until Friday at 5 pm to accept these conditions. If the PA refuses [...] the league [...] will reject the Kovalchuk contract [...] [void] the Luongo contract [and] open proceedings for a formal investigation into the Hossa contract."

So the league was going to reject the Kovaluchuk deal, and conduct a formal investigation into the Hossa contract. This may have led to the Luongo contract being nullified as well.

Retroactive punishment my ass. The NHLPA agreed with these terms, grandfathered the offending contracts in and both parties then closed the loophole in the new CBA.

The Canucks as well as the other teams who did this very rightly faced appropriate and justified consequences for their behaviour.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Team's that signed those contracts were warned about the leagues view that they were circumventing the cap. There is (was) a post from someone on this board that called the Lu "penalty" way before it ever happened. Besides, it's not really a penalty at all… unless you really didn't mean for them to play the years at the end. Then it clearly was cap circumvention…. we all knew it was.

The real problem with that contract from the beginning was that there were signs Luongo didn't want to be here long-term.

Can you link to a source article where it's says that A) Management teams were warned said deals were Cap Circumvention and B) That they would be retroactively punished and C) That they absolved themselves of any action to help construct said deals despite ratifying the contracts in the end.

Because if teams were warned, why help? If they said they would retroactively punish the move, why ratify the contract? If the deals were recognized as Cap Circumvention from the beginning, why continue to do steps 2 and 3 above? Why not stop the deal at the recognition point?

This is why I find this 'warning' theory to be a farce. It's a warning against their own hand in the process.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Can you link to a source article where it's says that A) Management teams were warned said deals were Cap Circumvention and B) That they would be retroactively punished and C) That they absolved themselves of any action to help construct said deals despite ratifying the contracts in the end.

Because if teams were warned, why help? If they said they would retroactively punish the move, why ratify the contract? If the deals were recognized as Cap Circumvention from the beginning, why continue to do steps 2 and 3 above? Why not stop the deal at the recognition point?

This is why I find this 'warning' theory to be a farce. It's a warning against their own hand in the process.

It's all out there if you care to search for it.

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-still-checking-hossa-pronger-other-contracts/c-536110

"Daly said at the time those contracts were registered an advisory letter was sent to the clubs notifying them that the League was going to investigate "the circumstances under which the contracts were negotiated to see if there is potential circumvention." There is no time limit to those investigations.

He added that deregistration is just one of several penalties that could be enacted, per Article 11 of the CBA. Other penalties, as outlined in Article 26 of the CBA, include fines against the club and/or the player, reducing the club's payroll for the following season, forfeiting draft picks, forfeiting games affected by the circumvention and suspensions of club officials, the player and his certified agent. "

I think you are still struggling with the concept of ratification in regards to a Collective Bargaining Agreement. They registered them, or 'approved them', because they were legally bound to do so. Almost as soon as they were signed the league was very clear they would investigate these contracts and find a way to penalize them.

It isn't so much that the league approved and then retroactively punished these contracts, it's more that they were contractually obligated to approve them but immediately sought ways to nullify the contracts or penalize the teams involved. Later a mutual agreement was made during the Kovaluchuk investigation for them to be grandfathered in, with the justified and legitimate penalties as a part of that grandathering process - I'm sure the NHL would've preferred to terminate these contracts but the NHLPA suggested the 'grandfathering' solution.

Also, remember that the league was investigating these, and warning teams, before the Luongo contract was signed:

"The NHL is looking to put a damper on these 10-plus-year contracts with throwaway years tacked on at the end," a league executive said last night. "They are building a strong case against Chicago to make an example of them. This issue won't just go away. Lots of other GMs are supporting the league here."

This quote is from July of 2009. I'm not sure exactly what you require in terms of warning, but it appears a very strong warning was given.