Can we talk for a second about the unfairness of the Luongo penalty.

[nekyvGkOPaiWICTscLl6]

Again, I don't get how this is a penalty against the Canucks?? The rules changed which resulted in a potential consequence based on an existing contract. It wasn't a penalty. And, as of now, the team has had no consequence.

... it is absolutely a penalty. An imposed decision had a detrimental effect on the franchise. As of right now, the team's Management is in a position to prepare for the possibility that we have less cap room to work with. The penalty isn't actualized, but it has an affect.

Just like in hockey, a penalty is issued and if there isn't a consequence (a goal scored against), that doesn't take away the fact that the team was penalized for a period of time. Maybe not the clearest analogy, but hopefully you get my point.

 

[RandV]

Again, I don't get how this is a penalty against the Canucks?? The rules changed which resulted in a potential consequence based on an existing contract. It wasn't a penalty. And, as of now, the team has had no consequence.

It was certainly a penalty at the time in a sense, as the Canucks were the only team actively trying to trade their big contract player and this threw a huge wrench into any dealings.

What remains to be seen now is if the NHL will actually stick to the penalty as these players start to retire. We're far from the only ones to sign one of these contracts, and like how New Jersey got out of forfeiting their 1st rounder when teams like Detroit and Pittsburgh come knocking on the door struggling under sudden 'cap recapture' penalties you have to wonder if the league won't buckle again.

 

[iceburg]

... it is absolutely a penalty. An imposed decision had a detrimental effect on the franchise. As of right now, the team's Management is in a position to prepare for the possibility that we have less cap room to work with. The penalty isn't actualized, but it has an affect.

Just like in hockey, a penalty is issued and if there isn't a consequence (a goal scored against), that doesn't take away the fact that the team was penalized for a period of time. Maybe not the clearest analogy, but hopefully you get my point.

Disagree that it is a penalty - it is a contract parameter. And I still don't see a consequence until and unless Luongo retires before the end of his contract. Planning isn't a consequence....it's just planning.

 

[iceburg]

It was certainly a penalty at the time in a sense, as the Canucks were the only team actively trying to trade their big contract player and this threw a huge wrench into any dealings.

What remains to be seen now is if the NHL will actually stick to the penalty as these players start to retire. We're far from the only ones to sign one of these contracts, and like how New Jersey got out of forfeiting their 1st rounder when teams like Detroit and Pittsburgh come knocking on the door struggling under sudden 'cap recapture' penalties you have to wonder if the league won't buckle again.

As I understand it, the original team takes the cap hit, if the player retires early. As such, it would have no impact on trade talks. Luongo's contract was certainly an issue in trade talks but the potential recapture was not a factor - which again, is just recovering the cap circumvention because of the loophole - not a penalty.

 

[dwarf]

What is there to really talk about? The Canucks got screwed plain and simple.

Burke had a bee in his bonnet after Aqualini gave him the boot. He pushed for the now precedent setting term, "the Luongo rule."

The only two teams who are seriously being punished are the Canucks and the Devils.

What I find ironic, is that no mention of rule changes were made until Tortorella got hired and it was time to change that rule too.

Can't have something benefit the Canucks.

Lets have a hockey game and the power plays are 20 minutes for one team and two for the Canucks.

This is not anything new, its been going on since the 70s, and we have a statue of Roger Neilson trying to fight the biased, old boy bull **** that has kept us cupless for 45 years.

NHL reffing is worse than WWF reffing, and I believe the league is as corrupt as it can get.

 

[iceburg]

What is there to really talk about? The Canucks got screwed plain and simple.

Burke had a bee in his bonnet after Aqualini gave him the boot. He pushed for the now precedent setting term, "the Luongo rule."

The only two teams who are seriously being punished are the Canucks and the Devils.

What I find ironic, is that no mention of rule changes were made until Tortorella got hired and it was time to change that rule too.

Can't have something benefit the Canucks.

Lets have a hockey game and the power plays are 20 minutes for one team and two for the Canucks.

This is not anything new, its been going on since the 70s, and we have a statue of Roger Neilson trying to fight the biased, old boy bull **** that has kept us cupless for 45 years.

NHL reffing is worse than WWF reffing, and I believe the league is as corrupt as it can get.

Do you seriously think the league is out to get the Canucks?!?!? Not sure this is helpful to the team's image.

 

[nekyvGkOPaiWICTscLl6]

Disagree that it is a penalty - it is a contract parameter. And I still don't see a consequence until and unless Luongo retires before the end of his contract. Planning isn't a consequence....it's just planning.

I see this is trickling down to a semantic argument.

The Cap Advantage Recapture is not expressly defined as a penalty, but I think a reasonable person would define it as a penalty. It has been described (in the Collective Agreement itself) as a charge.
We can go back and forth here. Is a charge a penalty? No? If I charged only people who has a username is longer than 15 characters a fee - is that a penalty? Yes. Ergo, a penalty is a charge. If you want to play logic games, by all means, throw the first punch.

The Canucks franchise has to operate under uncertain financial restraints, most other franchises do not (so, most franchises operate under certain financial restraints). That is a disadvantage and it can be mitigated by planning - I agree, but it does not increase certainty.

 

[Serac]

As I understand it, the original team takes the cap hit, if the player retires early. As such, it would have no impact on trade talks. Luongo's contract was certainly an issue in trade talks but the potential recapture was not a factor - which again, is just recovering the cap circumvention because of the loophole - not a penalty.

I don't believe that's the case
As it was a major reason we retained 800k on Lu's contract
Because we retained money, we're still stuck with the cap recapture penalty

 

[RandV]

As I understand it, the original team takes the cap hit, if the player retires early. As such, it would have no impact on trade talks. Luongo's contract was certainly an issue in trade talks but the potential recapture was not a factor - which again, is just recovering the cap circumvention because of the loophole - not a penalty.

That is incorrect, if a player subject to this rule is traded the new team will accrue the penalty for the seasons he plays where the cap hit is less than the salary. At the time Luongo still had several years with a significant salary vs cap difference, so if he retired early his new team would get dinged as well.

I had to google this to refresh myself again, but here's another interesting point that may be unique to the Canucks (link - note for the sake of the argument it was clearly being called the "The Luongo Rule" ):

The basics are as such: When there's a difference between a player's actual salary and his cap hit, that difference goes into a pot that is then charged against the team's cap in the event he doesn't play out his full contract. The money is split evenly among all years remaining on the contract (much like AAV is calculated now). Friedman also goes into how a players' cap hit recapture dollars remain with the team for whom he was playing over the specific salary years he played. That brings up a supremely interesting pair of questions:

1. While it's assumed that years where a player's salary is higher than his cap hit that the recapture pool will increase, does it then decrease in years following the wave-break when his cap hit exceeds his actual salary?

2. If the answer to question 1 is "yes", then would those positive differences carry over all years or belong solely to the team who bothered holding a player's contract during years where his cap hit was higher than his salary?

So if Florida has Luongo long enough that his cap hit value exceeds the salary hit value, do those savings get passed back to us or do they vanish into thin air? Either way we're left holding a huge bag here that other teams are not. Also note that Philly and Columbus who traded the players before the rule came in are being exempted from it.

 

[nekyvGkOPaiWICTscLl6]

I agree with all of RandV's points.

 

[The Poacher]

What I still don't understand is how Aqua man signed off on this knowing the implications it would have to his organization. Not one NHL Owner opposed this rule change.

 

[nekyvGkOPaiWICTscLl6]

What I still don't understand is how Aqua man signed off on this knowing the implications it would have to his organization. Not one NHL Owner opposed this rule change.

?
Proof?

 

[iceburg]

That is incorrect, if a player subject to this rule is traded the new team will accrue the penalty for the seasons he plays where the cap hit is less than the salary. At the time Luongo still had several years with a significant salary vs cap difference, so if he retired early his new team would get dinged as well.

I had to google this to refresh myself again, but here's another interesting point that may be unique to the Canucks (link - note for the sake of the argument it was clearly being called the "The Luongo Rule" ):



So if Florida has Luongo long enough that his cap hit value exceeds the salary hit value, do those savings get passed back to us or do they vanish into thin air? Either way we're left holding a huge bag here that other teams are not. Also note that Philly and Columbus who traded the players before the rule came in are being exempted from it.

There is a very very small chance that Luongo will retire before his salary falls below his AAV (in 2018). So, effectively there was very little risk to Florida.

 

[vancityluongo]

If you're retroactively applying penalties and changing contracts, should Shea Weber's 14 year deal (which is now no longer possible) be rescinded and made into an 8 year deal? Clearly the NHL wasn't a fan of those ridiculously long contracts...and Weber openly admit that he was looking for that deal ASAP so he could get it done before the new CBA kicked in.

I just don't get how the NHL pulled this one off and the PA didn't throw a **** storm about it. Not that I have any sort of legal knowledge, but can't this set a precedent for the NHL to just apply other retroactive penalties as they see fit? Thinking for drug policies and what not especially.

 

[iceburg]

If you're retroactively applying penalties and changing contracts, should Shea Weber's 14 year deal (which is now no longer possible) be rescinded and made into an 8 year deal? Clearly the NHL wasn't a fan of those ridiculously long contracts...and Weber openly admit that he was looking for that deal ASAP so he could get it done before the new CBA kicked in.

I just don't get how the NHL pulled this one off and the PA didn't throw a **** storm about it. Not that I have any sort of legal knowledge, but can't this set a precedent for the NHL to just apply other retroactive penalties as they see fit? Thinking for drug policies and what not especially.

The biggest problem the NHL had was extending contracts well beyond when a player is reasonably expected to retire. Weber's contract ends when he's 40. Luongo's contract ends when he's 43. As I've said before, the NHL worked with the NHLPA to amend the CBA to close a loophole so that contracts would be consistent with the spirit of the CBA. Luongo's contract clearly violates that spirit. Weber's does not.
The 8 year contract term was just a straight negotiation point, not trying to close a loophole.

Question for those who know....does the cap recapture apply to players on LTIR?

 

[racerjoe]

I didn't read the entire thread, but in a 3o thoughts around when the CBA first came out, it was stated most players will just go on LTIR as it is best for both the player and the teams involved, plus most players do retire with nagging injuries, so calling one an injurie to stop a career is not hard.

If I remember correctly Hatcher I think did something like this.

 

[iceburg]

I didn't read the entire thread, but in a 3o thoughts around when the CBA first came out, it was stated most players will just go on LTIR as it is best for both the player and the teams involved, plus most players do retire with nagging injuries, so calling one an injurie to stop a career is not hard.

If I remember correctly Hatcher I think did something like this.

I guess cause the salaries of players on LTIR count against the cap but then the team can spend over the cap by the same amount (I think).

 

[Toxic0n]

You are very welcome. I'm patiently explaining the minutiae of this case to you and will continue doing so.

Well that was certainly proven to not be the case . The NHL followed through with their promise and rightly so. Once again, pissing off the league is generally not a good idea. Unfortunate the Canucks and those other teams who behaved in this inappropriate fashion had to learn that lesson...the hard way.

Can you provide a source for this "Warning" that Gillis received from the NHL and their "promise" to close the loophole at the time the contract was signed?

 

[deckercky]

Disagree that it is a penalty - it is a contract parameter. And I still don't see a consequence until and unless Luongo retires before the end of his contract. Planning isn't a consequence....it's just planning.

It's clearly a penalty. There's a reason a significant number of the contracts subject to it have been bought out - there's an unreasonable risk that you'll have to dismantle a team if a player retires at the wrong time (I think that Ehrhoff was a $10M penalty if he retired in his final year).

 

[iceburg]

Can you provide a source for this "Warning" that Gillis received from the NHL and their "promise" to close the loophole at the time the contract was signed?

Obviously the league investigated and couldn't penalize but it's clear from this article that they weren't happy. Just because a contract allows for something doesn't mean that it should be done. Two parties need to work together not poke each other on the eye.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=536110

It's also clear from this article that the NHL was going to work to close the loophole. Since they can't unilaterally impose CBA amendments the outcome at that stage was unclear. But something was going to be done to fix the issue.

 

[iceburg]

It's clearly a penalty. There's a reason a significant number of the contracts subject to it have been bought out - there's an unreasonable risk that you'll have to dismantle a team if a player retires at the wrong time (I think that Ehrhoff was a $10M penalty if he retired in his final year).

It's a semantics argument at this point. I see it as a negotiated parameter not a penalty...though others obviously disagree.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Can you provide a source for this "Warning" that Gillis received from the NHL and their "promise" to close the loophole at the time the contract was signed?

Do you mean apart from the 100 times I've quoted Daly, who commented in July of 2009, on the Hossa contract?

 

[Jyrki21]

I don't know why Diamonddog is claiming the league didn't "really" approve the deal (or more weirdly, was "forced" to) when they do have to approve every single deal. So they definitely approved it.

I also don't know why y2k thinks it's "illegal" for two parties to mutually agree to renegotiate a collective bargaining agreement.

Again, the issue is whether the NHL's policy here was routine or a jerk move, and it sure looks like a jerk move.

 

[Diamonddog01]

I don't know why Diamonddog is claiming the league didn't "really" approve the deal (or more weirdly, was "forced" to) when they do have to approve every single deal. So they definitely approved it.

I also don't know why y2k thinks it's "illegal" for two parties to mutually agree to renegotiate a collective bargaining agreement.

Again, the issue is whether the NHL's policy here was routine or a jerk move, and it sure looks like a jerk move.

Of course they had to approve it, that doesn't mean they wanted to, or that they weren't going to look for ways to overturn it.

I think you are mistaking approve in the contractually binding sense, or being obliged to do something, vs approve as in positively ratify or want to do something.

 

[RandV]

Obviously the league investigated and couldn't penalize but it's clear from this article that they weren't happy. Just because a contract allows for something doesn't mean that it should be done. Two parties need to work together not poke each other on the eye.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=536110

It's also clear from this article that the NHL was going to work to close the loophole. Since they can't unilaterally impose CBA amendments the outcome at that stage was unclear. qNJWFOhwXvQ

Yes that's why these sorts of things usually get 'grandfathered' in, not retroactively punished. And rather severely at that.