Speculation: Luongo’s cap hit with the Panthers

[Captain Mountain]

He won't though.

NHL Players don't walk away from guaranteed money.

Why didn't Savard or Pronger retire? Because they were getting paid.

And because Philly and Boston didn't want to be screwed by cap recapture and traded them with the understanding that they wouldn't just retire.

The problem with Luongo is that Florida (although they do get dinged by cap recapture) wouldn't be the most hurt by him retiring.

 

[Captain Mountain]

If there was one year left on his deal, it's a possibility.

I can't remember a player walking away from guaranteed $$$ with multiple years left on his deal in this current.

Rafalski was the last guy who did it, but he only had 1 year left.

Literally Berglund in December.

 

[Whalers Fan]

We've been down this road. He does actually need to be injured

 

[Lemmiwinks]

It’s a complete ****ing joke how the league-issues penalties of those contracts never affected the Blackhawks in the slightest, but they seriously hit the Devils, and they’ve got a great chance to totally screw the Canucks and Predators (who didn’t even sign Weber to the offer sheet).

Yeah, it's one of the most arbitrary things the league has done in recent memory. It sucks for Devils fans that their punishment already took place.

League leaves a huge loophole wide open --> teams take advantage within the rules of the day --> league randomly and retroactively slaps significant penalties on some teams and lets others off the hook. That's the gist of this debacle.

 

[666]

He's totally going to retire in that final year, and we're going to get absolutely ****ed by a contract that was 100% legal at the time we made it.

The CBA at the time warned about cap circumvention. You have two choices:

1) admit that Vancouver attempted to circumvent the cap and take your punishment
2) deny that Vancouver attempted to circumvent the cap and live with the positive and negative consequences of that front loaded contract

Either way the result is the same.

 

[justafan22]

Literally Berglund in December.

Let me rephrase: walked away from guaranteed money when they were injured/close to the end of their career

Berglund only did so since his mental state wasn't in a good place.

Same with Weber. He isn't going to walk away from free money.

And most hockey players hate causing waves so they'll play along an go on LTIR

 

[Space umpire]

He is on record saying he will not penalize either the Canuck or Panther organizations by retiring early. I think this whole system sucks. ... Were teams circumventing? YES! Was it permissible under the rules at the time? YES.
When the new rules were passed they should have read "from here forward, ... If Luongo wants to walk away he should be able to site a hang nail on his little toe. I promise you no other team is going to complain. We are close to being done with these "old CBA" deals.
If my city (a tourist town) changes the speed limit from 35mhp to 25mph can they go back years and write tickets to anyone who followed the old rule?

 

[Lemmiwinks]

The CBA at the time warned about cap circumvention. You have two choices:

1) admit that Vancouver attempted to circumvent the cap and take your punishment
2) deny that Vancouver attempted to circumvent the cap and live with the positive and negative consequences of that front loaded contract

Either way the result is the same.

There are only two choices if you decide to take a myopic view of the situation.

3) The league gave soft warnings about front-loaded contracts without any actual hard definitions about what such a contract was. Teams chose to push the boundaries, and like other teams, Vancouver circumvented the cap. No denying that. But it was within the rules, and if other teams are doing it, why fall behind the curve? Vancouver's cup window was open and other teams in the West were gearing up with similar tactics. Finally, the league's retroactive punishments were way overkill (a recapture equal to a star player's cap hit is ridiculous).

 

[Space umpire]

He won't though.

NHL Players don't walk away from guaranteed money.

Why didn't Savard or Pronger retire? Because they were getting paid.

Because they had current injuries and if they retired they would no longer be covered by the NHL players insurance.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Let me rephrase: walked away from guaranteed money when they were injured/close to the end of their career

Berglund only did so since his mental state wasn't in a good place.

Same with Weber. He isn't going to walk away from free money.

And most hockey players hate causing waves so they'll play along an go on LTIR

1) that's an incredibly arbitrary and unuseful distinguisher. Basically there has to be more than one year on the contract and it has to be at the end of their careers (which, BTW, Berglund was since his career is over) and their mental state has to be in a good place (what's wrong with Berglund's mental state, he was very clear as to why he left).

2) the major reason LTIR retirements were used was there was that the teams the players were playing for bore the brunt of the recapture. That isn't the case for guys that were traded.

 

[justafan22]

1) that's an incredibly arbitrary and unuseful distinguisher. Basically there has to be more than one year on the contract and it has to be at the end of their careers (which, BTW, Berglund was since his career is over) and their mental state has to be in a good place (what's wrong with Berglund's mental state, he was very clear as to why he left).

2) the major reason LTIR retirements were used was there was that the teams the players were playing for bore the brunt of the recapture. That isn't the case for guys that were traded.

Zetterberg could've given up money, and he didn't though, despite his recapture.

 

[Mosby]

That's the thing. Hockey players are so bland in a good way that they don't want to "upset the apple cart" by retiring. That's why he won't do it, and Weber won't either when if his health gets worse.

That and if he retires he doesn't get his remaining salary owed.

 

[justafan22]

Because they had current injuries and if they retired they would no longer be covered by the NHL players insurance.

That's the thing though. People expect them to retire, but they won't

 

[justafan22]

That and if he retires he doesn't get his remaining salary owed.

It blows my mind that they'll walk away from guaranteed millions over multiple years. I could see it happening for a player with 1 year left, but not multiple (though as Captain Mountain said, Berglund situations come around once in a while)

 

[666]

There are only two choices if you decide to take a myopic view of the situation.

3) The league gave soft warnings about front-loaded contracts without any actual hard definitions about what such a contract was. Teams chose to push the boundaries, and like other teams, Vancouver circumvented the cap. No denying that. But it was within the rules, and if other teams are doing it, why fall behind the curve? Vancouver's cup window was open and other teams in the West were gearing up with similar tactics. Finally, the league's retroactive punishments were way overkill (a recapture equal to a star player's cap hit is ridiculous).

The rules were very explicit. Cap circumvention was not allowed, period.

If you don't agree with recapture what would you suggest for a solution? The money was spent but no one paid the cap. If Lou retires early then Vancouver gained $8M in cap advantage. I would think allowing teams to pay back the recapture over a period of time might be fair. Would you be ok with 4 years at $2M?

 

[Lemmiwinks]

The rules were very explicit. Cap circumvention was not allowed, period.

If you don't agree with recapture what would you suggest for a solution? The money was spent but no one paid the cap. If Lou retires early then Vancouver gained $8M in cap advantage. I would think allowing teams to pay back the recapture over a period of time might be fair. Would you be ok with 4 years at $2M?

Lou wouldn't have an 8m cap hit on a 12 year contract, so I'm not sure that would ever be the case.

But yes, I think 4 years paying 2M would be totally fair. I'm not against a recapture punishment, so long as it's not to the point of potentially tanking a team's development.

 

[666]

Lou wouldn't have an 8m cap hit on a 12 year contract, so I'm not sure that would ever be the case.

But yes, I think 4 years paying 2M would be totally fair. I'm not against a recapture punishment, so long as it's not to the point of potentially tanking a team's development.

I'm pretty sure that the Vancouver penalty is going to be $8.5M if he retires early. $8.5 with one year left $4.25 with 2 years etc as that was the total recapture penalty.

I agree, paying the penently over a few years solves the issue but one $8.5M hit is pretty unfair.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Zetterberg could've given up money, and he didn't though, despite his recapture.

I'm pretty sure Zetterberg signed his contract with Detroit, but I might be mistaken. Which is not the case for Luongo (or Weber).

 

[ddawg1950]

The rules were very explicit. Cap circumvention was not allowed, period.

If you don't agree with recapture what would you suggest for a solution? The money was spent but no one paid the cap. If Lou retires early then Vancouver gained $8M in cap advantage. I would think allowing teams to pay back the recapture over a period of time might be fair. Would you be ok with 4 years at $2M?

As has been stated, the league approved that contract at the time.

I've been saying all along that this could be an issue for the courts to decide. And I'm betting the league does not want to go down that road.

LTIR is a nice, lawsuit free way, to avoid the issue.

 

[666]

As has been stated, the league approved that contract at the time.

I've been saying all along that this could be an issue for the courts to decide. And I'm betting the league does not want to go down that road.

LTIR is a nice, lawsuit free way, to avoid the issue.

There was nothing wrong with the contract. It was fine. As long as Lou plays it out. Someone just has to pay back the cap back if he retires early and Vancouver got an $8.5M advantage from it so someone has to pay that back. No lawsuit required. Now if Vancouver doesn't want to pay it then they would be accused of cap circumvention and that's against the rules and always was.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

Not a single cap recapture contract has suffered from the cap recapture. Luongo will report to training camp each of the next three years, team doctors will probably say something like “his groin is bothering him, we’ll reevaluate in a month” and it’ll happen until the contract runs out. Luongo will basically move into a consulting role for goaltending. Help the young Monty in florida or Bob if he goes there.

 

[ddawg1950]

There was nothing wrong with the contract. It was fine. As long as Lou plays it out. Someone just has to pay back the cap back if he retires early and Vancouver got an $8.5M advantage from it so someone has to pay that back. No lawsuit required. Now if Vancouver doesn't want to pay it then they would be accused of cap circumvention and that's against the rules and always was.

I'm still betting Luongo fails his physical. And I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree at this juncture. I could point out that the recapture penalty was added afterwards and you could point out your position and we won't likely convince each other.

We'll find out in the fall.

 

[StreetHawk]

As has been stated, the league approved that contract at the time.

I've been saying all along that this could be an issue for the courts to decide. And I'm betting the league does not want to go down that road.

LTIR is a nice, lawsuit free way, to avoid the issue.

Every player who signed these deals all said at the time that they intended to play it out. What you body and mind says at age 29/30 is much different than what it will be like when you’re pushing 40.

Contract was structured to pay them more early to reflect performance. Now, some team has to take that cap hit. That’s really all the recapture penalty does. They are making the teams and players honour their commitment.

Plus they have provided a way out with these contracts eligible to be traded.

 

[666]

I'm still betting Luongo fails his physical. And I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree at this juncture. I could point out that the recapture penalty was added afterwards and you could point out your position and we won't likely convince each other.

We'll find out in the fall.

I'm curious, what do you think would be fair if let's say Luongo retires and Vancouver is responsible for the recapture of $8.6M? At that point in time Luongo would have been paid $62M but only $53M cap has accumulated. Are you suggesting that nothing should happen? If so what are you suggesting happens to the cap space that he was paid for but was never charged to anyone? I'm truly curious as to what you think a good solution is. The other guy and I agree that they have to pay the penalty but it should be over 4 or 8 years.

 

[ddawg1950]

It would have been fair if the contract had been rejected as an attempt at cap circumvention...because it clearly was.

But the league approved it and then changed the rules a year later. That was not fair. And because of that, there is no longer a chance for a "fair" solution, IMO.

And further, I believe the post hoc rule change would not stand up in court.

However, I do not believe it will come to either the Canucks paying the recapture penalty or conversely, suing the league in court. I believe fair will not come into it.

Lou will go on LTIR and the league will allow it.