News: Luongo retires, Vancouver hit with cap recapture penalty

[Luck 6]

Actually in such case Nashville didn’t have to match, which they did, which means they agreed to match flyers offer sheet.

Yes, but they didn’t get a chance to counter with some sort of restructured fair contract. Do you think Nashville wanted a front loaded super contract like this? Absolutely not, it was a tactic used by Philadelphia to out price Nashville due to their financial constraints. Nashville either matches or let’s him walk, even though they didn’t structure the contract, have a chance to restructure the contract, and it was approved by the league. Now, they have to pay the repercussions of that for simply selecting one of two options? That’s completely ridiculous.

 

[who_me?]

Luon3o x 3 = Luon9o

 

[TurboLemon]

Being a canucks fan I’m ok with the rule as long as it is the same for all the players that retire early that were paid extra. Everyone mentions Weber but there are more such as Duncan Keith

Don't forget how some teams are more equal than others. Hossaitis, Pronger, Savard. Some are legitimate, but when you allow LTIRetired contracts to be traded or take up positions within the league, we have a problem. Didn't a few of these contracts supply value to some cap floor teams to circumvent the salary floor?

 

[PenderB]

Don't forget how some teams are more equal than others. Hossaitis, Pronger, Savard. Some are legitimate, but when you allow LTIRetired contracts to be traded or take up positions within the league, we have a problem. Didn't a few of these contracts supply value to some cap floor teams to circumvent the salary floor?

That is true and hopefully gets fixed with the new CBA, although I doubt it

 

[Cupless44]

Yes at the time of the deal it was a legal contract but then the rules changed and Vancouver agreed to those rule changes.

Pretty ridiculous actually.

When the contract was signed in 2009 it was within the rules of the CBA and was NOT illegal. So 4 full years later when the new CBA was brought in 2013 they made a NEW rule that contracts of this type were now illegal, but at the same time decided to punish teams that signed them 4 years ago when they were legal!

 

[TurboLemon]

That is true and hopefully gets fixed with the new CBA, although I doubt it

I guess it's something the league wouldn't care for. Salary caps are to prevent teams from killing themselves with a thousand cuts. Salary floors are to ensure that the league is employing enough salary. The PA would/should have to fight for it.

 

[PenderB]

I guess it's something the league wouldn't care for. Salary caps are to prevent teams from killing themselves with a thousand cuts. Salary floors are to ensure that the league is employing enough salary. The PA would/should have to fight for it.

Hopefully they do but with revenue sharing they get a certain percentage no matter what. It is in everyone’s best interest that all teams are competitive or at least try to be by spending a minimum amount

 

[Woodrow]

Congrats to Luongo on not getting allergic to his equipment.

 

[Rangers ftw]

Pretty ridiculous actually.

When the contract was signed in 2009 it was within the rules of the CBA and was NOT illegal. So 4 full years later when the new CBA was brought in 2013 they made a NEW rule that contracts of this type were now illegal, but at the same time decided to punish teams that signed them 4 years ago when they were legal!

Well, they signed a contract that was structured to cheat the system cap hit wise, now they have to pay.

 

[JS19]

And the League approved them anyway, because they were within the rules of the CBA.

Because the NHL had no actual grounds to void the contract, as they didn't have to foresight to patch up the loopholes that allowed for circumvention when they ratified the CBA back then. Not to mention, the optics of voiding a contract because too much money given/not expected to fulfill the entirety of the contract complicates things further, as it would have the NHLPA fuming and saying that the league is trying to control a player's career and their earnings.

So the NHL really had no choice but to approve the contract. It was just an unprecedented messy situation that some GMs took advantage of because they realized there were loopholes that allowed them to draft that kind of a contract.

 

[RadekBong]

Luongo will probably just LTIR. And even if he actually does retire, the Canucks will fight the penalty.

Can't see it being a problem.

Lmao fight it based on what?

 

[HandshakeLineRespect]

Of course it should matter. The purpose of cap recapture is to make sure that a team doesn't get an unfair/unaccounted cap advantage. If Nashville was $10m under the cap while Weber was playing for them and Nashville didn't structure that stupid contract in the first place, what unfair competitive advantage did they get from the contract?

To be fair its was'nt Nashville who structured the contract it was an offer sheet that they matched.

 

[Cubs2024WSChamps]

If it happened to your team, I highly doubt you would be calling it a"little drama". This is an embarrassment for the NHL and it will be even worse when they choose not to give the Canucks relief in this situation, as they have done with several other teams.

The hypocrisy in this thread is delicious.

Are you kidding?

This is the type of stuff that makes the NHL unique. I'm loving this.

There's nothing wrong with it, blame the Canucks for giving him that silly contract in the first place.

I think this is great!!! It's going to be like chess watching the Bucks have to incorporate this wasted cap in the future, maybe having to get rid of a young player on account of it. It's pure drama and should be on my Netflix for binge watching during off season

 

[lawrence]

Yes, but they didn’t get a chance to counter with some sort of restructured fair contract. Do you think Nashville wanted a front loaded super contract like this? Absolutely not, it was a tactic used by Philadelphia to out price Nashville due to their financial constraints. Nashville either matches or let’s him walk, even though they didn’t structure the contract, have a chance to restructure the contract, and it was approved by the league. Now, they have to pay the repercussions of that for simply selecting one of two options? That’s completely ridiculous.

What ? Nashville didn’t have to match if they thought it was too much and take 4 1st rounders from philly. End of discussion. They had time to sign him and they failed to0.

 

[lawrence]

Are you kidding?

This is the type of stuff that makes the NHL unique. I'm loving this.

There's nothing wrong with it, blame the Canucks for giving him that silly contract in the first place.

I think this is great!!! It's going to be like chess watching the Bucks have to incorporate this wasted cap in the future, maybe having to get rid of a young player on account of it. It's pure drama and should be on my Netflix for binge watching during off season

It’s 3 million of cap space on a 81.5 million salary cap. Not to mention his initial 800 000k salary now falls off our payroll, so it’s like 2.2 million. Not sure what drama you are expecting. As we still have 15 million in cap room. If your expecting some drama your not getting one. If we were right up to the cap then you have a show. Now you have nothing to watch. Just us watching you sell a false headline on this 3 million cap penalty on the Canucks payroll. If you are expecting the Canucks to fall flat on their face your not getting that.

 

[Dr Salt]

My opinion. I don't agree with the penalty but its the rule and it has to be respected in that regard.

 

[lawrence]

Personally we should keep this cba as a reminder not to hand out such contracts.

I’m sure we will live with 3million penalty for 3 years. Most teams are not even close to the cap limit anyways.

Also find it out right hilarious teams of other fans are in rejoice that the Canucks are being punished. Serously? You rather see us get punished instead of luongo staying in the league ? Give me a f*** ing break. It’s 3 million of cap space on a 81.5 million cap role. Let’s not forget 8 hundred thousand k also falls off our cap role for him retiring.

 

[lawrence]

Lmao fight it based on what?

They can try to fight it based on the fact no such penalty existed when luongo was signed to that contract. But they won’t cause I don’t think benning has the guts too.

 

[nturn06]

Pretty ridiculous actually.

When the contract was signed in 2009 it was within the rules of the CBA and was NOT illegal. So 4 full years later when the new CBA was brought in 2013 they made a NEW rule that contracts of this type were now illegal, but at the same time decided to punish teams that signed them 4 years ago when they were legal!

When the first such contract came the league frowned on it. It was a clear circumvention of the CBA in place, but the league could not fix this clear hole until the next CBA negociation.... So, if I remember right, the league frowned on it, and warned teams not to exploit this...

Most teams chose to obey, but few teams decided to go against it, and got an unfair advantage over their competitors. This made it impossible for the rule to be grandfathered, and forced the league to punish these teams. The solution they implemented is probably more fair.

Yes, I agree that if there was no warning this would had been unfair... But, by going against the "recommendation" of the league, and by signing on the new CBA, the Canucks have no ground to complain.

 

[Tripod]

Big deal.....so the Canucks don't sign their next Jay Beagle. Big whoop.

 

[nowhereman]

Are you kidding?

This is the type of stuff that makes the NHL unique. I'm loving this.

There's nothing wrong with it, blame the Canucks for giving him that silly contract in the first place.

I think this is great!!! It's going to be like chess watching the Bucks have to incorporate this wasted cap in the future, maybe having to get rid of a young player on account of it. It's pure drama and should be on my Netflix for binge watching during off season

You need a hobby.

 

[Cancuks]

Clearing Hutton off the payroll makes a little more sense now. His salary and Luongo's recapture are virtually a wash.

 

[Cubs2024WSChamps]

It’s 3 million of cap space on a 81.5 million salary cap. Not to mention his initial 800 000k salary now falls off our payroll, so it’s like 2.2 million. Not sure what drama you are expecting. As we still have 15 million in cap room. If your expecting some drama your not getting one. If we were right up to the cap then you have a show. Now you have nothing to watch. Just us watching you sell a false headline on this 3 million cap penalty on the Canucks payroll. If you are expecting the Canucks to fall flat on their face your not getting that.

Are you kidding? A two million hit in a cap world is significant. Don't try and serve this situation any way regardless.

If there was no cap, not an issue, but alas, there is.

I love it, its delicious like fresh baked pie. A significant dead money cap hit that cannot be wiped off the cap is a luxury for those with an opinion. I encourage it and embrace it. It's keeps teams of little substance relevant in the states where interest is at an all time low in terms of hockey.

I'm looking at the positives of this situation

 

[Cubs2024WSChamps]

You need a hobby.

I study dead money that effects the salary cap and offer opinion.

That's more then enough

 

[cowboy82nd]

To be fair its was'nt Nashville who structured the contract it was an offer sheet that they matched.

They didn't have to match!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!