News: Luongo retires, Vancouver hit with cap recapture penalty

[Bettman Returnz]

regardless it stop Benning from signing Myers, then its good news for canucks fans.

Don’t get your hopes up... he will probably still try to squeeze him in.

 

[Blender]

The league has a responsibility to make sure the contracts they approve don't circumvent the CBA and if it is a big concern, change the CBA (done in 2013) but to retroactively punish teams is one of the many reasons this league is a joke to the other major sports leagues and not taken seriously by major north American media. Luongo also signed his deal in 2009, the new collective bargaining agreement that added cap recapture was introduced in 2013. Punishing deals 4 years later is ridiculous. Maybe the NHL should punish the league lawyers that left the loop-hole when the cap was introduced - but God forbid the league take any ownership.

The reason all of these contracts were approved is because the teams that signed them swore up and down that the players would see them through to the end, and therefore the teams would not benefit from the cap/salary difference long term. They blocked the Kovalchuk one that ended at 45, but approved all the ones that ended around 43 or earlier. I have zero sympathy for any team that gets hit with a recapture penalty, because the contracts were absurd to begin with.

 

[SaintMorose]

The biggest problem with the way they are enforcing this rule is tying it to the end date of the contract.
Vancouver got away with a contract that allowed 'them' to be ~1.3M short in capspace per year for 9 years and they should recapture that as ~1.3M per year for 9 years instead of attempting to do it in 3 which cripples the orgs structure.

 

[DJJones]

Glad to see one of these contracts actually get punished.

Surprised he didn't go on LTIR.

 

[Boondock]

The reason all of these contracts were approved is because the teams that signed them swore up and down that the players would see them through to the end, and therefore the teams would not benefit from the cap/salary difference long term. They blocked the Kovalchuk one that ended at 45, but approved all the ones that ended around 43 or earlier. I have zero sympathy for any team that gets hit with a recapture penalty, because the contracts were absurd to begin with.

Of coarse you have no sympathy, your cap recapture was renegotiated and reduced to almost nothing on the Kovy deal.

 

[Boondock]

The reason all of these contracts were approved is because the teams that signed them swore up and down that the players would see them through to the end, and therefore the teams would not benefit from the cap/salary difference long term. They blocked the Kovalchuk one that ended at 45, but approved all the ones that ended around 43 or earlier. I have zero sympathy for any team that gets hit with a recapture penalty, because the contracts were absurd to begin with.

I don't buy this argument either because the punishment was levied well before any team could be proven wrong. This is a case of Bettman being angry that teams found a loop-hole in his system and he reacted like all immature dictators and lashed out at the teams that found one of his flaws and publically took advantage of it.

 

[Blender]

Of coarse you have no sympathy, your cap recapture was renegotiated and reduced to almost nothing on the Kovy deal.

No it wasn't, we have the appropriate recapture based on his retirement date. The Devils barely benefited from a salary/cap difference in the years he played for us, the worst offending years were still to come.

 

[nowhereman]

No it wasn't, we have the appropriate recapture based on his retirement date. The Devils barely benefited from a salary/cap difference in the years he played for us, the worst offending years were still to come.

What about that first round pick you were supposed to give up?

 

[Blender]

What about that first round pick you were supposed to give up?

What does that have to do with cap recapture? Do you even understand what that is?

The other penalty was for the first rejected contract, not the one that was signed. The Devils did give up their first round pick (as well as a 2nd rounder and a fine), but they received a 30th overall pick instead.

 

[Liferleafer]

 

[Not Sure]

Any alternative suggestions?

Too long, but I wouldnt mind them letting teams break up the recapture along the years left on the contract. So if someone retires 2 years early they can split it between two years. If someone retires a year early they must take the full cap hit that year. If I had 10 years to split up even a $10 million recapture I'd take that risk every time.

 

[666]

Too long, but I wouldnt mind them letting teams break up the recapture along the years left on the contract. So if someone retires 2 years early they can split it between two years. If someone retires a year early they must take the full cap hit that year. If I had 10 years to split up even a $10 million recapture I'd take that risk every time.

I'm pretty sure that's how it works now.

 

[DANTHEMAN1967]

The league has a responsibility to make sure the contracts they approve don't circumvent the CBA and if it is a big concern, change the CBA (done in 2013) but to retroactively punish teams is one of the many reasons this league is a joke to the other major sports leagues and not taken seriously by major north American media. Luongo also signed his deal in 2009, the new collective bargaining agreement that added cap recapture was introduced in 2013. Punishing deals 4 years later is ridiculous. Maybe the NHL should punish the league lawyers that left the loop-hole when the cap was introduced - but God forbid the league take any ownership.

The CBA that was in effect at the time warned teams not to circumvent the salary cap and if they did so they did it at their own risk and there could/would be a penalty to be paid.
Seeing these back diving contracts were being signed Bettman warned teams again that there could/would be a judgement day for their cap circumvention, teams once again ignored all the warnings and went ahead signing players to cap circumvention deals.
The League even gave teams compliancy buyouts to get themselves out of the situation that they had created for themselves.
Now people are crying because the League is actually going to make (some of) them pay?
The punishment is retroactive the warnings were in place before the contracts were signed and they were ignored.
The League is a joke for allowing all the other back diving contracts to escape the cap recapture punishment.
The Blackhawks won three Cups while circumventing the cap and I am sure the teams that they beat would have liked to see justice done, but instead Hossa got a rash.

 

[CanadianPantherFan]

It’s another way to screw a Canadian team . Trust me I am no Vancouver fan . It’s like the Oilers were the only team that got screwed on paying a team for signing a fired coach and GM . The other teams got let off . If I am Vancouver I would be pissed

I don’t even know where to start with this..and you serious on all fronts here ?

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

It is fair though. The teams signing these contracts were within league rules at the time of said signing. Those rules were changed and each team was retroactively punished because the NHL was being petty.

Think of it this way. Imagine buying a house at well below market value because your retailer found a loophole—which was perfectly legal. A couple months later you're told the rules were changed and you'll now be punished with a massive penalty unless you pay upfront by a certain date. There isn't a chance in hell that holds up legally. But it works in sports because they often make up their own rules.

All of the teams and players involved in these deals swore up and down that the players would be fulfilling the entirety of the contracts. At least one player (Danny Alfredsson) stated after the fact that wasn't the case, and it was purely a cap avoidance tool. At the end of the day, the reason why I never had a problem with the recapture is it's purpose is to enforce the salary cap. All the cap recapture does is ensure that all of the $'s a player is paid are ultimately included in the salary cap calculation. It's not really a "penalty" so much as a true up at the end of the contract to ensure that the NHLPA members receive the 50% of HRR that they are entitled to.

 

[drktmplr12]

I don’t even know where to start with this..and you serious on all fronts here ?

He typed it up, reviewed it, and clicked Post Reply. How much more serious can he get.

I would have 1000 posts if I submitted half of the nonsense I type up. Most of the time I delete it, because upon further reflection I realize I don't make any sense.

Almost deleted this one and decided to reply as a matter of principle.

 

[Beezeral]

Glad to see one of these contracts actually get punished.

Surprised he didn't go on LTIR.

Panthers preferred he retire instead of go on LTIR

 

[HandshakeLineRespect]

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

Thanks tips. Doesn’t change the fact they didn’t structure it!!!!!!!!! Facts don’t care about your opinions bud.

 

[Liferleafer]

 

[Boondock]

The CBA that was in effect at the time warned teams not to circumvent the salary cap and if they did so they did it at their own risk and there could/would be a penalty to be paid.
Seeing these back diving contracts were being signed Bettman warned teams again that there could/would be a judgement day for their cap circumvention, teams once again ignored all the warnings and went ahead signing players to cap circumvention deals.
The League even gave teams compliancy buyouts to get themselves out of the situation that they had created for themselves.
Now people are crying because the League is actually going to make (some of) them pay?
The punishment is retroactive the warnings were in place before the contracts were signed and they were ignored.
The League is a joke for allowing all the other back diving contracts to escape the cap recapture punishment.
The Blackhawks won three Cups while circumventing the cap and I am sure the teams that they beat would have liked to see justice done, but instead Hossa got a rash.

Warnings??? Gillis was on the radio yesterday and said that there were rumors that the league was looking into it but nothing was ever officially stated. Gillis also indicated that they didn't think it would be an issue with Luongo, but here it is. I don't care what the league was saying behind closed doors but to allow a contract and then punish retro-actively is amateur. Somehow this has only come back to bite 1 team so far too. I'm guessing by the time Weber retires the league will have somehow find a way around forcing them to pay the recapture penalty.

I know I shouldn't act like everybody is out to get my team - it takes away from the Leafs victim complex.

 

[RandV]

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?

I still have a problem calling this "legitimate". Teams were circumventing the cap by back diving contracts adding on years going up to age 40 that the players probably wouldn't play. But if you look at it objectively, probably the #1 reason why a player won't play into their late 30's-40 is accumulated injuries.

So the league applied a retroactive punishment because they were angry teams found a loophole around the cap, yet in their punishment they left a loophole that has effectively let around 90% of these contracts avoid the punishment.

Which begs the question... what was the point?

 

[Cupless44]

I don’t even know where to start with this..and you serious on all fronts here ?

Every other team comes up with some bogus LTIR claim to avoid the penalty, so yeah Vancouver having to pay and being the only team held accountable is pretty lame

 

[Cupless44]

Warnings??? Gillis was on the radio yesterday and said that there were rumors that the league was looking into it but nothing was ever officially stated. Gillis also indicated that they didn't think it would be an issue with Luongo, but here it is. I don't care what the league was saying behind closed doors but to allow a contract and then punish retro-actively is amateur. Somehow this has only come back to bite 1 team so far too. I'm guessing by the time Weber retires the league will have somehow find a way around forcing them to pay the recapture penalty.

I know I shouldn't act like everybody is out to get my team - it takes away from the Leafs victim complex.

Luongo contract was signed in 2009. 4 years later the 2013 CBA comes out with the new penalty for these contracts. So the NHL is going to go back 4 years when there was nothing illegal done??

 

[Beezeral]

Every other team comes up with some bogus LTIR claim to avoid the penalty, so yeah Vancouver having to pay and being the only team held accountable is pretty lame

The Panthers are being punished as well...

 

[Liferleafer]

Luongo contract was signed in 2009. 4 years later the 2013 CBA comes out with the new penalty for these contracts. So the NHL is going to go back 4 years when there was nothing illegal done??

The easy answer? Yes. Yes they did/are.