News: Luongo retires, Vancouver hit with cap recapture penalty

[bossram]

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.

It was legal, within the rules. This is completely on the NHL. If they had such a problem with it, they should have blocked the Luongo contract to begin with, similar to the Kovalchuk deal. They accepted it was "within the spirit of the CBA" at the time. To retroactively punish the teams who signed contracts (which the NHL approved!) FOUR years later is asinine. Zero blame should be placed on the teams. You're trying to be competitive, and you're going to use every advantage you can. Like I said, everything was above board. If the NHL thought they were playing dirty, they shouldn't have allowed it at the time.

 

[DearDiary]

If anything it was a very smart contract that was signed within the framework and rules at the time it was signed and approved by the NHL.

Take this into any other industry and you'd have lawyers banging on your door to sue the absolute crap out of the institution that conducts it's buisness like this.

NHL - "Sign this new CBA which will penalize you for your Luongo contract under the old CBA"

Canucks - "Love it, signed"

 

[SladeWilson23]

The devil's were also supposed to forfeit a first round pick but the league caved and gave it back to them

You guys were also given your 1st round pick back after it was taken away for trying to circumvent the cap in the first place.

This is a false narrative. The Devils did not get their pick back.

 

[KidLine93]

This is a false narrative. The Devils did not get their pick back.

Your first was taken away. They gave you one back when kovalchuk left. You drafted quennville

 

[Nuckler]

This is a false narrative. The Devils did not get their pick back.

Sorry not their pick, but a first rounder

 

[SladeWilson23]

Your first was taken away. They gave you one back when kovalchuk left. You drafted quennville

Yes this is true, but THEIR pick was never given back.

Sorry not their pick, but a first rounder

Very different than THEIR pick. They also weren't allowed to trade it which seems to be forgotten.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but why is the recapture hit higher if the player retires later rather than earlier?

 

[RandV]

This is a false narrative. The Devils did not get their pick back.

They lost their placement but were given a compensation pick at the end of the 1st round., so went from #11-#30. But before you feel bad for them if I recall correctly they were given a couple years where they could forfeit their pick, the first option being in 2012 the year they fluked out and went to the finals so had the #29 pick. Instead of taking this as a gift and paying the penalty now they instead chose to use the 29 pick and drafted Stefan Matteau.

 

[Syckle78]

Why are canuck fans playing the victim? The league didn't do this to you louongo did. The only reason you're the only team that's gotten penalized is because all the other players had enough sense to go on ltir and not screw the team. So you can either blame Lou or blame the team for running him out of town.

 

[crowi]

I definitely don't like Vancouver, but like many others, it's just not reasonable to make a rule after approving deals like Luongo's or Weber's. I hope Vancouver gets out of it - it's the NHL after all.

 

[mouser]

It was legal, within the rules. This is completely on the NHL. If they had such a problem with it, they should have blocked the Luongo contract to begin with, similar to the Kovalchuk deal. They accepted it was "within the spirit of the CBA" at the time. To retroactively punish the teams who signed contracts (which the NHL approved!) FOUR years later is asinine. Zero blame should be placed on the teams. You're trying to be competitive, and you're going to use every advantage you can. Like I said, everything was above board. If the NHL thought they were playing dirty, they shouldn't have allowed it at the time.

Quite obviously the NHL didn't accept it was within the spirit of the rules or they wouldn't have instituted a cap recapture rule.

 

[KidLine93]

I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but why is the recapture hit higher if the player retires later rather than earlier?

I think it has to hit a total value. So say the number is 24 million in cap hit. It will be 24/#years left on contract. So if he retired with 2 years left the cap hit would be 12 million for 2 years. How they come up with this total value in the first place I’m not sure.

 

[TOGuy14]

I definitely don't like Vancouver, but like many others, it's just not reasonable to make a rule after approving deals like Luongo's or Weber's. I hope Vancouver gets out of it - it's the NHL after all.

It’s true. A rule shouldn’t go into place unless the teams sign off and agree to it in the CBA

Oh wait, Vancouver did that so what’s the problem again?

 

[deckercky]

I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but why is the recapture hit higher if the player retires later rather than earlier?

Because the drafters of the CBA are idiots who didn't think through the consequences of their decisions.

 

[Taylorst]

It's a ridiculous CBA. Look no further than the loophole Chicago and TB used to get out of the Hossa and Callahan cap hits.

Hossa was still a very productive player and I'm sure all those times when he sat during his tenure they called it maintenance issues.
Nobody knew it's very sad to a great player. Also the league had to determine that his allergic condition was a real problem.

Chicago has never fully recovered with the loss of hossa, that's how great of a player he was and what he meant to the team.

 

[Holymakinaw]

So some have been lambasting the Leafs(as usual) for giving up a 1st to get rid of a 6.25 million cap hit?

And Vancouver now has to pay 3+ million/per in cap penalty for the next three years?

Um.............lol.

 

[Taylorst]

It’s true. A rule shouldn’t go into place unless the teams sign off and agree to it in the CBA

Oh wait, Vancouver did that so what’s the problem again?

The rule was implemented many years after these contracts where signed and approved by the league.

All because a few owners cried like little kids.

It's these ridiculous move long after the fact that has fans disgusted at how each year it's another missed call in the playoffs or another excuse as to why the salary cap can't be raised or announced on time.

 

[Hobnobs]

This is why you shouldnt piss off a player and run him out of town. Wow, Luong really stuck it to the nucks ere

 

[lawrence]

How's that process work?

Jim benning biotching to the nhl which he does not have the balls to do.

 

[cowboy82nd]

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

Well Bud, it a FACT that the teams (Vancouver included) voted on this change!!!!!

P.S. And it's a FACT that they didn't have to match!!!!

 

[Langdon Alger]

The Canucks didn’t have to give Luongo that contract. Everyone knew there was a chance he would retire before his contract expired. Don’t sign guys in their thirties for more than 10 years. Same thing with the Hossa contract.

 

[HandshakeLineRespect]

Well Bud, it a FACT that the teams (Vancouver included) voted on this change!!!!!

P.S. And it's a FACT that they didn't have to match!!!!

Haha nice straw man argument buddy. Where did I say anything about teams voting on the change? And where did I make the argument that they had to match. Kids....smh.

 

[Blackjack]

Hossa was still a very productive player and I'm sure all those times when he sat during his tenure they called it maintenance issues.
Nobody knew it's very sad to a great player. Also the league had to determine that his allergic condition was a real problem.

Chicago has never fully recovered with the loss of hossa, that's how great of a player he was and what he meant to the team.

I have no criticism of Hossa or Callahan. I'm just pointing out the very obvious fact that the Blackhawks and the Lightning took advantage of a loophole in the CBA to get salary cap relief. If anyone is annoyed that their team had to trade a first round draft pick to get relief while other teams did not, they should be annoyed at the CBA, not Hossa or Callahan.

 

[DANTHEMAN1967]

Hossa was still a very productive player and I'm sure all those times when he sat during his tenure they called it maintenance issues.
Nobody knew it's very sad to a great player. Also the league had to determine that his allergic condition was a real problem.

Chicago has never fully recovered with the loss of hossa, that's how great of a player he was and what he meant to the team.

So I guess having Hossa in the lineup at an artificially low cap hit during their three Cup wins was pretty important?

He played 73 games, missing 9 games with injuries not a "rash". Then 6 weeks later, when his salary dropped from $4 million to $1 million, he was no longer able to play.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Haha nice straw man argument buddy. Where did I say anything about teams voting on the change? And where did I make the argument that they had to match. Kids....smh.

For one thing Bud, everything I posted was a fact. And what's with this straw man argument crap? What I basically said was, how can Vancouver be mad about something they voted for or agreed to? And for the record kid, I'm 53 years old.