Speculation: Roberto Luongo might be retiring - will we be subject to a recapture penalty?

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,950
13,920
Totally. This recapture penalty is just another reason we need a smarter GM who doesnt waste cap space on stupid long term contracts for average to bad players.

The reasons to fire Bennng, and get an experienced (and intelligent) GM in here is bloody mountain high. From his first mistake (drafting Virtanen) to this Luongo coming Cap crunch, and all the terrible trades, signings, and blown picks in between, Benning has got to go! Darn it! Iwamt us to have a first rate President and a first rate GM! Oh, and a top notch head coach, with proper assistants would be nice too.
 

m9

m9
Sponsor
Jan 23, 2010
25,107
15,229
I always get embarrassed by some Canuck fans and their victim mentality when it comes to the refs, the league, the lottery, Bettman, or whoever being "unfair" to them.

This is the exception. Total BS by the NHL to put in a rule and hold previous contracts to the new standard.
 
Last edited:

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,591
9,425
I always get embarrassed by some Canuck fans and their victim mentality when it comes to the refs, the league, the lottery, Bettman, or whoever being "unfair" to them.

This is the exception. Total BS by the NHL to put in a rule and hold previous contracts to the new standard.
What should happen to all of these long term deals? You take $5.33 cap hit while he gets paid closer to $7 million his whole career only to see that cap hit disappear in the final 3 years?

Up to this year he’s made $60.4 million over 9 years for an average of $6.7 million. All this headache and worry for $1.4 million in annual cap savings? Structure of his deal was $10 million in year 1 them 7 years at $6.7. If it wa straight $7.125 mill that would drop the Canucks balance to like $5.5 million to cover.
 

PhilMick

Formerly PRNuck
May 20, 2009
10,817
364
Calgary
Until it's proven otherwise, I'm choosing to believe that Lu is a good dude and wouldn't do that to the Canucks.
 

m9

m9
Sponsor
Jan 23, 2010
25,107
15,229
What should happen to all of these long term deals? You take $5.33 cap hit while he gets paid closer to $7 million his whole career only to see that cap hit disappear in the final 3 years?

Up to this year he’s made $60.4 million over 9 years for an average of $6.7 million. All this headache and worry for $1.4 million in annual cap savings? Structure of his deal was $10 million in year 1 them 7 years at $6.7. If it wa straight $7.125 mill that would drop the Canucks balance to like $5.5 million to cover.

The rule is fine, it just shouldn't apply to contracts that were already signed prior.
 

Fire Benning

diaper filled piss baby
Oct 2, 2016
6,970
8,252
Hell
This has already been discussed a million times but no there won't be any issues with this. Players don't legitimately retire in the middle of their contracts, Florida will put him on LTIR and he will stay there until his contract is up, and he has hip problems anyway so there's your reason for him to be put on LTIR.

I'm not worried about it at all. Even if they did get a recapture penalty it's garbage that it retroactively applies to contracts that were signed during the old agreement, should be able to appeal to the league or something like that in that case, that's another story though and again I doubt it will get to that point anyway.
 
Last edited:

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,584
15,946
Well ownership/management sat by idly while their coach went scorched earth for the Heritage Classic.

someday i'm sure it'll come out that torts was ordered to do that. why?

why not? has there been a reason for anything that's happened since 2011?
 

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
The rule is fine, it just shouldn't apply to contracts that were already signed prior.

The rule isn't fine if only because it's inelegantly setup in a way that specifically punishes the teams that trade their long term contract player a disproportionate amount. If Luongo retires now then there's no issue, but if he retires in the final year that's a $1.0M actual salary vs a $5.33M cap hit so the Canucks should only be hit with a $4.33M cap recapture penalty.

The only other team who should be in danger of this flaw is Nashville with Weber, where they have it even worse, but any time it gets brought up the fans seem confident that Poile had worked it out with the league already so it wouldn't effect them - since the Weber contract was an offer sheet from Philly that they only matched. I would say that's fine but technically it's not in the rules so it would be complete bullshit if they punish us here while having a side deal to let Nashville off the hook.
 

m9

m9
Sponsor
Jan 23, 2010
25,107
15,229
The rule isn't fine if only because it's inelegantly setup in a way that specifically punishes the teams that trade their long term contract player a disproportionate amount. If Luongo retires now then there's no issue, but if he retires in the final year that's a $1.0M actual salary vs a $5.33M cap hit so the Canucks should only be hit with a $4.33M cap recapture penalty.

The only other team who should be in danger of this flaw is Nashville with Weber, where they have it even worse, but any time it gets brought up the fans seem confident that Poile had worked it out with the league already so it wouldn't effect them - since the Weber contract was an offer sheet from Philly that they only matched. I would say that's fine but technically it's not in the rules so it would be complete bull**** if they punish us here while having a side deal to let Nashville off the hook.

Weber's contract was signed before the new rule too. That's my whole point - the rule is fine and has obviously worked for future contracts, it was just extremely unfair to apply it to previously signed deals.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,591
9,425
Weber's contract was signed before the new rule too. That's my whole point - the rule is fine and has obviously worked for future contracts, it was just extremely unfair to apply it to previously signed deals.
Nhl capped contract terms in the current cba to 8 years. Stupid thing is that they arbitrarily picked deals over 6 years so when Kilper walked out on his final year of his 6 year deal Calgary didn’t take a hit.

Principle should be like the nfl, any cash paid should hit the cap regardless of term of contract.
 

xtra

Registered User
May 19, 2002
8,323
4,765
Vancouver
Visit site
Nhl capped contract terms in the current cba to 8 years. Stupid thing is that they arbitrarily picked deals over 6 years so when Kilper walked out on his final year of his 6 year deal Calgary didn’t take a hit.

Principle should be like the nfl, any cash paid should hit the cap regardless of term of contract.

I like that idea but it’s changes a lot of things and teams would need to plan for it.

Well except ours because they don’t understand how the the cap works anyway
 

xtra

Registered User
May 19, 2002
8,323
4,765
Vancouver
Visit site
Also who bets if it does happen this year or next and we get hit with the cap penalty that benning and the benning bros are like- oh no one could have seen it coming
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Also who bets if it does happen this year or next and we get hit with the cap penalty that benning and the benning bros are like- oh no one could have seen it coming
All the canucks have to do is trade a "future considerations" for Luongo then waive him, tell him to go "retire" on a beach in Florida or assign him to a Poker League. $4.3m cap hit each year remaining. That is the absolute worst that should happen.
 

Pure West

Registered User
Oct 3, 2005
1,964
230
Vancouver
I’m pretty confident he will go on the LTIR.

Firstly because he gets his money and gets insurance protection.

It's some money, but not a ton relative to what he's made previously. And Florida has to want to do it. They could easily strong-arm him and waive him to force him to either accept a trade or retire. Particularly if the rumours of them pushing for Bobrovsky and Panarin are true. Florida's cap recapture penalty if he retires isn't that significant, and they get out of actually paying his salary.

Secondly because the NHL has shown to not look too much into these things and just let these contracts die out.

I'd like to believe this, but the teams that have done it are Detroit and Chicago, and to a lesser extent the Flyers with Pronger. The league's big powerbrokers. Would it be beyond the NHL to enforce the rules only after getting gamed a few times, then finally enforcing the more flagrant one? The NHL warned, but allowed the Zetterberg, Hossa and Luongo contracts, but drew the line at the more flagrant abuse in the Kovalchuk contract. What happens if they try to say its a hip issue, then the following year he gets a physical and his hip is fine? What if Luongo says something on twitter that tips them off? If they rub it in their face that they're abusing the LTIR to escape this penalty that the league was salivating over implementing, perhaps thats the final straw.

Thirdly because Florida can do the Canucks a favor without costing them any assets. They will gain good will with the organization which they can use in the future.

Or Florida can use this as leverage in a trade negotiation.
 

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,748
7,685
West Coast
The only way this is not a issue for Vancouver is if they put him on LTIR. with what is his injury? do you think the league would not investigate?

Truly poetic if the leagud would let the leafs get away with it with Lupul but would suddenly start caring when it comes to f***ing the canucks.
 

Blue and Green

Out to lunch
Dec 17, 2017
3,411
3,360
Truly poetic if the leagud would let the leafs get away with it with Lupul but would suddenly start caring when it comes to ****ing the canucks.

Joffrey Lupul failed a physical administered by a doctor chosen by the NHL.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,043
14,072
But guess is that Strombone 1 ends up on LTIR much like Chris Pronger, who provided cap relief for years after he'd unofficially quit. This would be the best solution for both the Panthers and the Canucks.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
There is no logical reason for the league to care about this. Gillis isn't the gm anymore. Who are they even punishing? And why? Putting Luongo on LTIR for some lingering issue (that literally any 40 yo hockey player would have) and letting him collect a few million bucks while he plays Xbox in Florida is win win win for everyone involved. I see no benefit to anyone for doing anything else.
 

Peen

Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
Oct 6, 2013
29,639
24,983
This penalty should be rescinded.

It's dumb.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->