The Luongo farewell tour

[Whalers Fan]

The cap recapture penalty has to be the dumbest thing Bettman has been involved with.

- It punishes what was a legal trade at the time after the fact
- It makes a team pay for a player they no longer have under contract
- They could be forced to pay far more than what the player's salary currently is
- If the player retires later and closer to when he was supposed to, the team is punished more
- It is an overly complicated mess compared to the obvious solution of just putting in a rule from then on that contracts can't decline by that much, and saying c'est la vie to the to the Luongo type deals that got away with it

This is the point that I always thought completely defies logic with the recapture penalty. How does it make sense to punish a team more when the player comes closer to completing a contract you believe to be a salary cap circumvention? After all, the longer a player is active, the less obvious the salary cap circumvention.

 

[Ratsreign]

This is the point that I always thought completely defies logic with the recapture penalty. How does it make sense to punish a team more when the player comes closer to completing a contract you believe to be a salary cap circumvention? After all, the longer a player is active, the less obvious the salary cap circumvention.

Isn't the cap recapture $ amount the same? The only difference for Vancouver is whether it's spread out over multiple seasons?
($8 mil in the last year, or $4 mil each of the last two years of the contract term).

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

It sets a precedent. In the future, a sharp capologist is bound to find a way to circumvent the cap. If teams know that the nhl can introduce a rule which punishes these strategies, they will be less inclined to do so.

If you put limits on how much a contract can have raises or decreases year to year, it's not that hard to create an uncircumvented cap

 

[Seanaconda]

This is the point that I always thought completely defies logic with the recapture penalty. How does it make sense to punish a team more when the player comes closer to completing a contract you believe to be a salary cap circumvention? After all, the longer a player is active, the less obvious the salary cap circumvention.

If a team keeps the player it does go down

 

[Field of Dreams]

If you put limits on how much a contract can have raises or decreases year to year, it's not that hard to create an uncircumvented cap

The ability for a team to structure progressive/regressive salary structures is a critical tool for small market/growth market teams to be more flexible with cash flows. We have to keep in mind that revenues are highly correlated with consumer spending as well as team performance; niether of which are predictable. For instance, when times are tough in Ottawa, Melnyk can back load a contract, and after a couple years they can trade that contract for a front loaded contract that is a couple years old. Ottawa Senators stay in business, and the other team presumably acquires the premium asset - win/win.

 

[53or8]

The biggest Luongo moment for me is when he gives up the series clinching goal to Scott Niedermayer in 2007. Thanks Luongo

If a penalty was called then it might have gone the other way

 

[Anaheim4ever]

If a penalty was called then it might have gone the other way

Yep, i'm thinking Rob Niedermayer gets a suspension for the head hit on Hansen in todays NHL.
Pronger had 2 suspensions in the playoffs, in todays NHL he likely would have been suspended for the whole playoffs after being suspended twice in the playoffs.

 

[53or8]

Yep, i'm thinking Rob Niedermayer gets a suspension for the head hit on Hansen in todays NHL.
Pronger had 2 suspensions in the playoffs, in todays NHL he likely would have been suspended for the whole playoffs after being suspended twice in the playoffs.

That team was freaking stacked how many HOF players on that team like 7or8