NHL Off-Season Thread 2010

[snoopy369]

Only the NHL could screw up salary caps that badly. I mean, sure, the NBA has some ... abusable ... elements. But not even thinking to institute a no-salary-decrease element?

[Asher]

Luongo's 12-year contract is now under investigation. Ruh oh.

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Luongo+year+contract+deal+under+investigation/3378778/story.html

[-Jrabbit]

The Hossa deal, too.

[snoopy369]

Not a big shock, but I wonder if they can really justify arguing with contracts that are over a year old?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd be fine with that. Nix the deal and get Luongo for less this year and cheaper too.

[-Jrabbit]

You think they will reward the teams who did these gimmick contracts with a lower cap number?

[snoopy369]

All they can do (if they can do that) is void the contracts, and perhaps penalize the teams with fines or perhaps lost draft picks (according to the vancouver link above). So in that sense, if Luongo would agree to a shorter contract at a lower cap hit, then perhaps they would get a lower cap number - but that seems unlikely.

[Ben Kenobi]

So in that sense, if Luongo would agree to a shorter contract at a lower cap hit, then perhaps they would get a lower cap number - but that seems unlikely.

I don't see why. What they did was legit at the time. All the league can do is void the contract, they can't impose retroactive penalties. The only team that will get penalised are the Devils.

If the contract is voided, then the Canucks de facto have a lower cap hit. Then they have to resign Luongo.

Besides there are other 10 year contracts.

[notyoueither]

I don't think any team with a current deal will be penalised.

No doubt there is a memo circulating around the league that the same may not be true in future.

The league needed to establish that these sorts of retirement contracts with throw-away years at the end (tails) are circumvention. Now they will not have to lay the smack-down, because a GM would have to be insane to try to continue using the same closed loophole.

The reason they may wish to go back and look at existing contracts is because they may have felt they needed to wait for an egregious example in order to win in arbitration. They let the Kipprusoff contract go, then Hossa, Luongo, Savard, et al. Kovalchuk's seems tailor-made for the league to win in arbitration. I'm not shocked that it was New Jersey that cooked it up.

[Asher]

All they can do (if they can do that) is void the contracts, and perhaps penalize the teams with fines or perhaps lost draft picks (according to the vancouver link above). So in that sense, if Luongo would agree to a shorter contract at a lower cap hit, then perhaps they would get a lower cap number - but that seems unlikely.

What are you and Ben smoking? I know you said "if", but still.

The reason Luongo's cap hit is so "low" ($5.8M) is because of the contract tomfoolery. Forcing him to renegotiate will just means he'll likely end up with a higher cap hit on a shorter term (6.5-7mil/year over 6 years instead of 5.8mil/year over 12).

[snoopy369]

I am not smoking anything. Ben was suggesting, I believe, that Luongo might accept a lesser contract (ie, for less money per year, even after you take into account the tomfoolery). I find that highly unlikely, but it's not technically impossible.

[Ben Kenobi]

The reason Luongo's cap hit is so "low" ($5.8M) is because of the contract tomfoolery. Forcing him to renegotiate will just means he'll likely end up with a higher cap hit on a shorter term (6.5-7mil/year over 6 years instead of 5.8mil/year over 12).

There's as many possibilities as contracts. I don't know what Gillis plans, he could offer Luongo 5.8 plus extra performance bonuses.

[Asher]

Performance bonuses count towards the cap if hit. Given Luongo's performances as of late, I doubt he'd be eager to sign up for those.

Luongo's the only game in town in Vancouver and it's too late to find another starting goaltender for next season. He's got Gillis by the balls if the contract is voided.

[Ben Kenobi]

Performance bonuses count towards the cap if hit. Given Luongo's performances as of late, I doubt he'd be eager to sign up for those.

Given that he was willing to sign a 12 year contract, I really don't see him all that inclined to go elsewhere.

Luongo's the only game in town in Vancouver and it's too late to find another starting goaltender for next season. He's got Gillis by the balls if the contract is voided.

Those statements are contradictory. If he really didn't contribute all that much to the team last year, he has zero leverage.

The Canucks did fine without him. They've got nhl calibre goaltenders on the farm. This is Luongo's best chance at a cup.

[Asher]

Given that he was willing to sign a 12 year contract, I really don't see him all that inclined to go elsewhere.

Of course he'd sign a 12-year contract for that kind of money. ****, $10M alone next year.

He's not doing it for the love of the city, he's doing it for the guaranteed money.

Those statements are contradictory.

No.