Yeah, that seems wrong.

Here's how Friedman explains it:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/...-hurt-roberto-luongo.html

Here's Weber's bizarre salary:

http://www.capgeek.com/player/1042

I'm going to screw around on Excel and see if I can figure out what the cap punishment would be for retiring early, but I'd say there's about a 20% chance I get it right.
- Atomic Wedgie

Once you get that close to the end of the contract, it’s actually easier to just go the other way. Since it’s the amount of cap a team has saved, in relation to salary, if it were one year to the end of the contract, just take the last year of that contract, subtract it from the actual salary. The difference is the amount of cap saved through the life of the contract, to that point. So, with a $5.3M cap hit, and a $1M salary, you would expect to get hit with a $4.3M cap hit for that one year (Luongo).

You’ll notice that Luongo’s last 2 years were $1.6M and $1M. $2.6M in actual salary total. $10.6M in cap hit, roughly. So, just over $8M, or $4M a year. Note, the combined cap hit of Vancouver and Toronto, in the examples given, match exactly that (other than me using rough numbers here).

Mathematically, it would be impossible to ever have a cap hit from retirement bigger than the cap hit from playing.

a lot easier to see their individual contributions to their teams.

Luongo is billed as this mythical creature that will single handedly make the Leafs a playoff team.

Fun fact, with Luongo, Florida wasn't a playoff team.
Without Luongo, they still weren't(well, now they are, but I won't make a link there)

They finished in the same general area of the standings with and without Lu

Vancouver, before Luongo- was a playoff team.
Vancouver with Luongo- was a playoff team.

Their position in the standings, on average, didn't change much.


Neither team saw a drastic improvement or drop with/without Luongo, despite all his eliteness and winningnessness.

He's a very good goalie, yes. But when has he been *the* reason for a team to go far? Giggy was that twice. Brodeur's always been that. Hasek was that. CuJo and Belfour were that, Ward was that. Hell even Roloson's been that.

Can't say Vancouver made it to the finals because of Luongo.
- Feeling Glucky?

How many pres trohpies and appearances in the cup finals did vancouver have before Lou?
The florida teams he was on were absolutely horrible.

Once you get that close to the end of the contract, it’s actually easier to just go the other way. Since it’s the amount of cap a team has saved, in relation to salary, if it were one year to the end of the contract, just take the last year of that contract, subtract it from the actual salary. The difference is the amount of cap saved through the life of the contract, to that point. So, with a $5.3M cap hit, and a $1M salary, you would expect to get hit with a $4.3M cap hit for that one year (Luongo).

You’ll notice that Luongo’s last 2 years were $1.6M and $1M. $2.6M in actual salary total. $10.6M in cap hit, roughly. So, just over $8M, or $4M a year. Note, the combined cap hit of Vancouver and Toronto, in the examples given, match exactly that (other than me using rough numbers here).

Mathematically, it would be impossible to ever have a cap hit from retirement bigger than the cap hit from playing.
- prock

I think Friedman's explanation was a little off if it works out the way you're explaining it. Because the numbers get pretty wacky when you use his formula.

The way the rule is understood -- there is lots of confusion on it -- the closer your retirement is to the end of the contract, the higher the hit. If Luongo retires three years before end of contract the penalty is $2M/year. If he retires one year before, the hit for a single year is $6M. If Suter/parise leave 4 years early, penalty is almost $5/year each. If one year early, it is almost $20M each. Extend that to Weber leaving one year early and the penalty is $32.9M.

Math on Luongo and Wild comes from Fear the Fin

http://www.fearthefin.com...uongo-rule-makes-no-sense

Dan Tolensky applied that to Weber
- Canada Cup

I'm not reading that, because if it says Weber retiring one year early costs $33M, it's wrong.

They're charging the cap savings by a front loaded salary. They're "recapturing" those savings. By that point of a players career, due to the nature of how contracts were structured, they've already played a few years with salary below their cap hits. And in those instances, the "cap recapture" has naturally already been occuring.

Again, as I said in my last post, it's mathematically impossible to have a cap hit from retirement, with this clause, higher than the cap hit one would have from playing.

As somebody else pointed out, the worst case scenario isn't Luongo retiring and sticking us with the penalty.

The worst case scenario is Luongo's play dropping off in 3-4 years and leaving us on the hook for a $5.2 million back-up goalie for another 6 years.
- Leeman4Gilmour

That is a scenario that can play out with any star players.

Still a lot of questions about how that rule will really work. Mirtle has said he's going to wait till he gets more info because the descriptions don't make a lot of sense. For example, as it is described, Nashville would get a $30M cap hit if Weber retires one year early.
- Canada Cup

Probably late to the dance here ...but Mirtle's math is wrong. I think it'd be about a 6.5 milly hit though.

What if, what if.
By then if profits continue to rise, so will the cap.....it could be over 70 million.
Besides, Mac hasn't even been drafted let alone played an NHL game.
I doubt the 2 million would have an affect.
- Fakepartofme

projected cap at the end of the CBA is 90 million

I think Friedman's explanation was a little off if it works out the way you're explaining it. Because the numbers get pretty wacky when you use his formula.
- Leeman4Gilmour

There are some VERY interesting scenarios that can come into play with these, although, I’d have to read the section of the CBA very thoroughly to know if they apply.

One of the things I’m curious about, is if the cap savings recapture formula works on back-loaded contracts. Because then you’re opening the door to creating contracts where a team actually gets huge cap bonuses upon a player retirement.

That said, what player is going to retire on a contract where they’re in the midst of the highest salaries of that contract?

Nonetheless, there could be some incredibly interesting ways to play with this.

Again, what if Luongo doesn't retire early? We're focusing on this penalty (which is problem in its own right), but we're forgetting that he's signed for 10 more years at age 34.

Isn't the more terrifying scenario a 38 or 39 year old with 5 or 6 years left on his deal that can't play any better than a back-up? Oh, and he's a 5.2 million dollar hit.
- Leeman4Gilmour

Nah, not really....you or I are not paying the salary.

The Leafs will rue the day they take on Luongo's contract.

a lot easier to see their individual contributions to their teams.

Luongo is billed as this mythical creature that will single handedly make the Leafs a playoff team.

Fun fact, with Luongo, Florida wasn't a playoff team.
Without Luongo, they still weren't(well, now they are, but I won't make a link there)

They finished in the same general area of the standings with and without Lu

Vancouver, before Luongo- was a playoff team.
Vancouver with Luongo- was a playoff team.

Their position in the standings, on average, didn't change much.


Neither team saw a drastic improvement or drop with/without Luongo, despite all his eliteness and winningnessness.

He's a very good goalie, yes. But when has he been *the* reason for a team to go far? Giggy was that twice. Brodeur's always been that. Hasek was that. CuJo and Belfour were that, Ward was that. Hell even Roloson's been that.

Can't say Vancouver made it to the finals because of Luongo.
- Feeling Glucky?

fun fact. most of the above is just silly.

Again, what if Luongo doesn't retire early? We're focusing on this penalty (which is problem in its own right), but we're forgetting that he's signed for 10 more years at age 34.

Isn't the more terrifying scenario a 38 or 39 year old with 5 or 6 years left on his deal that can't play any better than a back-up? Oh, and he's a 5.2 million dollar hit.
- Leeman4Gilmour

This is EXACTLY what I don't get. How the (frank) does Gillis think that he can "make a hockey deal" given the associated risk with Luongo.

Furthermore, how can Canucks fans even begin to justify Luongo? I get it, the Leafs need to get back into the playoffs, but NOT AT THIS RISK AND EXPENSE?

The Leafs will rue the day they take on Luongo's contract.
- triggermartin

Amen sister.

I 100% endorse this message like it was my own child. Not right away, but there will be a'plenty of years worth of rueage. If Kadri or Gards goin the deal, the rueing will begin sooner.

The Leafs will rue the day they take on Luongo's contract.
- triggermartin

so foreboding and kreskinesque.

This is EXACTLY what I don't get. How the (frank) does Gillis think that he can "make a hockey deal" given the associated risk with Luongo.

Furthermore, how can Canucks fans even begin to justify Luongo? I get it, the Leafs need to get back into the playoffs, but NOT AT THIS RISK AND EXPENSE?
- As_I_See_It

Its simply, buddy.

They were dumb enough to hand these contracts out, they will be dumb enough to take them on. (They as in GMs)

People put so much value into a prospects stock because of the WJC

Nah, not really....you or I are not paying the salary.
- Fakepartofme

I couldn't care less about his salary. But as a fan, I'd prefer not to have a 40 year old back up goalie with a cap hit of 5.2 million dollars and 4 years left on it.

Sam Gagner on the leafs is a dream scenario
40 point smallish Sam Gagner as a #1 Center??

Might as well keep Conolol
and give up Kulemin for him

bring back jimmy_tea, at least he was entertaining

Amen sister.

I 100% endorse this message like it was my own child. Not right away, but there will be a'plenty of years worth of rueage. If Kadri or Gards goin the deal, the rueing will begin sooner.
- systemtool

If you think Gards will be in the deal.....you are foolish

Amen sister.

I 100% endorse this message like it was my own child. Not right away, but there will be a'plenty of years worth of rueage. If Kadri or Gards goin the deal, the rueing will begin sooner.
- systemtool

see, this is were it gets goofy around here....do you really think Burke would trade Gardiner for Luongo?
as I said earlier, what trades have either Nonis OR Burke, made besides possibly the Kessel deal, that would make you think Gardiner would be traded for Luongo?

How many pres trohpies and appearances in the cup finals did vancouver have before Lou?
The florida teams he was on were absolutely horrible.
- Fakepartofme

5 Years after acquiring Luongo, they won the President's trophy. See, that's not what you'd call a rapid/drastic improvement. And it probably had more to do with two of their top players becoming 100+ point guys.

People put so much value into a prospects stock because of the WJC
- peddy-93

So you wouldn't draft Marko Dano first overall?

David Pollak ‏@PollakOnSharks

We all make 'em, but this one's a doozy via Toronto Star: Sharks GM Dean Lombardi is looking at hard decisions on Thornton, Marleau

Sam Gagner on the leafs is a dream scenario
40 point smallish Sam Gagner as a #1 Center??

Might as well keep Conolol
and give up Kulemin for him

bring back jimmy_tea, at least he was entertaining
- senstroll

Jimmy was here for a little bit as Aquaman

fun fact. most of the above is just silly.
- Barx

You say that every time I point out how you're wrong. Maybe if you started taking it seriously you would stop being wrong?