That's what I figured. You could probably get a lot for Schneider
- Vukota

I would have traded Schneider at the deadline two years ago for the cup run. Now, if they trade Schneider they will still need to trade Luongo, I just don't think there is a way to get him back.

David Perron. He was 17th on Mackenzie's board. Plante wasn't even in the 1st round.
- golfingsince

Fair enough.

again, where did Bob Mackenzie say you were getting anything other than DP for Luongo? All these young prospects you guys are adding in are coming from you.
- Isles_since_6

DiPietro was the pill that Vancouver would have to swallow in order to move Luongo, but a top prospect(s) was the price that NYI had to pay to rid themselves of their terrible contract.

Not sure where the Strome comment came from but this entire conversation kicked off after a series of Bob Mackenzie tweets yesterday stating that Isles would have interest in Lu. I realize you think we're all crazy for even contemplating that Mackenzie might actually know something more than we in our esteemed HB forums do but maybe you should direct your outrage to him.
- AlexF

The silly thing out of all of this was that Mackenzie, who is normally accurate, had no reason to tweet that other than stoking a few extra twitter hits. Anyone who has seen how the Isles front office has operated during our 'rebuild' would know that the idea of taking on another DP-type contract won't happen.
I seriously doubt that ANY team is likely to take on Lou's contract when they know he's only a couple of months away from an amnesty buyout. DP himself may face that same end.
We've had a few nucks fans on our board suggesting our 1st rdr, Strome and DP for Lou...
Another mentions Nino. Why on earth would we offer up top six forwards to take on a contract that's going to have a $5.3 mil cap hit when the guy is 43 when we have several long term answers at the position in the fold already and a ton of UFA's over the next two years?'

I do hope you guys find a decent solution, but I honsetly can't see anything but the amnesty buyout in your future at this point. Afterall, if Lou retires at 38, you guys get stuck with the remainder of his contract regardless of where he's traded to. To me, that's simply too risky.

Xxkeaner17xX

Honest question. Do you think they would go into next year with both goalies on the team? If so, do you think it will be a distraction. Was it a distraction this year?
- Vukota

Not a chance.

DiPietro was the pill that Vancouver would have to swallow in order to move Luongo, but a top prospect(s) was the price that NYI had to pay to rid themselves of their terrible contract.
- 1970vintage

but Wang is in no hurry to get rid of said terrible contract, if he was really stubborn.. DP would still be our starter... thankfully he is only slightly stubborn


XxNYIxX

IF recapture isn't successfully challenged, Luongo has to be bought out. There's NO OTHER OPTION.

IF recapture isn't successfully challenged, Luongo has to be bought out. There's NO OTHER OPTION.
- DrChristianTroy

There are always other options.



EDIT, I think this would actually be more appropriate...

but Wang is in no hurry to get rid of said terrible contract, if he was really stubborn.. DP would still be our starter... thankfully he is only slightly stubborn


XxNYIxX
- XxNYIxX

Hey, it wasn't my scenario, that was what the respected member of the media suggested yesterday. Not that it was a likely thing to happen, but that in order for the NYI to acquire Lu they would be looking to rid themselves of some wasted salary, and perhaps the Canucks would be willing to use a compliance buy out on said player.

I'm not sure why you think Wang is in no hurry to rid himself of this contract. Do you believe that DiPietro will challenge for the starting position this September?

So which one of you was aquaman? You made our lives (Leaf posters) a living hell for quite awhile there.

There are always other options.



EDIT, I think this would actually be more appropriate...


- 1970vintage

I never noticed how breastless Tonya Harding was before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

There are always other options.



EDIT, I think this would actually be more appropriate...


- 1970vintage

"Hey Lou"
"What?"

"Hey Lou"
"What?"

- keaner17

you sick bastards... None of this changes the recapture penalty. You whack Luongo tomorrow and we still have an annual cap hit penalty of $825,556 until 2022.

"Hey Lou"
"What?"

- keaner17

This guy would make Lu disappear and be happy about it.

you sick bastards... None of this changes the recapture penalty. You whack Luongo tomorrow and we still have an annual cap hit penalty of $825,556 until 2022.
- DrChristianTroy

Are you sure? The recapture penalty is based on a player retiring early and not fulfilling his contract. If he is maimed in an accident, or sustains a career ending injury, I bet the NHL would not be able to enforce it.

EDIT- and, even if it was, it's still a net savings of $4,504,444 over the next 9 years on the cap...

Hey, it wasn't my scenario, that was what the respected member of the media suggested yesterday. Not that it was a likely thing to happen, but that in order for the NYI to acquire Lu they would be looking to rid themselves of some wasted salary, and perhaps the Canucks would be willing to use a compliance buy out on said player.

I'm not sure why you think Wang is in no hurry to rid himself of this contract. Do you believe that DiPietro will challenge for the starting position this September?
- 1970vintage

I honestly think they buyout DP or he will spend the rest of his career in the AHL. He is no longer in their plans. That was made pretty clear this past season.

This guy would make Lu disappear and be happy about it.


- 1970vintage

So would this one...and residual mess

This guy would make Lu disappear and be happy about it.


- 1970vintage

Twitter just wouldn't be the same without Lu in it.

Are you sure? The recapture penalty is based on a player retiring early and not fulfilling his contract. If he is maimed in an accident, or sustains a career ending injury, I bet the NHL would not be able to enforce it.
- 1970vintage

Actually I think they'd still get hit with it..

Per CBA:
All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term

They didn't enter language allowing for injury on purpose. Those contracts come with risk and the purpose of this rule was to kill those contracts.

Xxkeaner17xX

I honestly think they buyout DP or he will spend the rest of his career in the AHL. He is no longer in their plans. That was made pretty clear this past season.
- Vukota

If I were the NYI, I wouldn't buy out DiPietro, I'd make him play in the AHL and earn his $4.5 million dollar pay cheque. Hell, they could even ask him for permission to send him to the ECHL, he'd be the richest guy riding a bus. They would also get $3.6m in cap bonus to get up to the floor over the next several season.

If I were the NYI, I wouldn't buy out DiPietro, I'd make him play in the AHL and earn his $4.5 million dollar pay cheque. Hell, they could even ask him for permission to send him to the ECHL, he'd be the richest guy riding a bus. They would also get $3.6m in cap bonus to get up to the floor over the next several season.
- 1970vintage

With them moving in a season or two they are gonna be spending more money and the days of scraping just to get to the floor are gonna end. Not saying they are gonna spend to the top but they won't be using bogus cap hits etc etc to just reach the floor much longer. Its funny you mentioned the ECHL because the other day I was wondering if they could just send him there to finish his career so he doesn't take away from the prospects playing time in the AHL. Do they need the players permission to be sent there?

Just buy that greasy (frank)er out!



XxNucker101xX

Actually I think they'd still get hit with it..

Per CBA:
All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term

They didn't enter language allowing for injury on purpose. Those contracts come with risk and the purpose of this rule was to kill those contracts.

Xxkeaner17xX
- keaner17

Yup, the recaputure is meant to counteract the cap hit circumvention benefit the team received while the player was active with that team... If that makes any sense.

Actually I think they'd still get hit with it..

Per CBA:
All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term

They didn't enter language allowing for injury on purpose. Those contracts come with risk and the purpose of this rule was to kill those contracts.

Xxkeaner17xX
- keaner17

Yeah, I'm still not convinced this will stick. I bet teams start to challenge this down the road. "Rich" teams always seem to find a way to spend more than they are allowed.

With them moving in a season or two they are gonna be spending more money and the days of scraping just to get to the floor are gonna end. Not saying they are gonna spend to the top but they won't be using bogus cap hits etc etc to just reach the floor much longer. Its funny you mentioned the ECHL because the other day I was wondering if they could just send him there to finish his career so he doesn't take away from the prospects playing time in the AHL. Do they need the players permission to be sent there?
- Vukota

Good question since I believe his one way contract allows only for him to be either in the AHL or NHL. I don't think they can.

Xxkeaner17xX