these trade ideas are making me very relieved Milbury is no longer the Isles GM.

Can't afford to take the chance and lose. Let's say we keep Luongo, trade Schneider, and Luongo decides to retire one year early. We get dinged with a $14,333,333 cap hit that season.
- DrChristianTroy

So, go on a one season rebuild that year. no biggie. The Sedins will be moved that year (if they're still playing), so will Kesler, it'll suck for a year or two, but not a big deal really.

Wow. Philly really (frank)ed over the Preds. I wonder what their owners were thinking when they saw the details of that offer sheet.
- Nucker101

yeah that was an attempt to sign a player at the expense of bankrupting a franchise if they didn't get him. Just an ugly contract.

Yup. Any team that's used term to circumvent the cap will get dinged HUGE. Weber (for example), if he stays in Nashville & decides to retire just one year early, the Predators will have to deal with a $32,857,143 recapture cap hit penalty.


Not sure how the NHL intends on dealing with that...
- DrChristianTroy

That will have to be dealt with some how. How could Nashville even ice a team with a 32 million cap hit for one retired player?

Yup. Any team that's used term to circumvent the cap will get dinged HUGE. Weber (for example), if he stays in Nashville & decides to retire just one year early, the Predators will have to deal with a $32,857,143 recapture cap hit penalty.



Not sure how the NHL intends on dealing with that...
- DrChristianTroy

Worst case scenario for the Canucks is Lu retiring after the 2017/18 season, which is when his actual salary drops below the cap hit. Same goes for for Nashville, after 17/18 Weber drops below his $7.857 cap hit and the recapture penalty is at the maximum. From this point forward both teams start to claw back some of the penalty, albeit they get to amortize the payment over fewer years.

It is going to be very difficult to enforce penalties on contracts signed before this new CBA.

I don't think the final wording as been agreed to yet.

XxstopthisbullpoopxX
- A_SteamingLombardi

To my knowledge it has effective as of January 12, 2013 when it was signed by both the Union and owners.

Xxkeaner17 xX

Worst case scenario for the Canucks is Lu retiring after the 2017/18 season, which is when his actual salary drops below the cap hit. Same goes for for Nashville, after 17/18 Weber drops below his $7.857 cap hit and the recapture penalty is at the maximum. From this point forward both teams start to claw back some of the penalty, albeit they get to amortize the payment over fewer years.
- 1970vintage

Not sure which one of us is interpreting it wrong, but I know that the recapture calculator on capgeek is on my side.

So, go on a one season rebuild that year. no biggie. The Sedins will be moved that year (if they're still playing), so will Kesler, it'll suck for a year or two, but not a big deal really.
- mykokes

I agree with DCT, what if the Canucks by that point have built a team similar to Chicago, with tons of skill and youth, and managed their cap responsibly? All of a sudden they have to move a critical piece or more to field a team but now because their GM from almost a decade ago didn't do the right thing they have to lose an asset or assets that could help them win a cup? I'd be outraged as a fan. Taking a contending team and dumping assets is not something that's pleasant.

This summer is going to be hell for Vancouver.

It is going to be very difficult to enforce penalties on contracts signed before this new CBA.
- golfingsince

not if it's been written into the CBA and both sides agreed to it.

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

no no no... IF there is a trade for Lou it would have to involve DP.. what Im saying is that even with the amnesty buyouts, its very doubtful that Wang will use it on DP's contract.
Im not in the same boat as my fellow NYI posters, I realize that DP for Lou is pretty much a wash contract wise.
Van fans seem to think we are in need or want to get rid of DP's contract, we as fans dont care & Wang is happy with things the way they are.
I the major arguments here are Vanc fans thinking the contrary & thinking we will want/have to pay up to make it happen.

No DP will not be seriously competing for the starting job, But again that doesn't mean the isles are looking to trade key prospects to rid them selfs of him. Honestly one more injury and the INS kicks in, he retires & Wang doesnt owe him anything & its not a cap hit.

XxNYIxX

no no no... IF there is a trade for Lou it would have to involve DP.. what Im saying is that even with the amnesty buyouts, its very doubtful that Wang will use it on DP's contract.
Im not in the same boat as my fellow NYI posters, I realize that DP for Lou is pretty much a wash contract wise.
Van fans seem to think we are in need or want to get rid of DP's contract, we as fans dont care & Wang is happy with things the way they are.
I the major arguments here are Vanc fans thinking the contrary & thinking we will want/have to pay up to make it happen.

No DP will not be seriously competing for the starting job, But again that doesn't mean the isles are looking to trade key prospects to rid them selfs of him. Honestly one more injury and the INS kicks in, he retires & Wang doesnt owe him anything & its not a cap hit.
XxNYIxX
- XxNYIxX

we should be having someone on the way to take care of that right now if we were real fans.

Not sure which one of us is interpreting it wrong, but I know that the recapture calculator on capgeek is on my side.
- DrChristianTroy

It would be true if the players were traded. If Lu gets traded after the 17/18 season the Canucks would be on the hook for the entire benefit of the "illegal" contract. After that point the benefit becomes a cost, and it all starts to balance out until the contract is fulfilled. What the new CBA does say is that a team does not get a cap bonus for acquiring a player on the back end of one of these "illegal" contracts. So, for instance, If a team, say the Flyers, acquired Luongo after 2017/18 and then Lu retired one year later, they don't get the $1.7 or so million back the next year (because Lu was getting $3.6m and cap hit was $5.3m)

I agree with DCT, what if the Canucks by that point have built a team similar to Chicago, with tons of skill and youth, and managed their cap responsibly? All of a sudden they have to move a critical piece or more to field a team but now because their GM from almost a decade ago didn't do the right thing they have to lose an asset or assets that could help them win a cup? I'd be outraged as a fan. Taking a contending team and dumping assets is not something that's pleasant.

This summer is going to be hell for Vancouver.
- Isles_since_6

Thats four years from now. Chicago took at least 5 to do it. The Pens 5 or 6. So if you ask me, its actually timed perfectly. Guys like Kesler, Burrows and everyone else better be moved then too. Then they could use the Luongo cap hit to their advantage and really tank. Like I said, it'll suck for a year or two, but the nucks will be better off for it.

not if it's been written into the CBA and both sides agreed to it.
- Isles_since_6

These contracts were approved before the new CBA, and why would teams agree to this knowing it will effect them in the future. I think all these teams know it wont be enforced.

Thats four years from now. Chicago took at least 5 to do it. The Pens 5 or 6. So if you ask me, its actually timed perfectly.
- mykokes

Yo Doc Brown,

The 2021 off season is 8 years from now.

Yup. Any team that's used term to circumvent the cap will get dinged HUGE. Weber (for example), if he stays in Nashville & decides to retire just one year early, the Predators will have to deal with a $32,857,143 recapture cap hit penalty.



Not sure how the NHL intends on dealing with that...
- DrChristianTroy

Most likely by grandfathering all contracts signed before the new CBA. I just can't see the scenario you paint above ever coming to pass.

not if it's been written into the CBA and both sides agreed to it.
- Isles_since_6

I doubt the league will risk losing franchises over the rule, such as the Weber situation. Also, there are probably loopholes such as LTIR.

Yo Doc Brown,

The 2021 off season is 8 years from now.
- DrChristianTroy

Was refering to the worst case scenerio.

Just trade Schneider and keep Lu FFS Gillis!
- LeftCoaster

No offence LC, but anybody who wants this, or thinks it's a reasonable option needs their meds.

The bridges are burned to dust. You don't keep players on the team who don't want to be there.

Most likely by grandfathering all contracts signed before the new CBA. I just can't see the scenario you paint above ever coming to pass.
- AlexF

Well that's comforting.

The bottom line is - as of today, that's how it'd be dealt with... and the issue may not be properly resolved by the time Gillis has to make his decision.

not if it's been written into the CBA and both sides agreed to it.
- Isles_since_6

Writing something into a collective bargaining agreement does not make it legal, even if both sides agree to it. If the supreme court finds that the NHL CBA violates US labor law it will be overturned. I'm not saying that it does, only that because two sides agreed to it does not make it "Legal".

I doubt the league will risk losing franchises over the rule, such as the Weber situation. Also, there are probably loopholes such as LTIR.
- golfingsince

I would hope as well they wouldn't allow that, especially in the nashville situation where philly totally screwed them. I imagine by the time we know if this will be an actual enforced situation it'll be at least 5-6 years from now.

No offence LC, but anybody who wants this, or thinks it's a reasonable option needs their meds.

The bridges are burned to dust. You don't keep players on the team who don't want to be there.
- Fosco

Trade them both and go with Lack

Writing something into a collective bargaining agreement does not make it legal, even if both sides agree to it. If the supreme court finds that the NHL CBA violates US labor law it will be overturned. I'm not saying that it does, only that because two sides agreed to it does not make it "Legal".
- 1970vintage

someone would have to take it there, neither the league nor the players have shown a willingness to go to the courts, at least for anything past "show"

that being said, like my response just a few minutes ago, I would hope it wouldn't be enforced if it meant a team had to pay for their GM's mistake or another team's offer sheet from years prior.