I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to clarify. There seems to be some misunderstanding of how it works by some in this thread.

Your second paragraph here is precisely why I think it's relevant. Some are saying the cap hit counts against the team. But, since you're allowed to go over by the amount of the bonuses, they come off the salary when they're not earned, and they're very difficult to earn very much of them, it isn't much different than having a cap hit of $1.0M to $1.5M. In the end, when they don't earn them, that's what the team gets hit with.
- Dirte

Yeah, except I have never said any of those things. Some numskull said that Edler would have to be $4m better than Nichushkin to make a trade worthwhile, which is not accurate. We agree, the actual cap hit at the end of the season will be closer to $2m (depending on where he plays obviously), but could be as high as $3.7 which would make him only $1.3m less expensive than Edler. Plus seriously, can you even compare what the two players playing different positions would bring to a team. Not really.

That really depends on how good you think McCabe was at the time.

If I recall, he was a UFA in a season or two. I would say 6 years of Edler is worth more than two years of McCabe and a couple mid round picks
- IanEsplen

He was still at the top of his game. Regardless, it would need to be more than just Edler, but he would be a good starting point.

I could see a trade that involved a less expensive d-man coming back plus exchanging first round picks, plus maybe something else on Vancouver's end to balance it out.

EDIT - plus it was McCabe and a first for the 4th overall pick, and then it cost the 4th overall and two 3rd round picks for 1st overall, which was basically swapped for the 2nd overall pick.

Yeah, except I have never said any of those things. Some numskull said that Edler would have to be $4m better than Nichushkin to make a trade worthwhile, which is not accurate. We agree, the actual cap hit at the end of the season will be closer to $2m (depending on where he plays obviously), but could be as high as $3.7 which would make him only $1.3m less expensive than Edler. Plus seriously, can you even compare what the two players playing different positions would bring to a team. Not really.
- 1970vintage

yes, we totally agree. (I think it's pretty much $2M at most though).

then i guess he should have been there.
I'm still allowed to make fun of him.
- Scooby_Doo

By all means, I encourage it.

yes, we totally agree. (I think it's pretty much $2M at most though).
- Dirte

Like I said, that assumes he would play a full season in the top 6 in Vancouver. 20 goals, 25 assists, 60 points, top 6 in TOI (forwards). He would never earn any of it with AV here, so it's possible.

I must have read the signing bonus part wrong, looks like the max signing bonus is 10% of the salary only, not based on the bonus portion, so less than 100k.

I actually agree with you here. Luongo would have been an excellent fit for Tampa, but I don't think their ownership could afford to take on that contract. I'm still unsure why Yzerman opted to go with Bishop as well instead of spending less in trade and grabbing an older vet to mentor Lindback once he saw him struggle as a starter. I guess one of them is bound to pan out.

Luongo would be an extremely valuable trade chip with a much shorter contract, Bernier makes me unsure as he's always been behind a very defensive team and never under the pressure of a starter. Mike Smith as a ufa also makes me unsure because Bryz looked good in Phoenix and has been horrible in Philly.

An older vet that's been in a number of situations and produced gives you some security knowing if you acquire him he's unlikely to change or suddenly..suck.

Luongo's only issue is the contract, which unfortunately is like finding out that super hot chick from behind has road rash for a face. You can't really get past that.
- Isles_since_6

Let's say the Lightning took Luongo this summer and get into a playoff spot next year. What's a playoff round worth in revenue? $8-10M? (I heard NJ made $50-60M last year on the playoffs by the way) So they pick up Luongo, and he plays well for 5 years (completely reasonable). In those 5 years he adds an additional 5 playoff rounds they wouldn't have gotten with Lindback or Bishop (maybe a playoff berth or 2, maybe winning an extra round or 2). So that's maybe an extra $40M+ that he's made ownership (on top of jersey sales, name recognition in FLA, etc). Well, that just paid for his contract. And that's just assuming an additional 5 rounds over 5 years with $8M per round (very conservative) and is not adding jersey and merchandise sales, additional tickets sold, etc.

The problem with Luongo's contract is that it doesn't come with a guarantee. There is risk associated with it, but if you really look at it, there is much less risk than is perceived. Other teams are using the contract as a way to pay as little as possible to get a great goalie.

Let's use Mike Smith as an example. He's going to get minimum 6 years and he'll probably get in the range of $6M per year. That's $36M. Luongo has $40M in dollars left at a $5.3M cap hit for 9 years. Is his contract that much worse than what Smith is going to get? And Luongo adds the consistency factor you want in a goalie. He's been one of the most consistent 3 goalies in the league for the past decade. Is Mike Smith really that great, or was it Sean Burke that made him that good? Who's more risky now? Hint, as Philly.

yes, we totally agree. (I think it's pretty much $2M at most though).
- Dirte

OK, so most ELC contracts will likely have to be budgeted at around $2M now, maybe a little less. Things do get dicey when you're talking about players taken in the top 3 though. They still have the opportunity to get into that $3M range, although likely not until year 3.

That was 11 to 4 not 20 something to 4
- jribout

Actually it was ? to 4.

The pick just happened to end up being the 11th pick. For all the Hawks knew it was the 25th pick they were getting.

Edler is a 50pt d man... method wouldn't get any points if it wasn't for EK.... Major difference.
- SMP8719

the point of my post CLEARLY sailed right over your head.

i was not comparing edler to methot. i was making a counter to esplen's point that, simply because a player is better than a few top 5 picks (all of whom are considered busts) over the last 8-9 years, does not mean that they are worth a 5th overall pick in the draft.

methot was a better player than 5 or 6 players on that list too, and i KNOW he's not worth a 5th overall pick. and while i definitely feel edler is worth more than methot, he is also NOT worth a top 5 pick (PLUS another asset) as esplen suggested.

i can see edler and van's 1st ( plus maybe a 3rd, or decent prospect) getting that deal done, but it is DEFINITELY not a 1 for 1 deal.

He was still at the top of his game. Regardless, it would need to be more than just Edler, but he would be a good starting point.

I could see a trade that involved a less expensive d-man coming back plus exchanging first round picks, plus maybe something else on Vancouver's end to balance it out.

EDIT - plus it was McCabe and a first for the 4th overall pick, and then it cost the 4th overall and two 3rd round picks for 1st overall, which was basically swapped for the 2nd overall pick.
- 1970vintage

McCabe was viewed as an excellent defenseman right up until the NHL made the can opener a penalty. From then on he was useless.

Let's say the Lightning took Luongo this summer and get into a playoff spot next year. What's a playoff round worth in revenue? $8-10M? (I heard NJ made $50-60M last year on the playoffs by the way) So they pick up Luongo, and he plays well for 5 years (completely reasonable). In those 5 years he adds an additional 5 playoff rounds they wouldn't have gotten with Lindback or Bishop (maybe a playoff berth or 2, maybe winning an extra round or 2). So that's maybe an extra $40M+ that he's made ownership (on top of jersey sales, name recognition in FLA, etc). Well, that just paid for his contract. And that's just assuming an additional 5 rounds over 5 years with $8M per round (very conservative) and is not adding jersey and merchandise sales, additional tickets sold, etc.

The problem with Luongo's contract is that it doesn't come with a guarantee. There is risk associated with it, but if you really look at it, there is much less risk than is perceived. Other teams are using the contract as a way to pay as little as possible to get a great goalie.

Let's use Mike Smith as an example. He's going to get minimum 6 years and he'll probably get in the range of $6M per year. That's $36M. Luongo has $40M in dollars left at a $5.3M cap hit for 9 years. Is his contract that much worse than what Smith is going to get? And Luongo adds the consistency factor you want in a goalie. He's been one of the most consistent 3 goalies in the league for the past decade. Is Mike Smith really that great, or was it Sean Burke that made him that good? Who's more risky now? Hint, as Philly.
- KB3Point0

I don't disagree with you on talent, or that someone will likely overpay Smith (who I'm still not sure is a good goaltender or a product of a very defensive system)

the biggest stumbling block is Luongo's contract, which has more years remaining than most NHL players get for a career. I still think that's just too long a deal to look at taking when the player is already 34. I don't disagree with you he will likely help any team he would go to and make them better, at least for 2-3 years. I just don't see him being traded due to the length of time remaining on the contract.

Just my opinion, I'm not saying he's not a great goalie and I do agree Smith is going to likely get more money than he's worth.

That's my thinking too.

if Jordan Staal, with one year on his deal until he is a UFA (I believe) can get the 8 pick, a very good prospect and a pretty good player in Sutter...

A signed Alex Edler is at the very least on par with that.
- IanEsplen

You kinda forget that Jordan Staal was worth more to Carolina than anyother team was willing to pay. Don't believe me? Wait to see what they pay the Rangers for Marc Staal. More than Edler would get,I think, and it's only because of his last name.

That really depends on how good you think McCabe was at the time.

If I recall, he was a UFA in a season or two. I would say 6 years of Edler is worth more than two years of McCabe and a couple mid round picks
- IanEsplen

That was pre salary cap.The value of picks and prospects was much lower, and at the time veterans were the commodity.Think of it like currency:

Back then:
McCabe and 2 mid rounders =$10
2nd overall pick=$10

Nowadays:
Edler=$15
2nd overall pick =$25

The value of cost is irrelevant when comparing deals that went down before the Cap era.

I don't disagree with you on talent, or that someone will likely overpay Smith (who I'm still not sure is a good goaltender or a product of a very defensive system)

the biggest stumbling block is Luongo's contract, which has more years remaining than most NHL players get for a career. I still think that's just too long a deal to look at taking when the player is already 34. I don't disagree with you he will likely help any team he would go to and make them better, at least for 2-3 years. I just don't see him being traded due to the length of time remaining on the contract.

Just my opinion, I'm not saying he's not a great goalie and I do agree Smith is going to likely get more money than he's worth.
- Isles_since_6

Luongo's cap hit isn't the problem its the length true but he will be traded. Chances are he will retire before his contract is up anyway. Don't look at his contract for a moment who would you take Luongo or Smith. Imo its a no brainer and no disrespect to Smith.

Luongo's cap hit isn't the problem its the length true but he will be traded. Chances are he will retire before his contract is up anyway. Don't look at his contract for a moment who would you take Luongo or Smith. Imo its a no brainer and no disrespect to Smith.
- thundachunk

That's another barrier, The new CBA has a stipulation about players retiring before their contract is up, and the cap hit going back to the original team for the remainder of the contract.

I think that's the jist of it, unless someone wants to correct me.

Luongo's cap hit isn't the problem its the length true but he will be traded. Chances are he will retire before his contract is up anyway. Don't look at his contract for a moment who would you take Luongo or Smith. Imo its a no brainer and no disrespect to Smith.
- thundachunk

Luongo is the better goalie,but,How can any GM not look at that contract? On the bright side the hit is low and the cap will certainly go up so I agree he will be traded, I'm just unsure about the return.

That's another barrier, The new CBA has a stipulation about players retiring before their contract is up, and the cap hit going back to the original team for the remainder of the contract.

I think that's the jist of it, unless someone wants to correct me.
- Mattjd123

So what your saying is,hypothetically, that if Luongo gets traded to say,Edmonton,but retires in 5 years,then from 20-18-202? then the cap hit goes back to Vancouver?

So what your saying is,hypothetically, that if Luongo gets traded to say,Edmonton,but retires in 5 years,then from 20-18-202? then the cap hit goes back to Vancouver?
- Jeropotato

Something like that.

I think Edmonton gets some of it too.

I'm looking through the CBA hold on

For all existing SPCs with terms in excess of six (6) years (“long-term contracts”), a “Cap Advantage Recapture” provision will become applicable. Specifically, for years in which the Player under a long-term contract is no longer playing in the League by reason of retirement, “defection” from the NHL or otherwise (such that he is not playing and is not receiving Salary pursuant to the terms of
his SPC), any “Cap Advantage” that may have been gained by a Club during the time the Player was playing in the League under his SPC (defined as the amount by which a Player’s actual cash compensation exceeds his full Averaged Amount (“AA”)), both annually and in the aggregate, will be “Recaptured,” and charged against the Club’s Upper Limit from year-to-year in equal amounts over the remaining term of the players SPC

If the contract in question is ever traded or assigned to one or more other Clubs in the League, each Club will be subject to being charged with any and all “Cap Advantage” amounts it receives while being obligated pursuant the contract.

That's another barrier, The new CBA has a stipulation about players retiring before their contract is up, and the cap hit going back to the original team for the remainder of the contract.

I think that's the jist of it, unless someone wants to correct me.
- Mattjd123

No, the cap savings realized by each respective team.

So, Luongo's salary was $10M in year one of that contract, $5M cap hit, therefore that $5M cap savings gets charged back to Vancouver. Ditto, if he's making $7M next year, cap hit $5M, that $2M gets charged back to the team that trades for him. It's spread over the course of the remainder of the term of the contract. Essentially, he becomes a problem for two teams.

No, the cap savings realized by each respective team.

So, Luongo's salary was $10M in year one of that contract, $5M cap hit, therefore that $5M cap savings gets charged back to Vancouver. Ditto, if he's making $7M next year, cap hit $5M, that $2M gets charged back to the team that trades for him. It's spread over the course of the remainder of the term of the contract. Essentially, he becomes a problem for two teams.
- Dirte

It's only for the years left on the contract after the trade, not years that have been paid out before.

The “Cap Advantage Recapture” provision will not apply to “Cap Advantage” amounts a Club may have gained prior to trading a Player’s contract, where such trade occurred before the execution of the new Agreement (including any binding MOU).

If I'm understanding the lawyer mumbo jumbo correctly

That's another barrier, The new CBA has a stipulation about players retiring before their contract is up, and the cap hit going back to the original team for the remainder of the contract.

I think that's the jist of it, unless someone wants to correct me.
- Mattjd123

I honestly don't know but if a player is not receiving the money from the final year/years of his contract why would the original team or any for that matter be on the hook for that cap hit? It sounds more like Bettman punishing GM's and owners for being creative and circumventing "HIS" leagues rules. Even though he was the one approving said contracts. The moral of the story is have someone else to pass blame onto. If I can give him props for anything its self preservation. You can coat sh!t with honey but its still sh!t.

It's only for the years left on the contract after the trade, not years that have been paid out before.

The “Cap Advantage Recapture” provision will not apply to “Cap Advantage” amounts a Club may have gained prior to trading a Player’s contract, where such trade occurred before the execution of the new Agreement (including any binding MOU).

If I'm understanding the lawyer mumbo jumbo correctly
- Mattjd123

no, the team that trades for the player, has the cap advantage recaptured for the post-trade years. The team that trades the player has the cap advantage recaptured for the pre-trade years.

no, the team that trades for the player, has the cap advantage recaptured for the post-trade years. The team that trades the player has the cap advantage recaptured for the pre-trade years.
- Dirte

Hmmm crazy.

no, the team that trades for the player, has the cap advantage recaptured for the post-trade years. The team that trades the player has the cap advantage recaptured for the pre-trade years.
- Dirte

Sucks for both. A buyout actually does make sense but if I was FC no dam way. I like money to much and you don't get rich by throwing money away. Essentially you are giving a top notch goalie to another team who would sign him for a 3 or 4 year contract at the same cap hit. Hard pill to swallow.

Francesco to Gillis on Luongo " I tell you what Mike if you can't get a trade for Luongo and I have to buy him out its gonna cost you your Job."