This isn't the nba, you can't force a team to buy you out.
- Scooby_Doo

If he decided not to play he could force it. He would be suspended, then he would prob file a grievance with the nhlpa and then the only solution may be a buyout.

Also, I think the Canucks only option might end up being a buy out of Luongo. That's if he forces them into it. And if he does.... Wow. Gillis would have to be let go for a colossal mismanagement of his goaltending. IMO.
- SmielmaN

If that were the option, they would have done it already. Before the draft, ownership insisted that they are not buying out Lou. I thought it was posturing more than anything else but the reality is that FA is not ready to write a cheque for that amount. The best move would have been to buy him out thus avoiding any recapture penalties and keeping Schneider as the #1 (with the additional 1.2 million in extra cap space.)

If he decided not to play he could force it. He would be suspended, then he would prob file a grievance with the nhlpa and then the only solution may be a buyout.
- SmielmaN

Nope - He can't file a grievance when he sits out and refuses to play.

If he fails to report, he could be suspended for the balance of the season and then he could be released by the club (assuming he clears waivers first). The Canucks wouldn't be forced to buy him out. They fulfilled their end of the contract - Lou didn't. Why would they be on the hook for his salary?

If he decided not to play he could force it. He would be suspended, then he would prob file a grievance with the nhlpa and then the only solution may be a buyout.
- SmielmaN

Negative ghost writer.

Luongo has 4-6 years left then he retires. This whole situation likely took a few years off his playing career, could work out perfectly for the Canucks.

Negative ghost writer.

Luongo has 4-6 years left then he retires. This whole situation likely took a few years off his playing career, could work out perfectly for the Canucks.
- Scooby_Doo

You do realize that if the bolded scenario plays out it is bad for the Nucks right?

Two years abuse by the fans? You don't know what you're talking about. I agree with everything else you stated but come on, the fans still cheered hard for Lou during the past two years. Blame ownership first and MG second but the fans get a pass on this one. Lou has been treated quite well by the Canuck fans.
- Canuckleafer

Agreed. Fans follow the leaders. When Canucks management decided to put faith in Cory... the fans followed. When Lou came to the "rescue" in last years playoffs... that did nothing positive for the Vancouver fan base. Lou had made his mental departure but fans weren't quite so sure yet.

You do realize that if the bolded scenario plays out it is bad for the Nucks right?
- uf1910

Negative ghost writer.

Please look at Ilya Kovalchuk for example.

You do realize that if the bolded scenario plays out it is bad for the Nucks right?
- uf1910

There are no bad scenarios for the Canucks. This is all unfolding the way Gillis planned. They were able to avoid getting rid of their real number one goalie for garbage like Kadri and Gardiner, dump Schnieder and his very recently discovered emotional issues and get a new franchise player who was sitting at number ine in the draft.

There are no bad scenarios for the Canucks. This is all unfolding the way Gillis planned. They were able to avoid getting rid of their real number one goalie for garbage like Kadri and Gardiner, dump Schnieder and his very recently discovered emotional issues and get a new franchise player who was sitting at number ine in the draft.
- Canada Cup

I hear he's looking to go play in the Swiss league next season if he can't make the Leafs again.

Negative ghost writer.

Please look at Ilya Kovalchuk for example.
- Scooby_Doo

Negative back at you. Kovy's deal didn't hurt the Devils b/c he never entered the "paid higher than his cap hit" years which leads to the cap penalties. Luongo's contract on the other hand has a cap hit of $5.3M. The salaries paid so far are $10M in 2010-11, and $6.7M in 11-12 and 12-13. The $6.7M continues until 2017-2018. Basically this means every of his deal so far the Nucks have built up cap penalties b/c he is paid higher than his cap hit. The ONLY way the Nucks don't face those penalties is IF Luongo plays out his entire contract or at the very least plays past 2017 in which case they would start reducing those penalties. Rough numbers of the penalties now stands at about $7M with $1M each year added until 2017-2018.

Sorry bro but you are using a different scenario and a different contract for your reasoning and unfortunately for you that reasoning is incorrect. There is a reason no one traded for Lu's contract and it's not b/c his contract was like Kovy's

Canucks Fan: something rose-coloured and pro-Vancouver Canucks (which is perfectly fine)
Other poster: "I disagree with you because....."
Canucks Fan: "blah blah blah....personal insults, rage, profanity, etc. etc."

Keep it up guys...you're digging yourselves deeper and deeper. There is no wonder why you're the most disliked group of sports fans on the planet.
- JLO961

Hahaha, why is that?

Because for 10 pages Scooby has been trolling you guys and you have been playing into it like suckers. Read his posts, they are full of obvious troll bait. Quit being sucked in, it's getting a little sad to watch.

There are no bad scenarios for the Canucks. This is all unfolding the way Gillis planned. They were able to avoid getting rid of their real number one goalie for garbage like Kadri and Gardiner, dump Schnieder and his very recently discovered emotional issues and get a new franchise player who was sitting at number ine in the draft.
- Canada Cup

I'm guessing his plan is to name a new #1 tender every year. As of now he is on a roll with 3 in a row

I'm guessing his plan is to name a new #1 tender every year. As of now he is on a roll with 3 in a row
- uf1910

Not a problem when you have five of the top three goalies in the NHL

Negative back at you. Kovy's deal didn't hurt the Devils b/c he never entered the "paid higher than his cap hit" years which leads to the cap penalties. Luongo's contract on the other hand has a cap hit of $5.3M. The salaries paid so far are $10M in 2010-11, and $6.7M in 11-12 and 12-13. The $6.7M continues until 2017-2018. Basically this means every of his deal so far the Nucks have built up cap penalties b/c he is paid higher than his cap hit. The ONLY way the Nucks don't face those penalties is IF Luongo plays out his entire contract or at the very least plays past 2017 in which case they would start reducing those penalties. Rough numbers of the penalties now stands at about $7M with $1M each year added until 2017-2018.

Sorry bro but you are using a different scenario and a different contract for your reasoning and unfortunately for you that reasoning is incorrect. There is a reason no one traded for Lu's contract and it's not b/c his contract was like Kovy's
- uf1910

Read it an weep.

CAP ADVANTAGE RECAPTURE (Roberto Luongo Rule)
Teams receiving a “cap advantage” from long-term contracts — defined as seven years or more for contracts signed prior to the January 2013 CBA — will be penalized in the event the player retires or “defects” from the NHL before the contract expires. A team receives a “cap advantage” when the player’s actual salary exceeds his cap hit in a given year.
Following retirement/defection, the “advantage” will be “recaptured” and charged against the club’s cap in equal amounts each year until the contract expires. This penalty applies to any team that received a cap advantage from the contract — ie. a traded contract — except in the event that the trade occurred prior to the new CBA coming into place in January 2013.
[ Edit: June 2, 2013 ] Teams do not receive a credit for net negative cap benefit (where cap hit exceeds salary over the course of the contract prior to retirement). However, in calculating net “cap advantage,” teams do receive a credit for seasons in which cap hit exceeds salary.
Please note, contracts that fall under the "over-35" rule do not qualify for cap benefit recapture, the NHL has confirmed. In these cases, the team is charged with the player's full cap hit.
LINK: CapGeek Recapture Calculator »

Read it an weep.

CAP ADVANTAGE RECAPTURE (Roberto Luongo Rule)
Teams receiving a “cap advantage” from long-term contracts — defined as seven years or more for contracts signed prior to the January 2013 CBA — will be penalized in the event the player retires or “defects” from the NHL before the contract expires. A team receives a “cap advantage” when the player’s actual salary exceeds his cap hit in a given year.
Following retirement/defection, the “advantage” will be “recaptured” and charged against the club’s cap in equal amounts each year until the contract expires. This penalty applies to any team that received a cap advantage from the contract — ie. a traded contract — except in the event that the trade occurred prior to the new CBA coming into place in January 2013.

- Scooby_Doo[ Edit: June 2, 2013 ] Teams do not receive a credit for net negative cap benefit (where cap hit exceeds salary over the course of the contract prior to retirement). However, in calculating net “cap advantage,” teams do receive a credit for seasons in which cap hit exceeds salary.
Please note, contracts that fall under the "over-35" rule do not qualify for cap benefit recapture, the NHL has confirmed. In these cases, the team is charged with the player's full cap hit.
LINK: CapGeek Recapture Calculator »

Which is EXACTLY what you said would happen. Something like "this scenario is playing out perfectly when Luongo retires early b/c the past 2 years have taken a lot out of him".

Again, IF he retires early the Nucks are subject to recapture penalties b/c he is paid higher than his actual salary.

CLAUSES: Full NTC (Exception 1: Player can supply five-team trade list following final game of 2013-14, valid through July 15, 2014; Exception 2: If player does not submit trade list as documented in Exception 1, team can request a five-team trade list following final game of 2017-18 season, valid through Sept. 1, 2018. If player submitted a trade list in 2014 and was not moved, team loses right to request trade list in 2018.)

Not to mention the out clause the Canucks have following the 2017-18 season... where they will trade him to Florida and the Panthers will pay 1m a season for a 5.3m cap hit to reach the cap floor.

So 4-5 years left... genius move by Gillis.

CLAUSES: Full NTC (Exception 1: Player can supply five-team trade list following final game of 2013-14, valid through July 15, 2014; Exception 2: If player does not submit trade list as documented in Exception 1, team can request a five-team trade list following final game of 2017-18 season, valid through Sept. 1, 2018. If player submitted a trade list in 2014 and was not moved, team loses right to request trade list in 2018.)

Not to mention the out clause the Canucks have following the 2017-18 season... where they will trade him to Florida and the Panthers will pay 1m a season for a 5.3m cap hit to reach the cap floor.

So 4-5 years left... genius move by Gillis.
- Scooby_Doo

The only way the Nucks don't face recapture penalties is IF Luongo plays out his entire contract. If he is traded in 2017 they still have the same recapture numbers I listed above and if he were to retire from the Cats after your hypothetical trade in 2017 the Nucks would be the ones faced with the recapture penalties not the Cats.

The only way the Nucks don't face recapture penalties is IF Luongo plays out his entire contract. If he is traded in 2017 they still have the same recapture numbers I listed above and if he were to retire from the Cats after your hypothetical trade in 2017 the Nucks would be the ones faced with the recapture penalties not the Cats.
- uf1910

So what would the recapture penalty be if he retired in 6 years?

CLAUSES: Full NTC (Exception 1: Player can supply five-team trade list following final game of 2013-14, valid through July 15, 2014; Exception 2: If player does not submit trade list as documented in Exception 1, team can request a five-team trade list following final game of 2017-18 season, valid through Sept. 1, 2018. If player submitted a trade list in 2014 and was not moved, team loses right to request trade list in 2018.)

Not to mention the out clause the Canucks have following the 2017-18 season... where they will trade him to Florida and the Panthers will pay 1m a season for a 5.3m cap hit to reach the cap floor.

So 4-5 years left... genius move by Gillis.
- Scooby_Doo

Is it confirmed he did not submit a list? Also, he was on record requesting a trade so it's more likely he submitted a list then the opposite.

Either way it changes nothing. If Lu plays his entire contract the Nucks escape the recapture penalties. If he retires early they face penalties, how much depends on when he retires

Is it confirmed he did not submit a list? Also, he was on record requesting a trade so it's more likely he submitted a list then the opposite.

Either way it changes nothing. If Lu plays his entire contract the Nucks escape the recapture penalties. If he retires early they face penalties, how much depends on when he retires
- uf1910

No he didn't request a trade, not sure why everyone says that.
After AV named Schneider the starter, the writing was on the wall and Luongo said "maybe it's time to move on".

The situation is now clear he's the number 1, and he will obviously be playing for the Canucks this season.

The only way the Nucks don't face recapture penalties is IF Luongo plays out his entire contract. If he is traded in 2017 they still have the same recapture numbers I listed above and if he were to retire from the Cats after your hypothetical trade in 2017 the Nucks would be the ones faced with the recapture penalties not the Cats.
- uf1910

As per Capgeek
Vancouver Canucks (2017-18 through 2021-22) $2,590,533/year if he retires in 2017 as apparantly everybody knows he will

So what would the recapture penalty be if he retired in 6 years?
- Scooby_Doo

$4,127,333/year if he retires in 2019

So what would the recapture penalty be if he retired in 6 years?
- Scooby_Doo

Rough numbers but if he retires in 2018-2019 the cap penalties totals around $12.5M which would be paid out over the following 3 years for a $4.1M cap charge for those years.

If he retires in 2017-2018 the charge is $14.5M paid over 4 years or $3.62M.

No he didn't request a trade, not sure why everyone says that.
After AV named Schneider the starter, the writing was on the wall and Luongo said "maybe it's time to move on".

The situation is now clear he's the number 1, and he will obviously be playing for the Canucks this season.
- Scooby_Doo

I agree with this

No he didn't request a trade, not sure why everyone says that.
After AV named Schneider the starter, the writing was on the wall and Luongo said "maybe it's time to move on".

The situation is now clear he's the number 1, and he will obviously be playing for the Canucks this season.
- Scooby_Doo

http://www.sportingnews.c...nucks-toronto-maple-leafs

A lot of people all over NA reported it that's why everyone says it.