Canucks are absolutely cursed. No other team has ever been (frank)ed so hard. The inaugural expansion draft, all the Stanley cup losses, the first, and almost certainly, last recapture penalty. Multiple lottery failures...franchise is doomed
- CanuckDon

Hi, I'm a Leafs fan.

Go buy me a beer so I can cry in it.

The league has to approve any deal made. It was on them not to approve them at the time, not come back on the teams later.
- golfingsince

Meh... It’s always been against the rules to circumvent the salary cap. When those deals were made, the teams and the player were saying “yeah, he’s/I’m playing that many more years”. Ok then, deal approved. If time/term comes to show that it was circumvention, then it’s penalized. Apparently they were officially warned. How can the NHL not approve the deal in the moment if the team & player insist it’s legit?

I actually think NJ had some small amount of recapture with the Russian players contract (Kovalchuk) and lost a first round pick (which the NHL gave back). I still think they’ll either challenge it or make some sort of deal.
- Pacificgem

Ya it was $250M. Chump change

Canucks are absolutely cursed. No other team has ever been (frank)ed so hard. The inaugural expansion draft, all the Stanley cup losses, the first, and almost certainly, last recapture penalty. Multiple lottery failures...franchise is doomed
- CanuckDon

God’s fault.

Meh... It’s always been against the rules to circumvent the salary cap. When those deals were made, the teams and the player were saying “yeah, he’s/I’m playing that many more years”. Ok then, deal approved. If time/term comes to show that it was circumvention, then it’s penalized. Apparently they were officially warned. How can the NHL not approve the deal in the moment if the team & player insist it’s legit?
- DrChristianTroy

the point being that it isn't about cap circumvention. if it was, the LTIR scam would have been dealt with.

this is arbitrarily ruling some aspects cap circumvention while others aren't.

but then again, consistency in punishment has never been a strong suit of this league; on the ice or off.

the point being that it isn't about cap circumvention. if it was, the LTIR scam would have been dealt with.

this is arbitrarily ruling some aspects cap circumvention while others aren't.

but then again, consistency in punishment has never been a strong suit of this league; on the ice or off.
- RealityChecker

Good luck policing the LTIR scam

How did the Canucks go from being the team in the best cap situation in the league to being unable to sign one of the best UFA monster D men in ages because they have no cap space, in only a week?

How did the Canucks go from being the team in the best cap situation in the league to being unable to sign one of the best UFA monster D men in ages because they have no cap space, in only a week?
- 1970vintage

Loui Eriksson convinced Luongo to retire, because he hates the Canucks for ruining his career.

How did the Canucks go from being the team in the best cap situation in the league to being unable to sign one of the best UFA monster D men in ages because they have no cap space, in only a week?
- 1970vintage

Loui Eriksson convinced Luongo to retire, because he hates the Canucks for ruining his career.
- Retinalz

It's only an extra $2m though from where they were already. This leads to believe that either a) the cap situation isn't as bad as is being reported and the team will indeed blow their load on Myers etc. Or b) the cap situation was never as good as was being reported.

I'm not sure which it is.

Good luck policing the LTIR scam
- DrChristianTroy

it would have been easy during the last cba when they set the recapture penalty.

all contracts longer than x years where the player does not complete the term (regardless of reason) and is older than x years would be subject to recapture.

the will to do it wasn't there not the ability to do so.

- neem55

Draft breakdown

https://thehockeywriters....-evaluating-team-results/

It's only an extra $2m though from where they were already. This leads to believe that either a) the cap situation isn't as bad as is being reported and the team will indeed blow their load on Myers etc. Or b) the cap situation was never as good as was being reported.

I'm not sure which it is.
- 1970vintage

They probably have a trade lined u to move LE after the July 1st bonus is paid. That is my guess.

it would have been easy during the last cba when they set the recapture penalty.

all contracts longer than x years where the player does not complete the term (regardless of reason) would be subject to recapture.

the will to do it wasn't there not the ability to do so.
- RealityChecker

They’d be in court for(frank)ingever if they started questioning the legitimacy of career ending injuries. It’s the much smarter way of circumventing the cap. Of course the Canucks chose the worst route. Sign a circumvention deal, then trade that player so we have zero control over how the latter portion of the contract goes down.

Loui Eriksson convinced Luongo to retire, because he hates the Canucks for ruining his career.
- Retinalz

Nice. I need to get my foil out of storage for all this !

They’d be in court for(frank)ingever if they started questioning the legitimacy of career ending injuries. It’s the much smarter way of circumventing the cap. Of course the Canucks chose the worst route. Sign a circumvention deal, then trade that player so we have zero control over how the latter portion of the contract goes down.
- DrChristianTroy

you missed the point.

it wasn't about deciding that injuries are legit or not: it was removing that option entirely for the 10+ year contracts held over from the 2005-2013 cba.

they could have stated that any contract greater than 10 years would have the cap hit for the remainder of the deal regardless if the player played, was injured or retired.

my point being that they could have closed the loophole entirely but rather they created a loophole within a loophole which the canucks in their special way seemed to miss.

you missed the point.

it wasn't about deciding that injuries are legit or not: it was removing that option entirely for the 10+ year contracts held over from the 2005-2013 cba.

they could have stated that any contract greater than 10 years would have the cap hit for the remainder of the deal regardless if the player played, was injured or retired.

my point being that they could have closed the loophole entirely but rather they created a loophole within a loophole which the canucks in their special way seemed to miss.
- RealityChecker

No, you missed the point. You can’t create rules that punish the injured/lump them in with the greasy (frank)s who are intentionally circumventing the cap. It’d never fly. It’s why the LTIR loophole exists... You think they never considered that?

Also Meir is in the 30 goal club now, $7m probably isn't enough to get him to sign a 7 year deal.
- 1970vintage

Not a lot of teams taking on contracts right now. Haula got a 5th and they still had to take back a minor league contract. There’s your benchmark for Sutter.

They’d be in court for(frank)ingever if they started questioning the legitimacy of career ending injuries. It’s the much smarter way of circumventing the cap. Of course the Canucks chose the worst route. Sign a circumvention deal, then trade that player so we have zero control over how the latter portion of the contract goes down.
- DrChristianTroy

they couldve traded dorsett's expiring contract for luongo freeing florida entirely from his contract and allowing van to control the outcome again. i want to know if that was because van wasnt interested, luongo wasnt interested in waiving ntc, or the league would have still (frank)ed van because he wasnt really "injured"

God’s fault.
- bloatedmosquito

Canucks fans cursed to the 3rd and 4th generations

No, you missed the point. You can’t create rules that punish the injured/lump them in with the greasy (frank)s who are intentionally circumventing the cap. It’d never fly.
- DrChristianTroy

lol. we're not talking about injured players.

we're going back in time to the 2013 cba negotiation dealing with a small group of contracts that were absurdly long and that the league deemed as circumventing the cap.

had they wanted to "punish" everyone for circumventing the cap for those specific contracts, they could have closed the loophole entirely.

as a reminder, those contracts were longer than 10 years. this is no longer possible so this clause of the cba would only deal with a finite number of contracts that will grind down to 0 in a few years.

so getting back to the point: in 2013, if they wanted to close the loophole they could have. there is nothing in labour law that says that injuries must be excluded from a cap (especially for a class of contract that is being phased out.)

lol. we're not talking about injured players.

we're going back in time to the 2013 cba negotiation dealing with a small group of contracts that were absurdly long and that the league deemed as circumventing the cap.

had they wanted to "punish" everyone for circumventing the cap for those specific contracts, they could have closed the loophole entirely.

as a reminder, those contracts were longer than 10 years. this is no longer possible so this clause of the cba would only deal with a finite number of contracts that will grind down to 0 in a few years.

so getting back to the point: in 2013, if they wanted to close the loophole they could have. there is nothing in labour law that says that injuries must be excluded from a cap (especially for a class of contract that is being phased out.)
- RealityChecker

Ok. You do it your way in your business and see how it turns out. I can recommend good lawyers

Ok. You do it your way in your business and see how it turns out. I can recommend good lawyers
- DrChristianTroy

this is ironic but thanks for the laugh.

Dude, there are lots of reasons to be down after the events of the last few days/weeks. I've been trying to think of scenarios where we manage to get a few picks back perhaps at this years TDL? The only thing I can come up with is if we are in the same positions as this past year, on the bubble but gonna miss the POs, who could we trade that could fetch us some high/higher picks? Maybe if Marky has another decent season and they decided to go full in on Demko but i cant remember the last time a goalie fetched a decent return as a rental?? If Tanev has an somewhat injury free season (not likely) - Rousell? Jake? Sutter?
- Brooks_Light

The only problem with that is if you trade any players with any value at the TDL it increases the chances that Tampa will be getting a lottery pick the following year.

Not only did Benning overpay, but he has eliminated flexibly in a big way.