Strombabble: Salary Cap Surgery

Thomas Drance
June 26 2013 02:23PM


Image via wikimedia commons.

In the immortal, tasteful words of the popular early oughts band Staind: "Its been a while."

Distracted by Vancouver's seven week coaching search and a variety of American Hockey League gymnastics of late, we haven't spilled any digital ink on the topic of trading Roberto Luongo in what seems like forever. What's clear is that the best goaltender in franchise history, one way or another, won't be in training camp next fall. What's less clear is precisely how the gold medalist and former Hart Trophy nominee will punch his ticket out of Vancouver.

Let's handicap the possibilities after the jump.

Compliance Buyout

At 8PM pacific standard time on Wednesday evening the leagues "first buyout window" (and the only one applicable for buyouts of the compliance variety) will open. It will close just over a week later, at 2 PM pacific standard time on July 4th. So July 4th is  Roberto Luongo's last possible independence day, if his independence is to come by way of a "compliance buyout."

There have been reports, albeit reports that have been repudiated, that ownership is reluctant to go the buyout route with Keith Ballard's contract (buyout value: 5.6 million dollars over four league years). Let's just say that buying out Roberto Luongo's problem deal is a significantly meatier proposition (a touch over 27 million dollars over seventeen years).

A week ago on the Team 1040's Canucks Lunch program, reliable reporter and ESPN and TSN analyst Piere Lebrun addressed this possibility directly. Here's Lebrun's take (transcription my own):

"I spoke to a GM today who said he has a lot of interest in Roberto Luogno. What he wants is for the Canucks to buy him out to he can just sign him... This gives you the pulse - this is a team that really wants Roberto, but they just figure, "hey, y'know, we don't want that contract, hopefully Vancouver buys him out." So we'll see I don't think the Canucks plan on doing that right now, I think they want to trade him instead."

Obviously the Canucks would rather trade Roberto Luongo than spend twenty-seven million dollars getting out from under a contract that, while onerous, is attached to a player that teams around the league would immediately trip over themselves rushing to call...

Unlike Ilya Bryzgalov, who will be bought out by the Philadelphia Flyers this week to the tune of 23 million over fourteen years, Roberto Luongo is admired by his teammates and the numbers suggest he's still a super elite National Hockey League 'keeper.

Still, as the Globe and Mail's David Shoalts explained this week, "the Bryzgalov buyout just made it harder for Gillis to avoid his own compliance buyout on Luongo instead of finally dumping his contract in a trade." This is in part because the Flyers just made another quality veteran goaltender an unrestricted free-agent (further expanding the goaltender market), and also because the very fact of the buyout of Bryzgalov's somewhat similar deal increased the percieved likelihood of the Canucks buying out Luongo.

Ultimately, I think the prospect of the Canucks excercising a compliance buyout on the Roberto Luongo contract is remote. As we'll see as we proceed further down this rabbit hole, there are other cheaper options availble to the Canucks.

Classic Trade

Of the teams who fell within the bottom-10 in the NHL in terms of even-strength save percentage a season ago, there are only a few teams that I'd qualify as "fits" for a Roberto Luongo trade. For some teams it's about personnel, like how Carolina and Winnipeg, for example, are busy overpaying Ondrej Pavelec and Cam Ward respectively. For other clubs it's all about the Benjamins, like how the Blues and Avalanche are owned by Tom Stillman and the Kroenke's respectively, while the New Jersey Devils have Johan Hedberg and Marty Brodeur under contract for next season, and anyway are in a state of financial rigamortis. Calgary is rebuiliding and Tampa Bay has been a motivated buyer on the goaltending market for the past year, and haven't seriously kicked the tires on Luongo.

So that leaves three oft-rumoured and realistic Luongo destinations for a trade, as I see it: the Florida Panthers, the Philadelphia Flyers, and the New York Islanders.

Flyers General Manager Paul Holmgren was asked directly about the prospect of acquiring Luongo to replace Ilya Bryzgalov earlier this week, and he responded with "I don’t see how that would work." Of course this is the same Paul Holmgren who told Bryzgalov's agent (our old friend Ritch Winter) that he had no plans to buyout Bryzgalov according to Rich Winter at least. He's also the same Paul Holmgren who has told the likes of James Van Riemsdyk, Jeff Carter and Mike Richards that they were part of his long-term core in contract negotiations, only to subsequently and promptly deal each player. So yeah Philly remains, as ever, a complete wild card.

TSN's Darren Dreger elaborated on why Philly isn't a realistic Luongo destination on TSN Radio 1050 in Toronto earlier this week:

"Roberto Luongo isn't a fit because you just can't get that done, you just can't make it work, Vancouver isn't going to take enough money back to make that package work."

Dreger mentioned Evgeni Nabokov and Ray Emery as possibilities for the Flyers, and the Emery fit was further fleshed out by Elliotte Friedman this week.

On the other hand, in the radio interview we linked to above, Dreger dropped a quote about Paul Holmgren's job security in the wake of the Bryzgalov buyout, pointing out that Flyers ownership pushed for Holmgren to spend big and stabilize the teams situation between the pipes. "(As a General Manager), do you survive that signing and ultimate buyout if your owner isn't pushing the buttons?" Dreger asked. (Why does that quote seem somehow applicable to Mike Gillis's situation in Vancouver?).

Here's what I can't quite figure out about the Flyers. If Ed Snider and Flyers ownership were so desperate to stabilize Philadelphia's goaltending and so deeply involved in Holmgren's scorched earth pursuit of Byzgaloz only two summers ago, are they really going to turn around and roll with a Ray Emery and Steve Mason platoon in net next season? That beggars belief. Not that Philadelphia is a likely Luongo trade destination or anything, but I'd be more surprised to see the Flyers swing for a conservative single in addressing their persistent goaltending need this summer than I would be if  Paul "wild card" Holmgren looked to be more aggressive...

The New York Islanders fit was always tenuous, and the Islanders/Luongo rumours that floated around on an off day earlier this summer were contingent on the Canucks acquiring the worst contract in National Hockey League history (DiPietro's deal) and buying it out compliance style. This would be a total shocker if it became reality.

Finally we get to the Florida Panthers, and really, the Panthers have always been the most likely destination for a Luongo trade. Luongo's a fit there because he sells tickets, and Florida's goaltending was putrid a season ago. Dale Tallon also has a history of looking at veterans on overpriced deals as undervalued trade assets and pulling the trigger on acquiring them (see: Campbell, Brian). Finally the best reason the Canucks and the Panthers make the most sense as Roberto Luongo trading partners? The Panthers have a whole bevy, a veritable turd buffet if you will, of bad contracts on the books.

In fairness to Panthers General Manager Dale Tallon, at least some of his woeful contract work is structural. The cap floor rose too quickly under the previous NHL CBA for small market clubs like the Panthers, and Tallon was forced to meet the lower limit by signing guys like Ed Jovanovski and Scott Upshall to weighty contracts. But the point remains that in Fleischman (4.5 M), Jovanovski (4.15 M), Upshall (3.5 M), Kopecky (3 M) and Bergenheim (2.75 M), the Panthers have a whole swath of relatively big deals to send Vancouver's way in a pure hockey trade.

If we assume that Dreger's assessment that, "Vancouver isn't going to take enough money back" to make a Luongo trade work with Philadelphia applies more generally to the clubs Luongo trade posture, I tend to think a pure hockey trade is an unlikely prospect. Certainly it'll be a non-starter unless Vancouver is willing to take on salary in a deal, and that's salary that the club almost certainly will have to turn around and promptly use a compliance buyout on...

Retained Salary Transaction

In his conversation with Jeff Paterson and Matt Sekeres on the Team 1040 a week ago, Pierre Lebrun characterized a "retained salary transaction" including Roberto Luongo as "the absolute best case scenario" for the Canucks. Added Lebrun, "I don't think anyone is picking up 100% of Roberto's contract in a trade, that's the sense I get."

We looked into the retained salary transaction mechnaism a few weeks ago in regards to Keith Ballard:

"Retained Salary Transactions," as they're called in the CBA, are a long time Brian Burke hobby-horse and a new wrinkle in the 2013 agreement. The rules governing retained salary transactions can be found under article 50.5 (e)(iii).

The rules governing retained salary transactions are actually pretty simple, though there are a number of restrictions. Teams are able to retain up to 50% of a player's salary and cap-hit in a trade, and you have to retain an equal proportion of the player's cap-hit and salary. The percentage of the cap-hit/salary that a club retains must remain consistent from year to year for the duration of the standard player contract traded in a retained salary transaction."

Okay so brace yourself and bear with my hamfisted analysis of the collective bargaining agreement...

If the Canucks were to trade Roberto Luongo by way of a "retained salary transaction" they'd be able to retain a maximum of 2.66 million of Luongo's annual cap-hit. If the Canucks retained 50% of Luongo's deal - a hypothetical which I'd describe as a total non-starter - they'd also be on the hook for a tick over 20 million of his remaining salary through 2022. They'd then be forbidden from reacquiring his contract for a duration of one year, and would annoyingly be limited to retaining only two partial salaries in retained salary transactions until Roberto Luongo's retirement.

Here's where this gets a bit complicated. According to article 50.5 (e)(D) "all Retained Salary obligations created by a Retained Salary Transaction... shall apply to any Cap Advantage Recapture Amounts applicable to a Retained Salary." You may remember the Cap Advantage Recapture mechanism in the new CBA as the "Luongo rule" which it was dubbed when news of the provision leaked out in the wake of completed labour negotiations.

Let's try to illustrate this with a practical example. Say the Canucks were to retain 25% of Roberto Luongo's salary and cap-hit in a retained salary transaction with the Florida Panthers at this years upcoming draft. In such a situation the Canucks would essentially be retaining 1.33 M in cap-hit obligations through 2022, in addition to roughly 10 million in gross salary over nine seasons. That stinks, of course, but the way it would be spun is that it's also four million dollars in immediate cap-relief which is not insiginificant. Even still, the extent of Vancouver's retained salary cap commitment to Roberto Luongo wouldn't quite be set in stone since they'd also have to "retain" 25% of Florida's ultimate "cap advantage recapture" penalty, the amount of which would be set by the date that Roberto Luongo retires.

As it stands at the moment, the Canucks have had Roberto Luongo's current deal on the books for three seasons at a 5.33 million dollar cap-hit. During that time they've paid him twenty-three million, four-hundred and thirty thousand dollars in actual salary. So while Roberto Luongo's contract took up a total of 16 million in cap-space over the past three seasons (minus one dollar, technically), the Canucks managed to pay him $7,430,000 more than 16 M in actual salary. That $7,430,000 represents the "cap benefit" the Canucks have accrued from the Roberto Luongo deal up to this point, and they'll be obligated to have that count against their salary cap upon Luongo's retirement (if he retires before the expiration of his contract following the 2022 league year).

But in addition to that, in our hypothetical situation, the Canucks would also be on the hook for 25% of the cap benefit recapture cost that the Panthers would accrue between the day they acquired Luongo, and Roberto Luongo's retirement. If Roberto Luongo retires at the age of 40, that means the Canucks would be obligated to take on 25% of a $4,952,000 cap benefit recapture cost over three seasons. Essentially that would leave the Canucks with $2,889,334 in lost cap-space per year for three seasons, a figure which represents the sum total of the extra $412,667 in cap benefit recapture that they'd retain in the Panthers trade, on top of the $2,476,667 annual cap-hit from the cap benefit they've already accrued through the first three seasons of Roberto Luongo's death star contract.

If Roberto Luongo were to retire following his age 41 season instead, then the cap benefit recapture hit would balloon to $3,869,583 annually over two seasons.

By the way, something along these lines (albeit probably less dramatic)  is what Pierre LeBrun described as the "absolute best case scenario" for Mike Gillis and the Canucks on the Luongo trade front this summer...

I couldn't have put this section together without capgeek's handy "cap benefit recapture calculator."

Waivers

If a classic trade can't be worked out, if a retained salary transaction proves to be too much of a head-ache, and if Vancouver isn't willing to stomach dropping nearly thirty million on a compliance buyout, then the Canucks could eventually put Roberto Luongo on waivers.

Elite talent is rarely avaialable for free in the National Hockey League, and I think Luongo would be claimed if he were to be exposed on the waiver wire, but the Canucks would get zip in exchange. On the other hand, they wouldn't have to pay out any additional money either...

Voiding the Contract

This is a prospect that was broached by Darren Dreger this offseason, and by Iain Macintyre following the 2013 NHL Trade Deadline. Essentially if Roberto Luongo doesn't report to training camp this upcoming fall then the Canucks can terminate the contract on the grounds that Luongo is withholding services. This is similar to what happened with Tim Thomas, except that Tim Thomas's cap-hit remained on the books for Boston (and eventually the New York Islanders) because his contract was of the 35+ variety.

It's way to soon to assume that this is any type of realistic option. Of course it would also involve the Luongo-trade drama dragging on through another summer, which is certainly suboptimal for both the goaler and the Canucks.

Conclusion

Trading Roberto Luongo is effing complicated. Compounding that issue is that, despite Luongo's status as an elite netminder, there appears to be a limited market for his services while he's attached to his current life time deal. Perhaps Mike Gillis can pull a rabbit out of his hat this summer, but I wouldn't count on it.

Frankly it seems legitimately possible that Roberto Luongo's contract is simply the exception to the "Scott Gomez corollary" a vague rule I made up last season which contends that "if Scott Gomez could be traded, then no player is truly immovable."

3136ae487fac57943f99a50e66e4d6cf
Thomas Drance lives in Toronto, eats spicy food and writes about hockey. He is an NHL News Editor at theScore, the ex-managing editor of CanucksArmy.com and an opinionated blowhard to boot. You can follow him on twitter @thomasdrance.
Avatar
#1 The Voice In The Dark
June 26 2013, 02:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Tough situation for the Canucks. Gillis' first mistake (on a short list of mistakes he's made as GM) was not handling the goalie situation years ago (ie trading Schneider at the '11 draft when his value was probably at its highest). Now we have Schneider (who I'm not sold on, personally) and will lose Luongo for a terrible return. I'd love to see Gillis move Schneider and make amends with Lu, but it's not even a remote possibility at this point.

Also, voiding his contract isn't an option, as per Eric Macramalla - if he doesn't report, they can suspend him, but he'll still be under contract with the Canucks. I really don't see Lu quitting hockey at this point just to get the nux some cap relief.

Really rough situation for the Canucks, Luongo, and fans.

Avatar
#2 orcasfan
June 26 2013, 02:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Just because the hockey genius, Darren Dreger, says that a trade with Philly won't work because he can't see how it could be done, doesn't make it so! Of course, there could be a scenario that could work! Perhaps it would mean Canucks take some salary back in the deal. But if the deal were sweetened with a good prospect/picks, why wouldn't Gillis do it? He could always do a compliance buy-out of the salary coming his way.

Avatar
#4 orcasfan
June 26 2013, 02:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The problem with most of the mainstream media pundits, is that they have totally bought into the (Toronto-sourced) propaganda that Luongo's contract makes him untradeable. Does that mean that the contracts for Suter and Parise are also untradeable? Nonsense. All of these players are still valuable assets, with a few years remaining on their value. Please do not compare these guys to Dipietro - of course he can't be traded! He can't even play reliably anymore!

Avatar
#5 KleptoKlown
June 26 2013, 02:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The Canucks would need to put Luongo on waivers before buying him out wouldn't they? I am still convinced a buyout won't happen. Worst case scenario should be viewed as getting nothing in return via waivers.

When this saga is all said and done, it is going to rank right up there with the Cam Neely trade in mismanagement of assets. Schneider should be the one getting traded. I know it's too late for that now, but history will show the horrible path the Canucks management chose to go down.

Avatar
#6 GarthButchers
June 26 2013, 03:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

So basically we need another GM to help us out...

Avatar
#7 The Voice In The Dark
June 26 2013, 03:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Thomas Drance

If that's the case, then great. But how long is 'eventually' and do you see Lu willing to not play for that long just to get his contract voided? I don't.

If Lu goes to waivers before being bought out, I don't think it's unreasonable that some team will pick him up. That will be good in the sense that it clears his salary and cap hit, but brutal that we get nothing back.

At this point, I'd consider getting a 3rd round pick back a 'win'. But that said, I disagree that he has 'negative trade value' as some in the MSM suggest. He's still a solid goalie, and you have to think there are some teams that would rather trade for him than take the chance on waivers/free agency should the Canucks be forced to take the buyout route.

Avatar
#8 NM00
June 26 2013, 03:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Ever since Schneider replaced Luongo in the 2011-2012 playoffs, Schneider's trade value has been going up while Lou's has been going down.

Since game 3 vs LA, Schneider has signed a team friendly contract and had another elite year. This time as a starter in a lockout-shortened season.

Luongo has mostly been stapled to the bench and had his worst season in the NHL in a decade.

At some point shouldn't the changing trade values of the two goaltenders factor into this equation.

It seems absolutely ridiculous to retain salary in a Lou trade as opposed to using the ultra-valuable Schneider to improve the team in front of Luongo.

Avatar
#9 Mantastic
June 26 2013, 03:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@KleptoKlown

why would someone claim him off buyout waivers if they know they can get him with a better contract after he gets bought out?

Avatar
#10 Mantastic
June 26 2013, 03:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

worse case scenerio for the canucks IMO, is that they retain some of his contract in a trade because they simply can't afford to have dead cap space, as the team is right against the cap. the canucks simply have ZERO leverage in a Luo trade and everyone knows it.

and i can't see the canucks being able to void Luo's contract because the NHLPA will fight it and win because the NHL won't really defend the canucks decision.

Avatar
#11 The Voice In The Dark
June 26 2013, 04:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Mantastic

They might do it to guarantee they get him versus taking the chance he signs somewhere else after a buyout. Seems pretty likely he signs in Florida if he's bought out.

Avatar
#12 Mantastic
June 26 2013, 04:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@The Voice In The Dark

there are still cheaper options out there with less liability. yes, they aren't as good but everyone hates that contract and cap hit. and as you heard from other GMs talking to LeBrun, people will take their chances he will pass through waivers even though they really like Luo.

Avatar
#13 EricCantona
June 26 2013, 04:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I really like this post... very detailed and concise with all the different scenarios.

Just adding my input that Canucks will be adding by subtracting this summer....

Subtract: Luongo, Booth and, Ballard

Add: Briere, Jonathan Blum and, Andrew Ference

FORWARD LINES: Sedin - Sedin - Kesler

Burrows - Briere - Kassian

Higgins - Gaunce - Hansen

Sestito - Schroeder - Weise

D PAIRINGS: Hamhuis - Garrison

Edler - Tanev

Ference - Bieksa

(Blum and whoever)

GOALIE: Schneider - Ericsson

Not a bad line up i think.... Bieksa and Ference would be a mean D-pairing... Schroeder plays minutes with bigger guys where he can be protected abit... Kesler inspires mojo with Sedins and protects them better than Burrows. Briere adds playmaking abilities to 2nd line.

Avatar
#14 Mantastic
June 26 2013, 04:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@EricCantona

you just love making unrealistic scenarios don't you?

Avatar
#15 antro
June 26 2013, 05:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Great article, thanks TD! I agree with @ NM00. At this point, why not see if Schneider can't get some good return, and hope that either Eriksson (sp?) or Lack develop as Luongo ages. You can imagine TB, Flyers, maybe Florida or Pittsburgh all lining up for Schneider. And they all have some good young players.

I bet that Lui hasn't even sold his condo yet.

Avatar
#16 dopeasballs
June 26 2013, 05:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

#Luongo4Lecavalier baby! Can't stop! Won't stop! Lecavalier's gonna take this team to the sweet cheese!

Avatar
#17 orcasfan
June 26 2013, 06:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I don't agree that Luongo's cap hit is a problem. Compare his hit at 5.3mil to other goalies - like Kipper at 5.8, and Renne at 7=mil.

So, if you were a GM looking to get Luongo cheaply, who would you talk to? You would talk to guys in the MSM, like Dreger, LeBrun, etc, and tell them that Luo's contract makes him untradeable! Lebrun and Co, dutifully write this up, and voila! Luo's public perception of his value takes another hit! Fairly obvious tactics to me, at least.

Avatar
#18 orcasfan
June 26 2013, 06:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

And that's not to say that Luo's contract term is not a factor in diminishing his trade value!

Avatar
#19 NM00
June 26 2013, 07:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@orcasfan

Hopefully we'll know soon enough if Dreger and co are BSing.

Frankly, I take them at their word. I don't think you are going to see a meaningful asset come back Vancouver's way without eating a fair amount of money on the contract.

Avatar
#20 Scott Hall
June 26 2013, 08:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Good read! I think the Nucks have to deal with a team that is in an even worse situation. That team looks like the Islanders! Maybe something can be done there.

I hated Lu's contract from day 1. It was awful. Having said that, Lu is still an elite goalie. The cap hit is quite reasonable AND he could be good for most of the contract's life. That's the gamble. Can he play into his late 30s like Marty Brodeur? Who knows.

Avatar
#21 Philx
June 26 2013, 10:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The thing that I hate about the Toronto initiated position that Lou's contract was so bad, when they wanted him, is that it has a chilling effect on other GMs. Now none of them want to look dumb by making a reasonable deal even it it would likely help their club. Looking at this from the grassy knoll, I see an attempt to reduce the perceived value of Lou's contract so he can be acquired for next to nothing. Seems to have worked.

Avatar
#22 KleptoKlown
June 27 2013, 02:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Mantastic

If the reports that Francesco Aquilini is hesitant to put up the cash for a Ballard buyout are true, what do you think the odds are for a Lu buyout?

If Lu ends up getting bought out, like I said in my previous post, this saga will be comparable to the Cam Neely trade.

Avatar
#23 KleptoKlown
June 27 2013, 03:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Philx

You've got your head straight up your ass if you think the Toronto media/Leafs have any sort of influence over how GMs manage their teams.

Avatar
#24 OrcaGamer
June 27 2013, 05:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@The Voice In The Dark

Did you happen to watch Luongo and his melt downs in Boston during the finals? Even Crawford managed to win 2 games against Boston in Boston this year. Luongo's confidence gave up the ghost long ago. Luongo should get on his knees and thank Gillis for giving him such a lop sided misguided over paid contract...and with a NTC to boot! Who did Gillis think Luongo was, Patrick Roy?

It's time for fans to move on, Luongo had over 6 years, mission not accomplished. He didn't have what it takes in the post season, and he isn't going to have it now...least not with this team and AV around. Scheider won at least one game against LA 2 years back, while Luongo was taking a red suntan in front of the goal light. Why would you want the Canucks to trade away a future potential talent and keep an aging goaltender that hasn;t been able to walk the walk? Oh right, the Canucks don;t like young talent and love to trade away their future, only to keep a core that is inept...ala- Mr. Quinn and his band of merry men, AKA Linden, Maclean, Lumme. I was there during that era, and yes, Messier was bang on, it was a country club. If NY had played they normally would, the Canucks would have lost 4-1 in that series instead of going into the 7th game.

They are right about one thing, changing the culture of the team. It was not a winning culture, and they couldnt take the next step. It's been over 40 years, it's time this team took a next step to be a " man " of a team instead of being what they've been for over 40 years. Just my 5 cents.

Avatar
#25 bill neftleberg
June 27 2013, 07:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I have to think some canuck fans are delusional.

why would anyone willingly take that contract if there is even a remote chance of getting him without it?

Im an Isles fan and we have no goalie if Nabokov signed elsewhere, and i would still wait on a possible buyout even if I knew 99.99% he'd sign in florida.

I wouldnt want that contract under any circumstances even waivers......and my team needs a goalie

there are several better alternatives out there like Halak, Miller, Smith, Bryz, and Khudobin. nobody takes a 9 year deal off waivers....

denial must be a river in Vancouver

the answer is Keep Luongo and trade Schneider

Avatar
#26 antro
June 27 2013, 07:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I think CanucksArmy readers have spoken: it sucks, but the better option is to trade Schneider. So it's time Gillis talks to Lui and tell him the good news: he found Lui a place to be the goalie of the future, and it's in Vancouver!

Avatar
#27 bill neftleberg
June 27 2013, 08:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
antro wrote:

I think CanucksArmy readers have spoken: it sucks, but the better option is to trade Schneider. So it's time Gillis talks to Lui and tell him the good news: he found Lui a place to be the goalie of the future, and it's in Vancouver!

youre right

only thing that makes sense

Avatar
#28 Semper Visor
June 27 2013, 08:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@bill neftleberg

So when Luongo is gone and you trade Schneider away. who's going to be in goal, Try Gamble? Then if that happens and they get a crap goalie in return , he very same fans will cry about how bad the goaltending is. That's like trading away a bag of apples but then realizing after that you need to go out and find another bag of apples. Canucks fans and logic are like oil and water, they never mix.

Avatar
#29 Jamie E
June 27 2013, 09:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I don't have a working crystal ball, so I can no better predict the future than anyone else here. It is, however, my recently arrived at opinion that Lu's contract is CURRENTLY untradeable without taking back a very sizable chunk of his salary and cap.

And judging the cap recapture provisions of the new CBA, looking at how little would be saved cap-wise by retaining significant salary, and the future cap and financial penalty upon Lu's retirement, I can't help but think a buy-out is actually best the for the Canucks as well.

Unfortunately, I firmly believe that the Aqualini's won't green light a buyout. A) because they are greedy, tight-fisted owners and B) they are prideful, arrogant and unwilling to own up to the mistake THEY made driving the bus on the Loungo contract.

So, believe it or not, I think we get to the end of the summer with Lu still on the roster. I don't know what happens this fall.

Avatar
#30 Mantastic
June 27 2013, 09:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@KleptoKlown

yeah i know that they really wouldn't want to buy him out but i was just commenting on your waiver issue saying if he was going to put on a buyout waiver that no one would claim him because he will get bought out.

Avatar
#31 Mantastic
June 27 2013, 09:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@orcasfan

the lenght is the problem. just like Vinny's contract.

Avatar
#32 Mantastic
June 27 2013, 09:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Jamie E

i agree unless Vancouver gives up something to sweeten the deal by a lot by throwing in an asset to grease the wheel.

Avatar
#33 Ruprecht
June 27 2013, 12:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I kinda think Tampa just entered the picture this morning. Personally, I think Lu has too much value to just be bought out. Because there's no other goalie with his pedigree available. None have carried the mail as consistently for as long. That matters a lot. You have to think there's a little bit of a bidding war brewing. It's just going to take time because of the magnitude of the deal. I read a quote from Hextall saying the Bernier deal was months in the making, so how long for a deal like this?

I seldom make predictions, but I feel it's going down to Tampa and Florida, and both teams have been discussing it for a while. The trade will also make incredible sense for both teams. Flame away.

Avatar
#34 JCDavies
June 27 2013, 01:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

"the Bernier deal was months in the making, so how long for a deal like this?"

...

Avatar
#35 NM00
June 27 2013, 01:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Ruprecht wrote:

I kinda think Tampa just entered the picture this morning. Personally, I think Lu has too much value to just be bought out. Because there's no other goalie with his pedigree available. None have carried the mail as consistently for as long. That matters a lot. You have to think there's a little bit of a bidding war brewing. It's just going to take time because of the magnitude of the deal. I read a quote from Hextall saying the Bernier deal was months in the making, so how long for a deal like this?

I seldom make predictions, but I feel it's going down to Tampa and Florida, and both teams have been discussing it for a while. The trade will also make incredible sense for both teams. Flame away.

Luongo just posted a sub .910 save percentage as a backup.

For some reason people are ignoring Luongo's performance this past season.

And he is owed $33.5 million over the next 5 years.

Why would there be a bidding war when Gillis has shown all his cards?

Avatar
#36 Mantastic
June 27 2013, 01:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Ruprecht

TBL just traded for Bishop at the deadline and trade for lindback this past season. WHY WOULD THEY TRADE FOR ANOTHER GOALIE?

Avatar
#37 Ruprecht
June 27 2013, 02:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Mantastic wrote:

TBL just traded for Bishop at the deadline and trade for lindback this past season. WHY WOULD THEY TRADE FOR ANOTHER GOALIE?

Because I predicted it...just kidding. Performance, plain and simple, at the root of my thinking. You get what you pay for. Neither goalie is the type you bank your immediate future on or somebody would have by now. Lu fits nicely and it makes sense to have him mentor at this point in his career. He's done great in that capacity here, at least I think so. It's a greatly underestimated part of his value. (See Sergei Gonchar and young defense partners over his career.)

I also think the fact we're talking about Stevie Y here is part of the fit. He would know the value of a strong veteran netminder who was knocking on the door of greatness, before achieving it later in his career, having taken sips with a guy named Hasek.

That and a little of what Gillis said at the deadline is ringing true. That a deal was in place contingent on the team having to do something with another player. The Lecavalier buyout fits in with this statement.

Avatar
#38 Mantastic
June 27 2013, 02:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Ruprecht

no, every point of your post is just so outlandish. comparing Luo to Hasek, are you jokin me?! how will Luo mentor these goalies when he's sign forever? who's daft enough for having a 5+m backup goalie...

they just signed Bishop to an extension... and please remind me of Luo's numbers his past 2 seasons and what Bishop's are. you'll be surprised by the results.

Avatar
#39 GC99
June 27 2013, 07:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Does anyone know what happens to the "cap recapture hit" if the player mysteriously gets hurt and is put on LTIR for the last few years of his contract, instead of retiring?

Hypothetically, if Lu were traded, what happens to the cap recapture penalty if he "hurt his back" when he turned 40 years old and is put on LTIR?

Avatar
#40 Ruprecht
June 28 2013, 11:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Mantastic wrote:

no, every point of your post is just so outlandish. comparing Luo to Hasek, are you jokin me?! how will Luo mentor these goalies when he's sign forever? who's daft enough for having a 5+m backup goalie...

they just signed Bishop to an extension... and please remind me of Luo's numbers his past 2 seasons and what Bishop's are. you'll be surprised by the results.

I suppose that's where we differ. I don't really look at the numbers as gospel. Nor do I think everything I say is. Just a gut feeling based on the logic I put forth, and could be wrong.

Bishop was brutal down the stretch, Lindback was good enough for them to seek out Bishop. It's not like Bishop came in and rode them into a playoff spot...and 2 teams found him just good enough to get rid of him, so he's not the 2nd coming of Roy. But with some seasoning, behind the right guy I think it's a nice fit. Schneids developed well that way without the pressure of having to shoulder everything all at once, so I feel a young guy like Bishop could too.

Also if you read, I'm not comparing goalies. I'm simply pointing out why Stevie Y might be more apt to lean on a vet to shoulder the load this year for T-Bay. You might not be the biggest Lu supporter, but face it, he has the best resume of any goalie available this year...and goalies like him do not come available very often. Logically, if you want first crack at him you'll have to do it via trade.

You asked for reasons, I gave them. My apologies if I wasn't puking stats to justify my position. I feel they can be deceptive in certain instances, like this one.

Comments are closed for this article.