Luongo will be in camp; agent blasts Mike Gillis

There aren’t very many ways that this Roberto Luongo saga can end. For the second consecutive year, questions surrounding Roberto’s future will be the centre of discussion at Canucks training camp, but for now, it appears he’ll be there.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Turns out, Luongo won’t go the “walk away from the team and have my contract voided and lose the remaining $40-million on my deal” route. New agent Pat Brisson yesterday confirmed that Luongo would at least be at camp, and for the foreseeable future, Luongo is the Vancouver Canucks’ starting goalie.

That caused a bit of a ripple online, especially as Luongo got back into the Twitter game:

In other Luongo news, the embattled goaltender’s former agent Gilles Lupien took a call from Tamarack, Ontario to talk to Globe and Mail reporter Roy MacGregor. Lupien had some harsh words for Mike Gillis, criticizing the way that Gillis handled the Luongo situation:

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

“It’s okay to say you’re going to trade someone,” he says, “ but then trade him. If I want to sell my car, and I want to get a good price for it, I don’t say my car is always in the garage. There’s something wrong with it. No one will want to buy it. You either say your car is the best car you ever had – or you say nothing.”

It would be ridiculous to suggest that Gillis hasn’t mishandled this thing from Day 1, and the Canucks goaltender controversy goes all the way back to Game 3 of the Western Conference Quarterfinals in 2012 against the Los Angeles Kings, when then-coach Alain Vigneault all but decided that down 0-2 in the series, a chance of starting goaltenders was necessary.

At the draft that year, Gillis suggested he was the problem, and the reason a deal was being held up. For close to a year, Gillis kept talking about some Mystery Team that had the prerequisite need for a starting goaltender and sufficient salary cap space and financial resources, despite no such team existing in the NHL. Trading Cory Schneider never seemed to be an option for whatever reason, despite that being the eventual course of action.

In a funky twist of fate, the only person involved with the Luongo situation to see negative financial ramifications is Gilles Lupien, for whatever reason. We can be happy knowing that we have potentially nine more years of Luongo, and nine more training camps speculating about his future. It was mishandled from the start and reflects poorly upon Gillis and Laurence Gilman who tried to sell their car through the media and simply didn’t. The addition of Mystery Teams certainly didn’t help.

But there are a lot of moving pieces. I’m still not convinced cap recapture is what caused Luongo to become untradeable, the Toronto Maple Leafs’ change of personnel and philosophical shift didn’t help, even though I was never convinced that the Canucks and Maple Leafs were good trading partners. There’s a lot to ruminate about this process, but we have a lot of time to do that.

As for the “walk away” route, it could still happen next season. The Canucks also still have one compliance buy-out they can use next offseason, so there are still ways it can end. With the team’s public unwillingness to deal Schneider, the process looks remarkably botched from the outside, and it was never fair to let a human being suffer in that regard.

  • pheenster

    Um, Luongo was the one that went public with his trade request. If this was mishandled there’s plenty of blame to share.

    What was Gillis supposed to do? Lie to the media and say Luongo wasn’t on the block?

    • Fred-65

      Gillis should have traded CoHo & Schneider for Jeff Carter and, you know, improve the team IN FRONT of Luongo.

      Instead, Gillis chose to sit on the Schneider asset for two seasons too long while the Canucks were at the top of the win curve.

      In the end, Gillis traded Schneider to improve the farm system BEHIND Luongo.

      In what world does any of this make sense?

      • pheenster

        In what world does your proposed deal make sense?
        the canucks wouldn’t have had the cap space to do that deal.

        It takes two GM’s to deal. You’re situation assumes that Columbus would have accepted that deal. I doubt they would have accepted it regardless of other factors.

        • pheenster

          Then don’t accept Florida’s offer to take on David Booth for free essentially.

          Why exactly is Jack Johnson and a 1st better than CoHo and Schneider?

          And, really, that’s just one example of a player we know was available.

          It could have been anything.

          The idea of going for Lou to Schneider and back to Lou is beyond comprehension.

  • pheenster


    There wasn’t room for two and Lou could see the tide shifting, his request wasn’t unreasonable. What MG did was an epic fail. He asked for the moon when people were still trying to understand the implications of the new cap. Even today a $5.3 Mil cap hit is great for a starting tender. It should have been an easy trade if done right away. It’s okay to say your trading but you have to be reasonable about what you are asking for in return. I would have dumped MG the same time as AV.

  • Fred-65

    Let’s see Luongo signed a contract that was negoiated by his agent then said it sucked and the agent wants in to fall on Gillis shoulders. I can see why Lupien represents so few player …but he was yoour choice Luo

  • pheenster

    Wow. We should never treat a human being this way? Did you just say that with a straight face? If you meant those words you seriously lack perspective. Let’s go spend some time together on the downtown east side or with victims of child sexual abuse.

    This is a multi-millionaire professional athlete playing a frigging game. For a team that he willingly signed a long-term contract for. That is an elite NHL franchise that has had great success in recent years.

    Show up. Play the game. Have fun. And continue to thank your lucky stars that you on the genetic lottery and had the good fortune to be born in a part of the world where you didn’t die from dysentery before you we’re two.

  • Fred-65

    “I was shocked,” Lupien says. “But I understood, too.

    “He said, ‘Gilles, I want to take a new path – what do you think?’ Maybe another guy they’d listen.”

    This would seem to imply that Luongo wants his new reps to continue to pressure Gillis to trade him.

    If there is a trade partner out there, that is.

  • Fred-65

    I’m betting Lu plays this season and the main reason is to represent at the Olympics. Next summer we could see his camp push for a deal (cap goes up) or he may opt to walk.

    I like Lu but I’d like to see him leave. Way too many distractions (not entirely his fault) and he is getting older. We can go with a different goalie and maybe sign him to a reasonable contract (Lu does have very club friendly cap hit).

    The next person I’d like to toss is our GM. He has made too many mistakes. His drafts are questionable (actually, most Canuck draft years really suck) and his talent evaluation is weak. He should’ve made significant changes to the scouts and our scouting system. All one has to do is look at our horrific drafts.

  • Fred-65

    Safe to say everyone involved in this fiasco was to blame for this continuing mess.

    Luongo held out for only 1 team during the most opportune time to trade him. Lupien said it was a good idea. Gillis tried to pump up his value in the media but turned it into a circus. Aquillini turned into the cheapest owner in the NHL by refusing to buy out Luongo, hence sticking a fork in this entire gong show.

    Now, they’re left with an older goalie on a horrible contract who really doesn’t want to be here. After coming off his worst season in Vancouver, Aquilini prays to his god that it’s an anomaly and has nothing to do with Luongo being ‘done’ with this team. He also prays Luongo doesn’t retire in 2 or 3 years and leave the team with a massive recapture penalty under this new CBA. All cause Aquilini turned into a cheap bum while Canucks fans watched the welfare NYI and Lightening buyout massive contracts.

    Great life being a Canucks fan.

    • Fred-65

      “Luongo held out for only 1 team during the most opportune time to trade him. Lupien said it was a good idea.”

      Do you have Lupien’s quote handy?

      Perhaps I have missed something during this 15 month process. But I’ve never heard of Lupien coercing Lou to focus on one team and one team only.

      I think we should take Gillis at his word when he admitted he was the problem.

      • JCDavies

        “I think we should take Gillis at his word when he admitted he was the problem.”

        Didn’t you write this just two days ago?:

        “But for the most part, who cares what he or any GM says?

        They’re all used car salesman. Some are just better at slinging BS than others.”

        • JCDavies

          Fair enough. He may have been lying.

          Though I’m not sure how it would serve Gillis to make that up.

          Was he trying to use the media to create a market that did not exist?

          Surely he must have had a sense of the market for that contract when the process started.

          Otherwise why start the process in the first place?

          • JCDavies

            It’s been awhile so maybe I am forgetting something.

            But what “heat” was on Luongo in June 2012 and how would it relate to Gillis’ asking price in trade?

          • JCDavies

            You don’t think there would have been heat on Luongo if Gillis made a different comment that indicated that the problem was Luongo and/or his agent? Or that, had he said nothing, that media speculation wouldn’t have turned on Luongo and his NTC?

          • JCDavies

            Are you operating under the assumption that Luongo and/or his agent were (part of) the problem?

            Or are you suggesting Luongo and/or his agent MAY have been (part of) the problem?

            If it is the latter, that is the reality of attempting to trade a player with a NTC.

            It shouldn’t have come as a surprise to Gillis. It is a part of every GMs job.

            Logically, though, Luongo should have had a heck of a lot more trade value in June 2012 as opposed to June 2013.

            In June 2012, Luongo was coming of a .919 save percentage (which is right in line with his career numbers) and a full season as a starter. He was comfortably one of the top 10 starters in the NHL.

            In June 2013, Luongo was coming off his worst save percentage in a decade and a shortened season as a backup.

            While the numbers decline may very well just be SSS, it could also be the beginning of an erosion of skill. He is also one year older.

            So could Gillis’ comment be taken as self-serving to preserve a modicum of trade leverage?

            Sure, it’s possible.

          • JCDavies

            I am operating under the assumption that had Gillis said anything other than “I am the problem” then the media would have made it into a much bigger story than it needed to be, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that he said what he said. Gillis would make that same comment regardless of the truth.

          • andyg

            If Gillis had said “we’re listening to offers”, or “we’re exploring our options” or a cliché along the same lines, how would that have made it into a bigger story?

            The fact that Gillis offered something a little more substantial with “I’m the problem” along with his explanation as to why he was the problem suggests he was telling the truth in this instance.

            If anything, this made it a bigger story than it needed to be.

            Because there were simpler and more ambiguous methods to say “no comment” if that was his goal.

            Again, he very well may have lied. But it seems unnecessary if he did, in fact, lie.

  • Fred-65

    @All To Blame

    Aquillini the cheapest owner? Are you kidding me? He spends to the cap most seasons which is not always a given with NHL teams. I’m not here to defend ownership but you’ve just proven your ignorance.

    Why they hell would you want to buy out Lu?! He is still very good and is a bargain especially when considering cap hit. Sadly, that should be a contract given to a 26 year old and not a 40 year old. If Lu stays healthy and is effective for most of the contract then it turns out to be a great deal. I can’t blame ownership for not buying him out.

  • Fred-65

    When was the last time a long term contract worked out for the team and the player through the whole term of the contract? I actually can’t think of a single instance.

    If I were a player, I’d be wary of signing a long term contract, it seems more likely to end up in a situation like this than in any other way. Hopefully this is a lesson to other players who want such a long term.

  • JCDavies

    First of all that car analogy was the worst I ever heard! I dont believe Gillis ever said Luo was broken just that Schnieder was a better option being cheaper and younger. Gillis played the worst game of poker I have ever seen. He bluffed and kept putting in chips and then when it was time to show his cards, he had to fold. MG should have known that there would be a lockout and what the league was going totry to do about these 10yr lifetime contracts. Its his job to see where the league is going, not be one step behind. Gillis should have traded Luobefore the lock out for something or traded Schnieds when his value was higher at last seasons deadline. Too many FA goalies out there in offseason to get value. Gillis is a mess of lack of foresight and zero tact! He runs down Co Ho after he is traded and handles the goalie situation as poorly as could be. Good thing Luo and Schnieds were the only Pros on this situation. How this guy could ever have been an agant is beyond me.

    • JCDavies

      The idea that Gillis should’ve known that anything in the CBA would exist that would retroactively punish GMs who made those contracts is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard around here.

      • JCDavies

        Were there not rumblings that Bettman and small market teams were pushing for these cap circumventing teams to be penalized?

        Were these cap circumvention contracts not investigated by the NHL culminating in the Devils being fined for the initial Kovalchuk contract?

        I don’t think the concept behind cap recapture should have come as a shock to GMs.

          • andyg

            My issue isn’t with knowing whether the league liked these contracts at all.

            It’s with knowing when these contracts were signed that the NHL would RETROACTIVELY punish teams that signed them. No one anywhere had even heard about this idea of cap recapture before the CBA was even signed, much less before the lockout began.

            Also, I never argued that the new CBA prevented a Luongo trade.

          • andyg

            Is it retroactive “punishment”, though?


            I agree with Tango. It is merely to ensure proper accounting.

            Google ‘NHL investigates Luongo contract’ and this is the first hit:


            The Canucks aren’t being “punished”. They are merely going to have to pay back the interest free loan down the road.

          • JCDavies

            All the articles you are citing occur AFTER Sept. 2, 2009 and AFTER the league APPROVED the Luongo contract.

            The league had a history of approving similar contracts and they approved Luongo’s. They didn’t have to, but they did. They then had 13 months to change their minds and void the contract, but they didn’t do that either.

            The talk of retroactively punishing those types of contracts didn’t occur until the Kovalchuk contract was signed TEN months AFTER Luongo and the Canucks agreed to a contract and the league approved the deal.

          • andyg

            Again, it is not “punishment”.

            It is to ensure proper accounting.

            Are you suggesting the Canucks and other teams actively engaged in cap circumvention?


          • JCDavies

            The Luongo and other similar contracts were allowed by the league as legal, CBA adhering contracts. They didn’t like them, but frankly it was a system they had agreed to, and no rules were broken.

            It’s punishment in the sense that when a player retires could be taken into account when these contracts were signed. Why do you think they have rules on contracts for players over 35? It’s not that they’re expecting all players over 35 to retire, but you know it’s a possibility. Some teams sign the contract anyway.

            If the cap-benefit recapture clause had existed in the last CBA, the Luongo deal wouldn’t extend as long as it does not because all parties expect Luongo to retire before his contract is up, but because it’s merely a possibility. What you call “good accounting” I call “screwing contracts signed using pre-current CBA rules, conditions, and thought processes”.

            That being said, thanks for the link, seems like a good blog.

          • JCDavies

            “If the cap-benefit recapture clause had existed in the last CBA, the Luongo deal wouldn’t extend as long as it does not because all parties expect Luongo to retire before his contract is up, but because it’s merely a possibility.”

            How exactly do you think the contract would have been structured then?

            Luongo was getting his money one way or the other.

            If you want to ignore the last 4 years of the deal when the money tapers off, it is an 8 year $57 million contract.

            The cap hit would have been $7.125/year.

            Something tells me the Canucks prefer the interest free loan.

            It’s not “good” accounting. It’s “proper” accounting.

          • JCDavies

            I respect Tom Tango a lot but I disagree with him on this issue.

            The league approved the deal. If the government thought you were evading taxes it wouldn’t let you continue to do what you are doing with its stamp of approval. It would stop the process immediately and demand payment. If the league acted in this manner, the contract never would have existed.

            As for the tax/interest deferral argument. When you defer payments you do so with the intention of paying them back in the future. None of the teams that signed these agreements did so with that expectation.

            This is more like the government making changes to the tax code that burden tax payers for previously made decisions.

          • JCDavies

            “When you defer payments you do so with the intention of paying them back in the future. None of the teams that signed these agreements did so with that expectation.”

            So then these teams were actively engaged in cap circumventing practices, right?

            Weren’t these teams intentionally trying to get away with not paying taxes?

            The Canucks and other teams really don’t have a legitimate argument here.

            Unless they want to admit they were handing out contracts that went against the spirit of the old CBA.

            Putting aside Tango’s point and our feelings as Canuck fans, cap recapture seems like a perfectly fair way to ensure the books are (eventually) balanced.

            The Canucks aren’t getting screwed. Benefit received in the present will merely be recaptured in the future.

            And it’s more than a fair tradeoff. By the time cap recapture impacts the Canucks, the cap will be north of $80 million.

            The actual percentage of the total cap will be limited.

            Would you have preferred Luongo signing an 8/57 deal with a $7.125 cap hit?

            There wouldn’t have been any cap room for Ballard 🙂

          • JCDavies

            I think Vancouver and the other teams involved thought they were working within the legal framework that the league agreed to with the players.

            No team would’ve signed those contracts with prior knowledge that this would be the result.

            To argue that the cap recapture rule does not harm the clubs that signed the contracts, you would have to argue that the teams would still be willing to sign them now that they are aware of the rule. I don’t think you can argue that even one team would.

          • JCDavies

            “To argue that the cap recapture rule does not harm the clubs that signed the contracts, you would have to argue that the teams would still be willing to sign them now that they are aware of the rule. I don’t think you can argue that even one team would.”

            I assume you mean that IF these clubs could still sign Luongo-like contracts, right?

            In any case, I completely disagree.

            Why wouldn’t NHL teams want an interest free loan that would be paid back when the cap is significantly higher?

            GMs in particular would be in favour of this. After all, what are the chances Gillis is around when Luongo’s cap hit is recaptured?

            There is one team and one team only that should be excessively pissed and it’s not Vancouver:


            The Devils did what Detroit, Vancouver and other teams did, albeit to a greater extreme, and were the only team actually “punished”, I’d argue.

          • JCDavies

            I’m slowly coming around on this and I can see why some GMs might want to do this but I still think it was outside the scope of the old CBA. I don’t think anybody saw this coming in 2009.

            FWIW, I think the deferred payment analogy is better than the interest free loan analogy.

          • JCDavies

            I think all GMs would do this if they had the ability with the new CBA.

            For example, I’m sure Ray Shero would love to defer payment (see what I did there) on any or all of Crosby, Malkin or Letang.

            An extra $5 million, for example, this season with a $64 million cap is far more valuable than $5 million in 2019-2020 with a $80+ million cap.

            Not to mention that GMs have a shelf life and care more about the current cap situation as opposed to the cap situation 5-10 years down the road…

      • andyg

        Sorry but any hockey fan knew the league hated the contracts and wanted to cut the salary cap? Too bad you obviously dont know much about what goes on in the league. One of the main reasons the lock out happened was because GMs were taking advantage of loopholes in the Old CBA. GMs jobs are to watch trends in the NHL. and try and stay ahead. The refs stopped calling the interference which lead to bigger more physical teams to win. Remember the 2011 Finals? Wonder what you think a GM is supposed to do with his time?

  • JCDavies


    You think the Gillis/Sedin era has been pathetic? Hmmmmmmm. You must be one tough person to please. A couple of President’s trophies, a Cup Final, Canucks leading the league in scoring…the list goes on.

    How about you tell me about a Canuck era that had a better 3-4 year period. Even better, how about you give me 6 franchises that had a better 4-5 year period. There are definitely some that had good runs and some had Cup wins but even a lot of them weren’t as good for so many years. Maybe the Hawks and Bruins but not much else.

    The last year was not kind to the Canucks but it was a lockout season. Maybe we rebound or maybe the decline continues. Who knows. I think we’ve had a pretty good run. Unfortunately Gillis did not re-tool us to win and I suspect we will be in a state of decline but I hope I’m wrong.

    • JCDavies

      the presidents trophies are not worth anything. Do any fans remember who won presidents trophies in the past? no. Ever year there is always a presidents trophie winner, a finalist second placer and the one who wins the cup. I’m not hard to please. I have what many ppl refer to as ” standards”.

      The canucks have been miserable, and you are comparing basically turd to treated turd. The only thing tht counts is the SC, period. Sorry, they are a pro hockey team, not a charity. Players are measured on the SC, every single one of them, no exceptions. Why? Would you watch a league if there was nothing to win at the end of every season? Do you think players showing up for a check is worth watching? No, the cup is the only thing that matters,

      The canucks are no spring chicken franchise, if they were in the league 5 years id be more forgiving. Sorry man, 45 years and no cup? hey, i think i speak for alot of people when i say that many fans will die before those guys win one. And if they dont? If that team doesnt win one cup in 100 years, would you seriously look back and say those were not wasted 100 years? Better think about it, 50 years is coming up, and 100 is not far ahead. This team has not earned more time and excuses for failure. If wanting a team to win just one cup before I croak means im too hard to please, well then, no offense but you need higher standards..a lot higher.

  • andyg

    Gillis was frigged as soon as Lou’$ trade request went public. Your trying to trade from a position of weakness after news like that is released. The team trading the unhappy player will always lose. Gillis demanded fair market value on something he was being made to sell. Because of that, he was definitely the problem.

  • andyg

    When Lou said he would allow a trade did he say anywhere or did he give a short list. No one knows but a short list would make it very difficult to get any value back for the teem.
    Gilles’s job is to make the teem better not make people happy. Now is the time to bring youth to this line up. Allow the kids to come in and learn from veteran players.(just like Chicago did with Sadd,Shaw and Leddy).
    The deal to pick up Bo could prove to the best thing for this teem in the long run.This years training camp will be very interesting.
    I know I will be watching.

  • andyg


    How many GM’s have you heard say “I’m the problem”? The exaggerated way of saying it is one of the best indicators that Gillis wasn’t the only problem. Sure, he was a problem in not accepting the anchor that Florida wanted to throw him in return. Bruce Dowbiggin, giving the management perspective to be sure, has reported that Luongo pushed for Florida when there was a Toronto offer on the table last summer. At some point, Lupien said that Luongo was never asked to waive his NTC, but that was extremely formal and never denied that an offer to Toronto was being discussed.

    As much as you like to blame Gillis for everything, Luongo and his agent also have their blame, and you are twisting yourself into knots and contradictions trying to make your position seem somehow objective.

    • andyg

      You have absolutely no idea what role Luongo and his agent have in this.

      Why even use Dowbiggin as a source?

      There were all sorts of rumors about Gillis’ ridiculous asking price and Luongo softening his stance on Toronto in September.

      If you want to go by the rumors, why are you ignoring that one?

      Forget about Lou’s feelings and forget about Schneider’s feelings. And forget about Lupien’s feelings while you’re at it.

      The Canucks wasted $5.33 million on a backup goalie this past season when, at minimum, a 3LC was needed.

      Ideally some form of Kesler insurance and a scoring winger also would have been on the shopping list.

      What was the justification for wasting another year of an aging core while making a decision on the goalies?

      What was the justification for having the most expensive backup goalie in the league when there were glaring holes in the forward group all season?

      Blaming the player/agent for the albatross contract and NTC is fruitless.

      If Luongo was an immovable object, management never should have tried to move him.


      There is no grey area unless you believe he was, at one point, a moveable object.

      • andyg

        First there needs to be a trade worth making.

        Also if Lou had of been traded for a player with a similar cap hit then what kind of cap troubles would we have now?
        Maybe no money for Edler.
        Do you not think moving a goal tender for youth is the best thing for this teem right now and in the future?

        • andyg

          “Do you not think moving a goal tender for youth is the best thing for this teem right now and in the future?”

          The best move would have been trading Schneider two years ago to improve the team in front of Luongo.

          Gillis botched that.

          As for the present day, what exactly is Bo Horvat going to do?

          He is unlikely to contribute to next year’s roster. By the time he is good enough to make a contribution, if he becomes something useful that is, the Sedin/Luongo core will either be too old or out of Vancouver.

          Even if Horvat becomes useful, the timing of it is unlikely to work.

          Gillis’ draft day disaster officially closed the window.

          But, hey, lets give large raises to Burrows & Edler, lose the key contributor to the team’s save percentage advantage of the last 3 years and try again!


          • andyg

            So how would a second round draft pick have changed any thing? That is what you would have got for Schneider two years ago.

            When talking about youth it is not Bo that I feel will play a big role this year.There are some very good prospects that may surprise you this year. Just as Corrado came out of no where, this year maybe Gaunce will be your 3rd line center.
            I am sure now you will run down all of our prospects and tell me how none of them will ever amount to any thing.

          • andyg

            “So how would a second round draft pick have changed any thing? That is what you would have got for Schneider two years ago.”

            On what are you basing this?

            To clarify, when I say “two years ago” I mean prior to the trade deadline for the 2012 playoff run.

            Even waiting until the 2012 offseason to trade Schneider would have been fine.

            Spending $5.33 million on a backup goalie this past season, though, was not fine.

            Has Schneider’s trade value gone up in the last year?

            The year before he was working towards a .937 save percentage and carried over his strong play into the playoffs.

            This past season he got off to a slow start and the season ended for him getting shelled in the playoffs.

            I don’t think we can definitively say Schneider had more trade value in June 2013 than he did in either March or June 2012.

  • andyg

    Lu didn’t want to be here. He asked for a trade. He wanted out.

    You don’t keep players that aren’t happy. You don’t keep players that don’t want to play for the team.

    The Canucks were correct in trying to trade him.

    I hope this story ends soon and he is no longer with the Canucks.

    • andyg

      Why would this drama end soon?

      Who is going to take on Lou’s contract after Canuck management has spent the last year actively sabotaging his trade value by making him the most expensive backup in the league?

      A compliance buyout can’t be used until next summer. Using a regular buyout would be dumb and does not appear in the cards.

      Just imagine if this saga ends with a compliance buyout NEXT summer.

      Then another chapter would be added to the management blunder handbook that Gillis is authoring.

      People will rightly be asking “why are you buying out Lou now instead of last summer when Schneider could have been retained?”

      • andyg

        Lu asked to be traded. Then HE made the trade impossible by REFUSING to waive the no trade clause.

        This will be a bad year for the Canucks and worse for Luongo.

        He will deserve everything he gets this year. Then he will be gone. Good riddance.

        • andyg

          Agreed. Luongo like him or not has not been able to cut it. He should have been gone after the 2 playoff loses to the Hawks. He should definitely have been gone after the Sharks series. He is still here a a year after the Sharks series. The Canucks have a goalie not only with a No trade clause, they have a goalie with a No care clause now. Luongo is in a no lose situation, except on the ice, if he plays bad, does he care if they trade him? No, he wants out anyways. If they buy him out, he’ll be sitting on a bed of money. Cant imagine why he wouldnt be motivated to play next year.

          Bottom line, next year Luongo will choke out as usual, the Sedins will be invisible in the play offs, Edler will cough up the series losing goal, and all the fans will blame Torts, and the sad Canuck saga will continue on for another half century. Well, at least Bure will have his jersey retired. Now there’s a guy who wanted to play here, until the management pissed him off. The curse of Bure continues on.

  • JCDavies

    My only point is that of course Luongo’s retirement would have been taken into account by Canucks management in the sense of “even if he doesn’t play through to the end of the contract, it’s no-risk”. The league just threw that on its head. Do you really think the Canucks would sign a contract like that wherein they’d risk a significant cap hit if Luongo were to retire a year or two before his deal was done?

    • JCDavies

      I absolutely believe the Canucks still would have done that type of contract even if present day cap benefit would be recaptured in the future.

      For starters, Gillis would receive the benefit while, in all likelihood, another GM would have received the “punishment”.

      Also, by the time the cap benefit is recaptured the cap may very well be over $80 million.

      Do you really think Gillis expected to be the GM 10 years after the ink had dried?

      Even with cap recapture I believe most if not all GMs would love to have the ability to offer backdiving contracts if the new CBA allowed it.

  • JCDavies

    Gillis isn’t the only one signing cheques. A contract like this, Aquillini has a hand in it without a doubt. Do you think HE would sign off on this?

    I’m not saying it wouldn’t have been a back diving contract, but I would bet ridiculous amounts of dollars that the last few years of that contract would not be on there. As soon as the ink was dry people would be pointing out the stupidity of signing a contract like this precisely because it handcuffs the Canucks later.

    If Gillis signed this exact contract in the hypothetical “last CBA including cap recapture” scenario, the deal would’ve been received with even more people unhappy with the deal, and likewise fewer people happy with it. It would legitimately be a complaint that if Luongo were to retire that the Canucks would be stuck with the cap recapture hit.

    This isn’t just proper accounting, it’s a “don’t screw with the league” warning from the NHL.

    • JCDavies

      “I would bet ridiculous amounts of dollars that the last few years of that contract would not be on there.”

      Luongo was getting his money one way or another.

      Sure, he may have been willing to lop off the last 4 years and $7 million.

      But he still would have received the first 8 years and $57 million, wouldn’t he? He was never giving a home town discount.

      “This isn’t just proper accounting, it’s a “don’t screw with the league” warning from the NHL.”

      Just be happy we only got a warning while the Devils legitimately received punishment 🙂