Misinterpreting Luongo's Contract
Thanks to Mr. MacIntyre at The Province for clearing this up about Roberto Luongo's contract extension, and I quote:
A misunderstanding regarding Luongo is the "out clause" in his 12-year contract extension.No such clause exists.
What Luongo has after five years is the right to ask for a trade. But the Canucks are under no obligation to grant one. If they do not, the team loses its option to trade him later in the contract.
That's good to know. That article also gets more into details about how there is a noose around Kyle Wellwood's neck.
0 recs |
56 comments
|
Comments
trade clauses - pointless?
Let me get this straight then:
At year 5, Luongo can ask for a trade.
If he’s traded, then the Canucks don’t have him anymore and the team’s ability to trade him becomes moot.
If he’s NOT traded, then the Canucks lose their trade ability.
So, in what scenario can the canucks actually make use of their trade option? In thinking this through, I suppose the only real value of the team’s trade option is that it might slightly increase the return you’d get for Lou if he asked for the trade. The receiving team would inherit that ability to trade him later on.
Interesting.
by beemser on Nov 25, 2009 3:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’m going through the scenarios in my head. So Lou is giving Gillis 5 years to win a Cup here and committing to those 5 years. If all looks desolate, he can ask to be traded after that. If the Canucks don’t oblige and can’t trade him after that it’s just contractual babble and puts the ball more in Luongo’s court. Why? Because he could still waive his no-trade clause any time he feels like it. Luongo has made it very clear that he wants to WIN the CUP. If the Canucks are sucking after denying him a trade any time after year 5, I can’t see why Lou wouldn’t waive it. It’s not like he wants to live here until he’s 43 if the team isn’t winning. He wouldn’t want that.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Might have more to do with non-hockey reasons, than hockey reasons. 5 years puts his kid at 6 iirc. My guess is that that element of the contract may have some element of life planning tied up in it.
by rsm on Nov 25, 2009 4:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Like living in Southeastern U.S. rather than Southwestern Canada.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 26, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps if he doesn’t ask for a trade then they have the ability to trade him later on?
...loving life for Christ's glory...
by NebCanuck on Nov 25, 2009 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Their exercises are unbloody battles, and their battles bloody exercises.
-Flavius Josephus (commenting on the Roman Army)
You will play like you practice, Mr. Wellwood. Simple as that.
/erudition by google
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 25, 2009 7:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It’s got to be a 50/50 chance for Bolduc or Woody starting tomorrow night
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I kinda expect one or two more tries for Woodrow, dunno why. Maybe cuz, if you’re gonna bench a guy for not scoring, you might not wanna do it right after a game where no one scored?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 25, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You could be right. But the way AV is talking about how Woodrow looks in practice determining his outcome…you never know.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 8:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Prob just pushing him. If it works, it works, if it doesn’t, hello Bolduc. AV must truly believe in the Roman model and that Wellwood needs to practice harder.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 25, 2009 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe cuz
There are no other choices for 3rd line centre…
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 8:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, betond Bolduc and Woody who is there? Ryan Johnson?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Bolduc the answer?
0 points in either league so far this season.
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bah! That’s 2 assists and no goals worse than Woody! At least Bolduc is an energetic freak
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but
the problem with Wellfed is lack of production, need some 3rd line scoring.
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and I’m saying, "what have we got to lose by throwing Bolduc in for a game and benching Woodrow’?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing
my question is what have we got to gain?
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a lucky goal or point by Bolduc? haha
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
Wellfed gets motivated by it?
But really, if he isn’t motivated yet, what’s the chances?
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know. He’s gone on long enough with his offensive futility, so if I was a betting man, I’d say he’s all but done here.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
but in that case Gillisgan is going to have to take his balls out of his pocket and make a trade… unless Demo comes back and we want the most expensive 3rd line in the history of the universe.
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I trust Gilis and you don’t . Fair enough. He’ll do whatever it takes to win.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Problem lies
with what he thinks it takes to win…
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
character, man. CHARACTER! haha
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus-can Bolduc win half the number of faceoffs as Wellvood can?
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 26, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good god. anyone following the Hawks game? 7-2 Final in Hossa’s debut. Marian with 2 goals.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Keith
3 points and +4
Heater, JoeT and Boyle all -4.
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
And 3
of Chi’s goals were SH!
Nabokov looked brutal on at least a couple.
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Unreal. Now let’s compare us with them shall we?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you want
but I’d still love those 3 guys on the Nucks. : D
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m serious. Chicago should get to the Finals this year. I don’t think we could beat them in a playoff series.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't either
But, goaltending makes up for a lot, so if Lu plays like a $7M goaltender when it matters most, that is Chi’s biggest question mark.
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I had that thought as well. But geez, a canucks win over the Hawks would be an upset don’t you think?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So unless Sundin comes out of retirement we’re banking on an upset?! haha
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
referring to Lu playing like a $7M goaltender when it matters most.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 26, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lights out in the playoffs against Dallas a couple years ago and was very good against Anaheim as well. They were just a far superior team.
by Section 312 on Nov 26, 2009 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Luongo in 2007 was gold. I have not seen that form since. At least, not very often
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 26, 2009 5:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say so
but then again that’s what elite goaltenders are supposed to be capable of.
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yes it’s true. But a little more support from the forwards won’t hurt. Comparatively on paper the Hawks have us killed
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not just at forward
Their D is performing better too, although a lot of our dmen are underperforming as well.
Still say it has a lot to do with Lu, have yet to see the team get on a confidence roll with him in net, which is due, but then this fcuked up schedule doesn’t help.
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, the sked gets better! I’ve analyzed it. Talking to the Hawks guy on Twitter right now. He’s scared to jinx his team.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I tried to suggest Wellwood for Bolland and he basically laughed! haha
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It gets better
but there are still at least a couple more 4+ game breaks and something like 8 more b2bs.
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oh god…9 back to backs and two 4+ day layoffs not including the Olympics.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 10:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Quick check
of NHL.com scoring by centres…
Wellfed ~ 150th in the league…
That means on average each team has 5 centres with more points than mr. invisible…
How is that even possible…
by yoata on Nov 25, 2009 10:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ouch.
Hey, I posted a Hodgson piece in the fanpost section, so I will be an arrogant jackass and refer Hodgson talk that way. At least it provides a centralized area to argue about it. That topic isn’t destined to go away anytime soon anyway.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 25, 2009 11:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 






















