Will the League Investigate Luongo's Contract?
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 3, 2009 1:25 AM PDT
in Luongo
36 comments
ESPN's Pierre LeBrun thinks so. He said in a post yesterday:
Not to rain on anyone's parade in Vancouver (because we know Canucks fans are absolutely thrilled to get their franchise goalie locked up for the rest of his career), but we must tell you the NHL is not impressed by this contract and we're led to believe the league will take a long, hard look at the deal before giving it its full blessing.
OK, primarily, don't let that concern you. The League has already been "investigating" Marian Hossa's contract with the Blackhawks for weeks now and we've heard nothing about it since. Oh yes, and they didn't like the Flyers' deal with Chris Pronger either. Hossa's deal nearly mirrors Luongo's: 12-year deals, both will be about 42 or 43 years old when the contract expires, and both will be making $1 million or less in those final stages.
It's that new and hip thing called "circumventing the collective bargaining agreement." The teams being accused of it by the League are guilty of it, let's call a spade a spade.
If you think Luongo is going to be playing at 42 years of age for about $1 million per season then I want some of the drugs you are taking.
Despite the league's threats to investigate these contracts all it really comes down to is scare tactics. Damage control. Well, they can't do anything more than that in a union environment. Why? Because they've already let Detroit get away with it. That's a crappy little thing called "past practice".
This will be dealt with when the current CBA is over. Until then, I don't blame GM's for finding a loophole in the system and taking advantage of it. Especially when it's the Canucks doing it! We can't let Detroit, Chicago and Philly have all the fun.
0 recs |
36 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Pfffhht
Its Pierre Lebrun. And what else is he going to say?
Not worried at all…they have enough problems without going after some of their better teams over these deals.
This was an extension…different from a 12 year deal signed 2 minutes into FA like Hossa’s.
I doubt there will be any rumour of Captain Canuck negotiating his possible day to hang them up like the Hossa rumours either.
And lastly…its Pierre Lebrun…he is part of that COTU Cabal of supposed media mavens that think they are more intelligent than the evidence shows!
If you listened to Pierre’s buddy Bobcat on Sportsnet for their little T.O lovefest, they sounded pretty jealous when they were interviewing Gillis.
Gillis never rose to the bait several times as Bobcat tried to bait him into answering questions on the PA firing, Phx situaton…etc.
At least they gave us one day to enjoy it…
vancitydan
by vancitydan on Sep 3, 2009 1:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I wish the NHL would just shut up about this. I like it when a team decides to keep the players they feel are most important to their future success, including by getting around rules that I think are pretty dumb anyway. What are teams supposed to do if not fudge the cap hit with a long contract? They aren’t going to meekly accept their salary-cap-induced fate and just let guys wander off to other teams because they are obeying the “spirit of the CBA” so the way to keep players they want at a cap hit they can afford is to stretch the contract out.
The team gets who they want at a price they can afford, the player gets stability and most of his money up front, and the NHL should just shut up about it because if they didn’t see coming what a lot of fans and bloggers could see coming, they should not keep pointing out their collective stupidity.
I don’t like constant roster changes on teams. It makes the hockey all-around crappier because no one works together for more than a season or so before they get replaced. I like being able to see a player in a particular uniform year after year after year, Zetterberg or Luongo or Nash, and not have to try to remember what team he was on last year and when he signed with this one.
These investigations are just because the NHL is pissy because their wonderful CBA has a “loophole” that isn’t forcing the best players to be redistributed to lousier teams. Tough.
Vancouver is happy with the low cap hit, Luongo is happy with the money, I’m sure his teammates are thrilled – so everyone else should butt out.
"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill
by Baroque on Sep 3, 2009 3:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention...
…if, heaven forbid, Luongo’s production dips dramatically or he suffers some form of _ (knock on wood), the contract will keep the team from competing. So it’s hardly without risk.
by Jevant on Sep 3, 2009 5:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Kinda, but mitigated. If Luongo’s play drops off in, say, two years from now, he’s already been front-loaded and the biggest bites from his contract are already gone. You’d then be trading him at his lower cap hit and a lower cost to the recipient owner too. In that respect, signing him to a big front-loaded deal is no diff from signing him to a regular contract. … excepting for the up-front “bonus” money that he gets.
But I don’t think the big market owners mind paying that; it’s a biz investment for which they will get a return in the form of a better, more popular team that sells out at higher prices, makes the playoffs (very lucrative) etc. Yes, they could guess wrong on a player and come to regret it, but that’s a normal risk in their biz, just as all biz’s have some form of risk that’s normal to them.
by casual on Sep 3, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I’ll get right on investigating that Luongo deal, just let me clean up a few messes in Phoenix and Tampa first, then figure out what the heck is going on at the NHLPA, then figure out why Versus isn’t on DirectTV, and then I’ll get right on that.”
League would need a longer offseason, I think.
http://www.battleofcali.com/
by Earl Sleek on Sep 3, 2009 7:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's going to change
Good on Gillis for getting it done and for pushing the envelope on the back end contract. At least he didn’t go to $500 K a year like the Flyers did with Pronger. Having said that I think it will be a topic for the GM’s meetings, with a view to amending the CBA going forward. This trend is circumventing the cap, because most if not all of these players will be retiring during those last years, and saving the cap hit. My solution would be to allow as long of term contract as you want – pay the guy till he’s 65 if you want, but limit the spread between high and low season to say a factor of 2 or 2 and a half.
So if you want to sign Luongo to a 10 million contract for this year and the next 2; and want to reduce it later the lowest you would be able to go on the low end would be 4 or 5. That would balance things out.
I agree though, the league has bigger problems, but this horse is still sort of in the barn and you should rope it before it gets away.
by PrairieStew on Sep 3, 2009 7:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd be tempted to lock Kesler up to a similar type contract
If he would take 30 to 40 over 10 years, that would likely be a reasonable gamble, no?
by Jevant on Sep 3, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How’s ‘bout 45. I think he’s worth it anyway. Gonna be exceptional.
by Bobby Canuck on Sep 3, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having said that I think it will be a topic for the GM’s meetings,
It already was when they met in Florida a while back. The NHL warned them against it and apparently some of the GM’s agreed.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 3, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely…Gillis (and other GMs) may as well take advantage of a loophole we know will be closed out in two seasons. I had no problem with that. Heck I had no problem with Hossa or Zetterberg contracts either. To each their own.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 3, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the league wants to stop this they can simply nix the cap-averaging formula and count whatever you actually pay the player that year as his hit. Done … but remember, I said “if.”
It seems unikely they’ll want to, tho, since they deliberately put cap-averaging in place to begin with so that bigger market teams can cheat the cap a little, for which those teams get paid back in spades cuz they sell more tickets, more schwag, make more playoff games etc.
It’s not fair to the smaller markets that way, but when the owners gather round the table, the ones from larger markets apparently have enough clout to keep the loophole open, at least so far.
Blaming the GMs is just a smokescreen and anyone in sports knows it: Players don’t call penalties on themselves and neither will GMs self-police their rules. If you want to enforce the rules of the game, you need officials to enforce those rules, be it a holding call on a winger or a salary cap call on a GM.
This will all come to a head, eventually, and who knows, maybe cap-averaging will be eliminated. But if it is, you can bet that existing contracts will be grandfathered, so it’s kinda the hockey version of “Cash For Clunkers” now: get it while you can.
by casual on Sep 3, 2009 10:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s not fair to the smaller markets that way, but when the owners gather round the table, the ones from larger markets apparently have enough clout to keep the loophole open, at least so far.
Good point. The smaller struggling markets can’t do this can they?
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 3, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dunno, but the small mkts will at least have a stronger argument now that Phx is in a belly-up situation cuz they can point to it as an example of what will happen to other smaller franchises if they consistently fall behind because the ice isn’t level.
Whatever happens now in Phoenix, one thing’s for sure: the owners will never want to go thru that again.
Times change; the winds shift.
[And hey, how about renaming the team the Phoenix Phiascos? I kinda like it, even if I do say so myself. Now there’s a jersey that’d sell!]
by casual on Sep 3, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Usually, however, those smaller market teams wind up with records which enable them to select the best prospects, and doing so for a few years, managed by a capable GM (there are such creatures as we’re seeing close at hand), they become good enough to get capacity crowds, possibly win a championship, and become a big market team. Just look at TB. (never mind)
by Bobby Canuck on Sep 3, 2009 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it might happen in spite of the tilted ice. But the odds are lower.
by casual on Sep 4, 2009 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
averaging
Excellent analogy on the Cash for Clunkers !
I have no problem with a 35 year old Luongo being worth less than the 30 year old version so declining salaries are OK; but when they are so obvious as to circumvent the cap with factors of 10x or more difference in year, let’s get real. The other way to do it is if it falls outside a certain range of some factor(s) to charge the cap hit even if the guy retires.
What would be interesting is some guy refusing to retire. Imagine Eric Lindros and his spat with the Flyers, do you think he would have retired to save them the trouble ?
by PrairieStew on Sep 3, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, what happens if one of these front-loaded guys does stick around to the end of his contract – e.g. Luongo as a backup goalie for $1m a year – and the league minimum by then is more than that? :)
by casual on Sep 3, 2009 10:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts exactly… in 12 years from now, with inflation, and changes to the CBA, the league minimum could easily be over $1M. It will definitely be over the $500K that Pronger is getting in the last year of his deal…
by eades2000 on Sep 3, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A re-negotiation process I suppose. The League bumps up the salaries to the minimal automatically?
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 3, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
League-mandated renegotiations? What could go wrong….
by casual on Sep 3, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the league should be concentrating on its anti-trust defense, rather than a players contract that, heaven forbid, may ‘circumvent’ the bargaining agreement.
by GZ Expat on Sep 3, 2009 3:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I took it to mean that he thinks that the league will be too busy defending itself against Basillie to bother worrying about one player’s contract. Dunno if that’s what he meant; that’s just how I took it.
by casual on Sep 4, 2009 12:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"...we're led to believe the league will take a long, hard look at the deal"
The League can take a long hard look at a nutsack, they could and should have responded when the Dipietro and Mike Richards deals came down the pike
a few years ago.
The NFL would have jumped on that in a heartbeat, to compare them
Bettman and the Board are stuck in quicksand.
by Sneps-ish on Sep 3, 2009 5:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. Scare tactics, like I said.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 3, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a Guess
But I think this may be a reason Paul Kelly was fired. He is widely known to be a negotiator, far less confrontational than his predecessor; and this style of contract quite clearly circumvents the spirit (if not the letter) of the CBA.
Which comes first: the strike or the lockout?
by Thursday on Sep 3, 2009 10:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
In sports, recently, I’d say the lockout.
by Bobby Canuck on Sep 3, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but will the PA get all worked up that contracts are being structured so that players get more money?
“What Do we Want?”
“Less!”
“When do we want it?”
“Now!”
by casual on Sep 4, 2009 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that’s what I think sank Kelly. He was more interested in the long-term affects of the contracts using the super-extension loophole, and would likely have agreed to close it in trying to achieve a stable balance across the league. The players, I think, want someone more aggressive (like, say, Goodenow?) for the upcoming talks.
by Thursday on Sep 4, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possibly, but it looks to me more like a play for power w/in the union, a coup of sorts, prob w/Buzz Hargrove behind it. They still can’t articulate why they fired the guy, they did it at 3:30 am, and Kelly was kept totally in the dark beforehand as his understudy was re-signed. Those things don’t just happen in a normal firing, they’re marks indicating a puppeteer pulling strings.
More likely scenario, IMHO: Hargrove needed a new gig, got a foot in the door with the NHLPA, realized that most of its members don’t pay enough attention to the day-to-day stuff, and saw his chance to become a somebody again. And all he had to to was fast-talk a bunch of inexperienced player reps who haven’t seen these tricks before.
The odds of another lost season just went w-a-y up.
by casual on Sep 4, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Casual…I find all that alarmist talk a little funny. Not saying the firing doesn’t smell a bit…
But what you are saying about Buzzer is certainly mitigated by the first words out of his mouth when answering the reporters directly afterward.
Where he basically said that eh had no interest now, nor in the future, for this or any similar position.
“I’m 65, its a young man’s job working 12-16 hour days, 7 days a week”
So, there is that.
I can’t see either side being especially militant, as they can both see…Phx and a couple others aside…the game has never been more popular…in the only market that really matters to them…the US.
Hell, the Winter Classic is New Years must see TV now….and TV ratings were up something like 129 % in Washington…the resurgence of Chicago.
There may be some posturing at the beginning, but I think they realize ONE MORE stoppage would be the final sword in the flailing bull.
vancitydan
by vancitydan on Sep 4, 2009 7:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I know a coup when I see one.
Hargrove is experienced enough to work via proxies. I can’s say for sure it was him, but with his background he had to at least have seen this coming and yet did nothing. Given his background, it’s more likely he had an active role.
Your analysis is that of a reasonable man assuming that others will be reasonable too, but when the egos get outsized, reason gets trampled in the rush to power. Let’s wait & see who the new PA leader is. I wouldn’t rule out Hargrove just yet (“I reluctantly accept your nomination as tribune of the people, tho I of course never sought it”). But more likely it will simply be a follower of his.
We’ll see. There’s fixin’s a’ brewin’ and this could escalate. Be a coupla years till we can tell.
by casual on Sep 4, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt.
I just don’t think there will be another lockout or strike.
vancitydan
by vancitydan on Sep 4, 2009 8:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d bet against it, but not by much. I expect Hargrove & his protege (whoever it turns out to be) to play chicken with the league, and that’s a dangerous game that no one can really win.
[Well, unless you throw away your steering wheel and the other guy knows it, but I’m not sure that old answer is really applicable here]
by casual on Sep 5, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Nucks Misconduct
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow The Misconduct
 |
 |
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Tuesday's Three Stars: Nitty keeps rolling; Sens rebound
- Kari Lehtonen traded to Dallas, Turco move to come?
- Puck Previews: 'Hawks, Stars battle; Franzen in for Sweden?
- Evgeni Nabokov puts his name in the Vezina race
- Puck Daddy chats with Brandon Yip about life as a rookie, his first NHL game, Colorado’s success this season and the upcoming Olympics
SBNation.com Recent Stories
SCOREBOARD
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
