Buyout clause - Do we use it?

[TacitEndorsement]

Ballard or Booth as has been previously said.

 

[Hammer79]

Luongo AINEC


* Assuming this is our one chance to not get that whole 'if the contract it longer than 7 years the cap hit returns to the original team once th eplayer retires even if he is traded blah blah..'

No, just no.

That provision actually improves his trade value, assuming the Canucks are on the hook for the cap hit after he retires. The long contract will no longer be a concern for teams looking to acquire him. Just because Schneider emerged as a star goalie doesn't mean that Luongo isn't one anymore.

 

[Whale]

No, just no.

That provision actually improves his trade value, assuming the Canucks are on the hook for the cap hit after he retires. The long contract will no longer be a concern for teams looking to acquire him. Just because Schneider emerged as a star goalie doesn't mean that Luongo isn't one anymore.

It makes no difference whatsoever to the team taking the contract. All this provision does is punish us. At no point, ever, has a team been responsible for paying a player after he has retired. Until now, maybe.

I feel like I have had to explain this over and over. Why do people keep dreaming up this scenario where the length of the contract is an issue? The only way that could happen would be if he insisted on playing - somehow - and the team he was playing for was somehow 'forced' to put him into the lineup even though they didn't want to. Who the hell would want to do that? If he's no longer effective he will retire and not cost a penny to whatever team we trade him to.

You don't think Lou would retire rather than tarnish his career with that kind of bush league nonsense?

The proposed CBA provision with regard to long contracts only hurts us, it is of no added benefit to teams looking to acquire him.

 

[Whale]

And there is absolutely no way that we buy out Luongo, it would take at least 6-7 million a season to put him back under contract and it wouldn't be us doing it.

 

[Hammer79]

It makes no difference whatsoever to the team taking the contract. All this provision does is punish us. At no point, ever, has a team been responsible for paying a player after he has retired. Until now, maybe.

I feel like I have had to explain this over and over. Why do people keep dreaming up this scenario where the length of the contract is an issue? The only way that could happen would be if he insisted on playing - somehow - and the team he was playing for was somehow 'forced' to put him into the lineup even though they didn't want to. Who the hell would want to do that? If he's no longer effective he will retire and not cost a penny to whatever team we trade him to.

You don't think Lou would retire rather than tarnish his career with that kind of bush league nonsense?

The proposed CBA provision with regard to long contracts only hurts us, it is of no added benefit to teams looking to acquire him.

The CBA isn't agreed upon yet, so we don't know if the provision will make it's way into the CBA, or know for sure if it will apply to whatever team has him, or to the original signing team.

On the one hand, if it applies to the signing team, the provision punishes the Canucks down the road with wasted cap space. On the other, if it only applies to the signing team and not the acquiring team, it takes the risk away from acquiring teams, increasing his trade value. It could all be a moot point though, if the CBA is 6 years and Luongo is 39 and hasn't retired yet. Who knows if that provision gets carried over to the next CBA circa 2019? Also, Luongo's contract obviously did depress his trade value pre-CBA because any team looking to acquire him wouldn't know if the cap-recapture formula would apply to them, or the team that originally signed the deal.

 

[BoHorvatFan]

this isnt true. could you come up with a thing that's not a falsehood, and also a defence of getting rid of booth?

Well he skates around with his head down, can't pass, lacks any real skill, he's basically a bigger less skilled version of Raymond that can go to the net.

 

[MISC*]

No, just no.

That provision actually improves his trade value, assuming the Canucks are on the hook for the cap hit after he retires. The long contract will no longer be a concern for teams looking to acquire him. Just because Schneider emerged as a star goalie doesn't mean that Luongo isn't one anymore.

I am not saying he isn't a world class goalie.

I am not saying he has no trade value.

I am, however saying that if we retires in 5 years and the Canucks are stuck with a cap hit of 5.4 million dollars for 5 years after that; he HAS to go.

That cap hit will haunt us.

Get out of it now.

 

[stevecanuck16]

Well he skates around with his head down, can't pass, lacks any real skill, he's basically a bigger less skilled version of Raymond that can go to the net.

This thread is brutal, and your contributions especially so. Talk about your first world hockey problems. We should not buyout Booth because he contributes to our team and holds value as a hockey asset. Plain and simple. You've outlined why you might prefer someone else in a 2nd line role, and that's all well and good, but now you're parroting your opinion into something that it doesn't apply to.

Are you aware of what a buyout is? Are you aware of how drastic a measure it is? Take a look at the main board thread on the subject and see some of the names being thrown around there. Scott Gomez, Mike Komisarek, Rick Dipietro, and David Booth. One of these things is not like the other.

Also, although it's very plain you're trolling with your hunting comments, I thought I'd chime in since I am also quite against hunting, and would never personally do it. However, I am even more against pushing one's beliefs on another, which is what you're doing here. Explain to me why David Booth, or anyone for that matter, should conform to your personal idea of morality? Clearly, some people feel differently on the matter. Would you not be upset if Booth expected you to conform to his religious views? Your demonizing of him on this personal choice is literally no different, and this is coming from a vocal atheist.

Now that the unpleasantness is out of the way, I want to reiterate how shameful this thread is. I mean, someone suggested we buyout Alexandre Burrows, the heart and soul of our team. This, I think, is why Canucks fans are so hated, especially amongst our own. Canucks fans seem to b1tch, complain, and hurl vitriol at our players just as much as Leafs fans, and yet they've been out of the playoffs for almost a decade and we have won two straight President's Trophies and went on a Cup-final run. After sticking through the lean years, I feel pretty damn lucky to have watched this team over the past few years, but I see that sentiment isn't very common.

One day soon you'll all be looking back at this team with an awful lot of nostalgia.

 

[RandV]

I am not saying he isn't a world class goalie.

I am not saying he has no trade value.

I am, however saying that if we retires in 5 years and the Canucks are stuck with a cap hit of 5.4 million dollars for 5 years after that; he HAS to go.

That cap hit will haunt us.

Get out of it now.

You make it sound easy, but there's just the small matter of giving up 30 million dollars to get it done

 

[Barney Gumble]

You make it sound easy, but there's just the small matter of giving up 30 million dollars to get it done

How's the real estate market going so far lately.

(and yes, it's easier spending other people's money).

 

[Canucker]

This thread is brutal, and your contributions especially so. Talk about your first world hockey problems. We should not buyout Booth because he contributes to our team and holds value as a hockey asset. Plain and simple. You've outlined why you might prefer someone else in a 2nd line role, and that's all well and good, but now you're parroting your opinion into something that it doesn't apply to.

Are you aware of what a buyout is? Are you aware of how drastic a measure it is? Take a look at the main board thread on the subject and see some of the names being thrown around there. Scott Gomez, Mike Komisarek, Rick Dipietro, and David Booth. One of these things is not like the other.

Also, although it's very plain you're trolling with your hunting comments, I thought I'd chime in since I am also quite against hunting, and would never personally do it. However, I am even more against pushing one's beliefs on another, which is what you're doing here. Explain to me why David Booth, or anyone for that matter, should conform to your personal idea of morality? Clearly, some people feel differently on the matter. Would you not be upset if Booth expected you to conform to his religious views? Your demonizing of him on this personal choice is literally no different, and this is coming from a vocal atheist.

Now that the unpleasantness is out of the way, I want to reiterate how shameful this thread is. I mean, someone suggested we buyout Alexandre Burrows, the heart and soul of our team. This, I think, is why Canucks fans are so hated, especially amongst our own. Canucks fans seem to b1tch, complain, and hurl vitriol at our players just as much as Leafs fans, and yet they've been out of the playoffs for almost a decade and we have won two straight President's Trophies and went on a Cup-final run. After sticking through the lean years, I feel pretty damn lucky to have watched this team over the past few years, but I see that sentiment isn't very common.

One day soon you'll all be looking back at this team with an awful lot of nostalgia.

It's a legitimate topic for discussion considering its a widely talked about part of a new CBA. Obviously some names being bandied about for a buyout are kind of ridiculous, but I wouldn't consider Booth or Ballard off limits for discussion. I don't think either gets bought out but there is nothing wrong with discussing it.

 

[stevecanuck16]

It's a legitimate topic for discussion considering its a widely talked about part of a new CBA. Obviously some names being bandied about for a buyout are kind of ridiculous, but I wouldn't consider Booth or Ballard off limits for discussion. I don't think either gets bought out but there is nothing wrong with discussing it.

There's legitimate discussion and then there is bashing. Canucks fans seem to partake in the latter way too frequently. Booth performed a second-line role on a President's Trophy winner last year, so to say he is "terrible" is objectively silly.

Even though that particular poster used the word terrible explicitly, anyone implying that Booth would be bought out is essentially saying that, and it simply isn't true. If we wanted to be rid of Booth, he would almost certainly have value in a trade, and I wouldn't advise doing so until we have an adequate replacement instead of pipe dreams.

To me, even Keith Ballard is an extreme longshot to be bought out. The only realistic buyout scenario I see would be if the CBA somehow makes Luongo's contract a punishment of sorts to the signing team and there is the potential for trouble down the road.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

I don't think we should buy out Booth at alllll .

he's barely even settled in ! i think he'll be huge for us this season actually

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Well he skates around with his head down, can't pass, lacks any real skill, he's basically a bigger less skilled version of Raymond that can go to the net.

games goals assists points
56 16 13 29


lolwut ?

Because he's a terrible, clueless, heads down player that also happens to disgust a lot of people with his off ice hobbies(ie. murdering defenceless animals).

But I'd rather use it on Ballard because at least Booth can go to the net and try to jam some pucks in when he's not concussed. Ballard barely even plays.

ive met him and as a personality in the locker, he's a huge plus -- genuine great guy. regardless, it's evident your assessment is off. once he gets some chemistry with kes, he'll be a beauty.

also, who would you have replace him?

 

[orcatown]

Got to be Ballard. Actually his cap space has been more valuable than him for a long time. Maybe since he got here.

If the Canucks had had the balls to waive him (since I don't see the Canucks getting anything in trade) a couple of years ago they could have used his cap space to acquire a rental that might have put them over the top going into the playoffs the last few years.

Keeping Ballard around in the role that he has played has been a mistake for awhile. And that is especially so given the very limited role he has most often assumed during the playoffs.

It's 20/20 hindsight, but man you wish they had kept Mitchell around and never touched Ballard.

 

[Wisp]

This thread is brutal, and your contributions especially so. Talk about your first world hockey problems. We should not buyout Booth because he contributes to our team and holds value as a hockey asset. Plain and simple. You've outlined why you might prefer someone else in a 2nd line role, and that's all well and good, but now you're parroting your opinion into something that it doesn't apply to.

Are you aware of what a buyout is? Are you aware of how drastic a measure it is? Take a look at the main board thread on the subject and see some of the names being thrown around there. Scott Gomez, Mike Komisarek, Rick Dipietro, and David Booth. One of these things is not like the other.

Also, although it's very plain you're trolling with your hunting comments, I thought I'd chime in since I am also quite against hunting, and would never personally do it. However, I am even more against pushing one's beliefs on another, which is what you're doing here. Explain to me why David Booth, or anyone for that matter, should conform to your personal idea of morality? Clearly, some people feel differently on the matter. Would you not be upset if Booth expected you to conform to his religious views? Your demonizing of him on this personal choice is literally no different, and this is coming from a vocal atheist.

Now that the unpleasantness is out of the way, I want to reiterate how shameful this thread is. I mean, someone suggested we buyout Alexandre Burrows, the heart and soul of our team. This, I think, is why Canucks fans are so hated, especially amongst our own. Canucks fans seem to b1tch, complain, and hurl vitriol at our players just as much as Leafs fans, and yet they've been out of the playoffs for almost a decade and we have won two straight President's Trophies and went on a Cup-final run. After sticking through the lean years, I feel pretty damn lucky to have watched this team over the past few years, but I see that sentiment isn't very common.

One day soon you'll all be looking back at this team with an awful lot of nostalgia.

oooh, I like you.

 

[Hammer79]

I am not saying he isn't a world class goalie.

I am not saying he has no trade value.

I am, however saying that if we retires in 5 years and the Canucks are stuck with a cap hit of 5.4 million dollars for 5 years after that; he HAS to go.

That cap hit will haunt us.

Get out of it now.

By the time Luongo retires, the cap could be in the low 80 Million range if we assume 5% revenue growth per year. It's just not going to hurt as much then. If we are on the hook for the cap hit, his increased trade value now makes up for it asset-wise. If we buy him out, we're out a lot of money and get nothing in return other than increased cap wriggle room when the cap is higher than it is now anyway.

 

[slappipappi]

Uhhh Luongo will not be bought out. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Don't be so sure.

I understand that these types of contracts will mean, in the future, that if Luongo retires say at age 40, he'd still give the Canucks a $5.3M cap hit for those last 3 years. Even if he is traded, and retires for another team. And Lou will retire before the end of his contract which goes until he is 43.

 

[racerjoe]

Don't be so sure.

I understand that these types of contracts will mean, in the future, that if Luongo retires say at age 40, he'd still give the Canucks a $5.3M cap hit for those last 3 years. Even if he is traded, and retires for another team. And Lou will retire before the end of his contract which goes until he is 43.

Everyone needs to remember that IF the Luongo contract is punished in the new CBA, two things, with an opt out at 8 years (NHL proposal), it may not matter on this CBA, and the NHLPA has put forth a different formula for creating a cap hit to retired players. I don't remember what it is, but his hit would not be 5.3, if we go by the players format.

 

[Wisp]

I'm not convinced the cap hit will haunt us, especially when you will likely be able to trade for cap space under this CBA.

 

[HighAndTight]

games goals assists points
56 16 13 29


lolwut ?



ive met him and as a personality in the locker, he's a huge plus -- genuine great guy. regardless, it's evident your assessment is off. once he gets some chemistry with kes, he'll be a beauty.

also, who would you have replace him?

He is exactly this. His great personality and work ethic really rub off on the other players.

 

[struckmatch]

Can we buyout Malhotra even though he has a NMC?

If so, I buyout Manny. It's just painful to watch the player he is now.

$2.5 Million for a 4th line player?

Ballard's contract isn't the greatest either, but I choose Manny if I'm buying someone out.

 

[dave babych returns]

If we wanted to be rid of Booth, he would almost certainly have value in a trade, and I wouldn't advise doing so until we have an adequate replacement instead of pipe dreams.

To me, even Keith Ballard is an extreme longshot to be bought out.

I tend to agree although it's entirely possible that there is little trade market for either player if the Canucks are trying to move him without taking any salary back. And in that case if you need to cut salary and the best you can do is trade a decent player making $4m+ for a worse player making around $3m, what's the point?

Can we buyout Malhotra even though he has a NMC?

If so, I buyout Manny. It's just painful to watch the player he is now.

$2.5 Million for a 4th line player?

Ballard's contract isn't the greatest either, but I choose Manny if I'm buying someone out.

The Canucks have no problem with the cap for 2012-13, and Malhotra's deal expires at the end of it.

Unless the Canucks are planning to load up for a cup run and to hold onto Roberto Luongo, there's no need to cut salary for this season.

In my opinion if what we're hearing about buy outs is accurate the Canucks should wait for the offseason and see where they stand at that point. Their options for dumping players via trade will be much more varied and they'll better know where things stand for 2013-14 (eg. they should have Edler signed by then, and so on).

 

[Canucker]

Can we buyout Malhotra even though he has a NMC?

If so, I buyout Manny. It's just painful to watch the player he is now.

$2.5 Million for a 4th line player?

Ballard's contract isn't the greatest either, but I choose Manny if I'm buying someone out.

Buying out Malhotra would be an absolute waste in a shortened season where his contract is up at the end of it. Won't happen.

I forget who suggested it, but I like the idea of trading for a potential buyout (Rick DiPietro, Upshall, Gomez, etc), in return for picks/prospects...of course Aqualini would have to approve of spending that kind of money on futures and we would have to be in a situation where we didn't need to buyout one of our own players.

 

[Scottrockztheworld*]

Buying out Malhotra would be an absolute waste in a shortened season where his contract is up at the end of it. Won't happen.

I forget who suggested it, but I like the idea of trading for a potential buyout (Rick DiPietro, Upshall, Gomez, etc), in return for picks/prospects...of course Aqualini would have to approve of spending that kind of money on futures and we would have to be in a situation where we didn't need to buyout one of our own players.

I think we all know & can agree that the Aqualini's want to win & at any cost. If they don't mind spending to the cap (and over the last few seasons) & don't mind spending for the extra things (sleep doctors, all the dressing room improvements...etc) I would have to think they wouldn't mind spending money on a buy out with a lower cap.