UPDATE: Luongo signs 12 year/5.25 per year contract

you are most likely right, I don't believe they published any changes they made, so they must have done it and not told anyone, grr to them.

OK, it's all fixed up now.

I love how they're calling the last three years of Luongo's contract the "Canadian Pension Plan" stage of the contract, suggesting Luongo will retire after year 9 and collect those last three years while at home, sitting on the porch, wearing white pants and suspenders and complaining about the government and whatever the kids' are listening to at the time...



Retirement sounds good.

This is an interesting footnote to the deal...apparently Luongo's new contract has all kinds of 'escape clauses' in it...

From the Vancouver Province today:

"Luongo, for his part, heaped praise on Gillis and the Canucks. He said he believed in the general manager's plan and ownership as he made what looked to be a full commitment to the city, where he is seemingly prepared to play out the rest of his career.

"It was all true. But only to a point. Every relationship has its limits and neither side in this marriage was prepared to fully lock in.

"The devil is so often in the details and there are some interesting ones in the Luongo contract which is set to pay him $64 million US over the 12 years. It's no secret that most people don't believe Luongo will play all 12 years, which would take him to age 43. Chances are he will retire before then, and most see him playing just eight or nine years in Vancouver. But it could be far less. This deal includes several "escape clauses," mitigating risk by giving both parties an out if they're unhappy.

"The first comes five years into the extension. If Luongo isn't pleased with where the team is at, or where it's heading, he can then trigger a trade. The out clause is timed for what should be an organizational crossroads - one year after the Sedins' current long-term deal is up. The Canucks have agreed to accommodate the request by moving Luongo at that point.

"It's likely Luongo would be a valuable commodity, coveted by NHL teams even at age 36. If it were to happen, the team which traded for him would owe him $27.2 million for the final seven years of his deal.

"Two years later, after the contract extension's seventh year, the Canucks have a reciprocal clause. If they want to go in another direction, they will have an opportunity to move Luongo despite his no-trade clause.

"Luongo would be 38 years old. But, if he's still playing at an elite level, should remain an intriguing trading chip. At that point of the deal Luongo would have five years left and he would be owed just $13.714 million.

"The escape clauses will be a story down the road. For now, they may raise some concerns, especially from an insecure fan base which has, in the past, doubted Luongo's commitment to Vancouver. But Gillis, a former agent, said there's nothing to worry about as he doesn't see anything unusual in the clauses.

"'They are commonplace for high end players,' he said. 'Especially for contracts that have term like this. It is not unique.'

"There are a couple more scenarios which may play out over the course of the contract. With his limited no-trade, Luongo did not get a no-movement clause. It leaves the slim possibility that the Canucks could put him on the waiver wire or demote him to the minors in the later years of the deal."

Full text here:
http://www.faceoff.com/story.html?id=a49d5565-3e9e-4c39-ac85-6c328be5e1d1
---

Well, well...wonder how this contract will impact next year's UFA and RFA signings...and if the NHL will 'investigate'...?

Interesting. I guess it gives both sides some flexibility down the line if things are not going as they were visioned.

[quote="davetherave"
Well, well...wonder how this contract will impact next year's UFA and RFA signings...and if the NHL will 'investigate'...?
[/quote]

Unquestionably. Like the Hossa deal, Luongo's new deal is designed to circumvent the CBA. Everybody knows he's not going to be playing until he's 43.

The NHL has to crack down hard on these deals or they're headed for another lock out, fast. It's not the cap average that's even the main issue. The plain and simple fact is that they allow teams to overspend. The cap was introduced to stabilize revenues. Revenues are decided NOT stable when teams can spend DRAMATICALLY more in real dollars per year than they can in cap dollars.

What's stopping you from putting together an army of superstars, all signed for $2 mil a year on average until they're 60 years old, while they're all actually getting spending something closer to $6 mil a year on each player, on a front-loaded contract the players will walk away from at 40 years old? There's no financial stability there, that's for sure.

The NHL has to address this issue, pronto. It starts with outlawing contracts that go past the player's 35th year, or making all salaries remain on the cap books regardless of when the player retires, or making it so all contracts are paid out in equal yearly values. They have to be made to see that these deals are taking us down the road we thought we turn off of some 5 years ago.

I like the idea of not allowing ANY contract to go beyond the age of 35 and then if they want more after 35, a new contact would need to be drawn up under the 35+ rule. That way you kill the super long, cap hit reducing contracts and limit the retiring rules to 35+ contracts.

I'm sure we'll here about an investigation soon enough. I though GMs would shy away from these contracts after Hossa's and Pronger's were questioned

Sens19 wrote:I'm sure we'll here about an investigation soon enough. I though GMs would shy away from these contracts after Hossa's and Pronger's were questioned

Well, if they follow the letter of the law, then there's no reason they can't do it. They're all "legal" by current standards. The intent to circumvent is under investigation, which will be extremely hard if not impossible to prove.