Opendoor your caveats are well founded but I agree with your methodology, evsv% is the best measure. Shsv% is not sustainable over multiple seasons imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by morgin
All things considered, Luongo's remaining contract isn't nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.
Given this year is prorated, it's really only 5.5 years at 6,714,000 per year @ 5.3 mil cap hit. Then another 4 years in a mentor/backup role costing 6.9mil mil over that period. His stats over the last few years are among the top of the league. Full stop. Whether the intangibles like not being clutch or whatever are true or not (not likely to find many in a rival teams fanbase who would say he is, but he did bail the canucks out many times during the playoffs which seems to be forgotten in place of the team meltdowns that he had to backstop) on the open market a guy like Luongo is easily going to make his cap hit ( http://www.capgeek.com/leaders/?type...ion=G&limit=25).
Taking a 5.3 mil cap hit for a backup/1B role in the final 4 years sounds bad, but we're also talking about 2018-2022. If the business of hockey continues to grow (and all indications are that there are a lot of terrible markets and a lot of room for such growth) a 5.3mil/year cap hit in those years is likely a lot less painful sounding than it sounds now. That said, there is nothing stopping a team from taking on Luongo at a decent locked in cap hit for 5.5 years with the intention of trading him to a team in the last 4 years that needs the cap hit and low salary. He has the NTC, but this is 2018 we are talking about - no where can predict what financial situation teams may be in then and who he would consider playing for. Do you not take a franchise goalie because you are worried about the last 4 years? Tough to say.
EDIT: Also forgot that the NTC opens up between the 5th and 6th year (summer 2015) and the 7th and 8th year (summer 2017).
Is it a great contract to shop? No. Is it the worst in the league? Not by a long shot. It would be tough for teams with spending limits to take on the sheer amount of $$ for the next 5.5, but from a cap management perspective, it's not really that bad if you are going to have him as a starter. |
I agree with this perspective. It isn't a good contract. But people talking about it like it's such a cap anchor and albatross that teams should be sending a low draft pick or their garbage back in exchange has consistently baffled me throughout this saga. It's a 5.33 mil cap hit for a guy who over the past 5 years is a top 3 goalie in the league and one of the only guys currently playing (Lundqvist, Rinne being the others that come to mind) with the consistency have been in that "top echelon" every year. He is the difference between an 11th and 8th place finish for the Leafs and maybe the Panthers contend for the division again if they get him.
Fact is there's no way Van gets fair value return but he isn't anything close to a salary dump and if trash is all they can get, they're better off keeping the guy and rotating their starters. After all, maybe Schneider turns into a pumpkin. It's happened before (coughSteveMasoncough) and he's already orange.