Quote:
Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf
revisionist history strikes again
when it was signed people thought it shouldn't be allowed by the NHL for cap circumvention, it's a shame Mike Gillis (and every other GM who signed one of these) couldn't foresee CBA changes but it happens, was mostly thought of as a shrewd move to keep a goalie like that at such a low cap hit
with Bobrovsky wanting 6m and Rask rumored to be getting 7m per year (and who knows what Schnieders next contract pays him, if he plays like the last 2 seasons it would be comparable to Rask) I have zero issue paying Luongo 5.33
|
The cap hit is fine. Of course it is — that's how the deal was structured. That isn't the problem. There were many MANY people who thought this was a bad deal from the start. Saying that it is a casualty of the new CBA is revisionist history. From the moment the ink was dry on that deal people wondered how long it would be before the Canucks wanted out from under it. Granted, this date came much sooner than expected. But I fully remember people thinking that it might be better for the Canucks if the league overturned the Luongo contract. This outcome was extremely predictable.
__________________
Harry, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just... let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or... two cups of good, hot, black coffee.
|