Gillis: Potential Return For Luongo May Not Improve Canucks **Mod Warning #86**
View Single Post
09-12-2012, 09:40 PM
Join Date: Apr 2009
Originally Posted by
If that weren't a problem, then why did this whole situation come up in the first place? What happens in three years when Schneider is a UFA and Vancouver still has Luongo because no one will touch that contract after the salary rollbacks and Schneider walks because he wants more playing time? I'd say there's a problem.
3 years isn't the issue -- the issue is what they're going to do to Luongo's value by keeping him. For all the knocks on his playoff performances, this is a goaltender who is basically 3 games removed from being the #1 guy in Vancouver. He played 55 regular season games and put up a very good .919 sv%. He's 1 year removed from 60 games, a gold medal, a .928 sv%, and Stanley Cup Finals appearance. He's been an undisputed #1 goaltender in the NHL for 10 years. Of course, it's one heck of a resume, and that establishes his value (whatever it may specifically be) today.
Falling to the role of backup / #1b goalie to a guy like Schneider (as seems to be the intention for Gillis) is going to put a substantial blemish on that resume... and it's not like burning off years makes his contract any more appealing. The deal carries him well into his 40s, if he had a 2 or 3 year deal, you could make the case that the Canucks are best served by keeping him in a reduced role, simply because burning off years of the contract will make him less of a risk to another team... but with 10 years left, that really isn't the case.
The result -- is that there's no way Gillis can reasonably expect to get a better deal for Luongo than this offseason.
"Buying low" and "selling high" is something that gets horrendously misused on this board because posters make the mistake of benchmarking to past value. If you're Gillis, this is an actual case of selling high, because you know that your plans for this year are going to decrease Luongo's value.
Originally Posted by
At this point, any pending UFA short of an All-Star is essentially worthless unless it is guaranteed that the season will be played.
If that were the case, the Leafs would be able to get the defenceman they need for absolutely nothing. Again, you're talking about value, but not in relation to anything. You trade player for player that are both on 1 year deals, and the risk/benefit of the season being played is equally burdened on each team. If we were talking about moving MacArthur for picks, prospects, or guys specifically with multi-year deals, that would be a different story.
Last edited by seanlinden: 09-12-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by seanlinden