View Single Post
10-18-2012, 01:45 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,224
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by AlmightyPO View Post
The argument many people, myself included, were making before the NHL proposal was that a new CBA could reduce the value of Luongo significantly, not that it had already. As it turned out, the proposal didn't impact Luongo's value in a trade like many thought it would and just because it didn't decrease his value, doesn't mean it increased.

The only thing the uncertainty of a new CBA impacted was the volume and seriousness of the trade talks. I think most people would have predicted that no trade would be made until the new CBA was agreed on, and I'm sure most GMs who are interested in Luongo were also waiting out the new CBA before trading for a 10 year commitment to a 33 year old goalie.

In terms of contract length, the issue was never with if he retired early, it was "What if Luongo keeps playing after his assumed 'retirement date'?" The team that trades for him in any scenario, now or before, would never have paid for him if he retired early. The only issue I see people having is what if he keeps playing, and becomes a shell of his former self in his later years while still at 5.333 a year. In that case, nothing has changed and that risk still remains for some people.
I think we may be getting hung up on semantics. This summer GM's were unwilling to trade significant assets for Luongo because they thought there was a risk that the new CBA would negatively affect his contract. With that risk apparently removed his value should be higher now than this summer. That is what I mean by his value has increased. I'm not implying that his contract and age have suddenly changed.

vanwest is offline