View Single Post
10-27-2012, 05:15 PM
Registered User
buddahsmoka1's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: México, D.F.
Country: Mexico
Posts: 24,885
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
Roy demanded a trade out of town immediately, and did so mid-game no less.

Belfour turned down a contract extension, and ended up being a rental, and Chicago took what they could for him.

Khabibulin held out for an entire year for a contract, and still got Mike Johnson, Paul Mara, a 2nd and Zainulin, a player that could have easily been worth his draft position, but didn't come over to play for Phoenix (can you blame him?).

Giguere was a franchise, or at least top starter, later in his career, but there was no evidence that he would stick in the NHL full time, playing 22 games total in 3 seasons.

Where exactly are points of commonality here?
Once again, you seem to be misinterpreting my argument.

My argument is not Roy, Belfour, and Giguere got X, therefore Luongo will get X.

My argument has always been: the goalie market is low, therefore expecting Luongo to yield a return of substantial assets is delusional.


It seems like you guys seem to change the parameters of the argument whenever you choose to do so. I was asked to give comparable skilled goalies that have been traded, I provided it. Then this was dismissed because of the 'cap' which wasn't even substantiated. I then provided a list of goalies traded since the lockout, this has been dismissed because they are 'not number one goalies' or other reasons.

One thing has remained consistent, which has always been my argument, is that getting substantial assets in return for goaltenders has been rare, whether they are skilled or not, or whether there is a cap or not.

Just because there is no carbon copy comparable (which is a ****ing ridiculous thing to even ask for) does not mean this negates the overarching trend of low trade markets for goalies.

Originally Posted by 14s incisor View Post
I thought you were referring to his 2002 trade, since I didn't think anyone in their right mind would use the return from a trade that happened in 1997 as a comparable to what one would expect in 2012. Khabibulin was also traded 11 years ago—nothing has changed at all in 11 years...
Is there really much of a difference between a trade from 2002 and 1997? Honestly, there is really no difference.

This is great news for Brian Burke. Someone let him know he can use Joe Thornton's return as a comparable to what he has to offer up for a #1 centre, or better yet Gretzky's.
See above for the logical failure.

On Bertuzzi: Yes, searching HF boards is a great way to gauge what Bertuzzi's value was to other NHL GM's when he was traded Wow. I expected better.

Bertuzzi proved he wasn't "damaged goods" with the season he had after the Moore incident. He had issues, and may have been a risk (as all trade acquisitions are), but he was still a proven producer, and far from "damaged goods" at the time of the trade.
Go search beat reporters and news articles then for all I care. To suggest there wasn't a huge proportion of people who regarded Bertuzzi as damaged goods before, during, or after the trade is completely fabricated.

Originally Posted by schism View Post
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I'd like to know now before continuing to reply to you.
Then don't reply? I couldn't care less, its not like you are adding anything to the discussion and I don't have anyone else to reply to.

Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Spare me. The only reason you are discarding these CBA developments is because they don't suit your argument. A well reasoned discussion would factor in past events with current ones.
Current events are something tangible. Negotiations that are presented by the media that do not have direct access to the information is not tangible.

To even suggest that including in future assumptions not based in fact into a model for study is completely against scholarly norms.

Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I understand your argument, and have addressed it. But why do you refuse to address mine? The fact is that Luongo's contract has _already_ helped the team where it otherwise would not have.
Fair enough, whatever.

Does the pleasure of negotiating the contract make the contract itself a negative? It's the efficiency of the deal itself that is in question here, not the opportunity to negotiate it.
The inability to negotiate a contract with you own philosophy on term and price is detrimental yes.

They may not, I understand. You are talking about a subjective inference of the thoughts of other GMs. I'm talking about the numbers themselves. When you come down to it, the statistical efficiency is something that is a benefit to all rich teams that spend to the cap. The type of team TO is, just like VAN.
Well, I haven't seen Burke sign a single one of these contracts. Quite the opposite in fact, his two major extensions lately have been Grabs and JVR, who both received stable yearly amounts.

There is a split of philosophy among GMs regarding these types of contracts; some see the benefit, some do not. The presence of whether your team spends to the cap or not on the whole does not effect this. Montreal and Toronto are both examples of this philosophical split. But this is off-topic.

This is a great point, and I think your best in the case you are making. However, isn't it risk + asset vs risk + cost? Every asset has a corresponding cost, what we are arguing here is _only_ the risk involved in the contract. That's it.

Now, let's apply this to VAN's mindset: you say they took on risk by signing him to such a deal. My answer to this is that every signing assumes risk. By comparison, VAN's risk may be greater due to the length of the deal - but that risk has built in "outs" so as to mitigate worst case situations. For instance, the 3 year trade window or the internal agreement to retire early or the NTC and no NMC. These factors mitigate risk in a way that reduce its impact on the team. So is this contract unduly "risky" based on that premise? I would say no.
I actually don't think the risk was very high for Vancouver, just to clarify. There is always risk with long-term contracts, but for reasons you stated and including the fact that the Canucks had first hand knowledge of Luongo's game, mentality and how he fit into the club are other reasons why the risk was not high for them.

However, this risk increases when you take the perspective of another GM. Another team has no personal experience with a player besides secondary sources; they don't know much about him. This makes it difficult to see a positive cost-benefit ratio when making a trade for a long-term contract, unless the assets it costs to trade for that player are low.

Really, this potential deal is no different than other deals, except that the interpretation of the contract is mixed for fans. GMs though should be able to recognize its strength, just as Bettman has when trying to close the BDC loophole.
But it's strength really isn't that relevant to the other team. To acquire a top end goalie, you will have to already allocate X amount of cap space; the fact that Luongo's contract maybe shaves off X amount of dollars really has no bearing on their decision-making process. From an outsider's perspective, Luongo has X amount of dollars per year they need to pay him all the way through the whole decade. That is the bottom-line, and that is what makes this disparity in particular to Luongo so high.

Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
You can eliminate a lot of those because they either weren't really legitimate starting goalies or they weren't under contract. And of course you're missing some that go against your argument (first Vokoun trade) and misrepresenting others. Toskala wasn't traded for "some draft picks"; he was traded for the 13th overall, two 2nd round picks, and a 4th.
The format of the website that I attained the information was atrocious, it was a painful process to get all those trades. It was not my intention to skew the results in any favour whatsoever.

I'd say all of these produced fairly good returns, espeically since no salary was taken back in return for most of them. Not surprisingly, they represent pretty much all of the times a legitimate starting goalie was traded post lockout:

Varlamov -> 1st + a 2nd
Halak (RFA) -> Eller and Schultz
Toskala -> 1st, two 2nds, a 4th, and Bell
Vokoun -> 1st + two 2nds
Luongo -> Bertuzzi, Allen, and Auld
Roloson (pending UFA) -> 1st and a 3rd

The Lethonen trade is probably the only one on your list where a bona fide starter garnered a paltry return.
Now we come back to the reason I initially made my posts in the first place. Garnering some draft picks and maybe a prospect is not the return that is portrayed by the majority of posters I have seen in this thread. In particular, I have seen a number of proposals that include players like Gardiner, Kessel, JVR, 1st, and even combinations of these. These types of players or packages are substantial returns.

I have no problem stating that Luongo could yield multiple draft picks and a mid-range prospect. Or maybe one upper-tier prospect. O maybe even an average roster player. This is the going rate for goalies and is perfectly in line with what I have been presenting in this thread.

However, I have a hard time believing he will yield a serious roster player, or a combination of young proven prospects and draft picks unless there is some assets going the other way alongside Luongo.

buddahsmoka1 is offline