More Luongo Talk
View Single Post
01-04-2013, 10:04 AM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Originally Posted by
Its a possibility he believes to be the likely outcome given
. He voiced that opinion. That is a counter point to other's viewpoints; hence, it is meant to be discussed. He went on to explain why he felt that way based on the reported conditions of the most recent NHL proposal. It wasn't rude and it wasn't baseless. Everything is speculative at this point. The block to meaningful discussions in my humble opinion is when you (and others, not just picking on you) jump on him (and others who share the viewpoint) for it.
Point out to me the "conditions" in his _initial_ post. He just refers to the new CBA. That's what makes it baseless. SC didn't protect
himself from making an outlandish claim in his initial post by listing caveats. Here it is again:
Originally Posted by
I have already expressed my view that Lou is far more likely to be amnestied than traded because under the new CBA
it makes no sense to pay 6.7 million per year to Lou until he turns 40.
If that occurs and Lou is paid in full, then Lou will have made $80 million for playing 3 or 4 seasons for the Nucks. If paid two thirds of the remaining balance, he will have made about $60 million. Either way, he will then be free to sign with another team, where he will be able to make another $20 million or so. Either way, I hope Lou sent his agent something nice for Christmas.
It is not a counter to an equally opposed view point. It is a counter to what is likely to occur. He adopts the stance of the unlikely vs. the likely.
And no, the block is still the original, baseless claim. It brings about no meaningful discussion, as evidenced by the responses it garnered.
The point comes in that Luongo, while an excellent goalie, is replaceable for the Canucks in Schneider. Buying out a guy like Booth on the other hand leaves a hole in the winger position, does it not?
So trade the far better player vs evening out the roster? That's not a tough call at all to make.
The question in this purely hypothetical scenario becomes is it better to drop a (sort of) redundant asset or create another hole to become cap compliant?
Again, just to clarify, I think Luongo will be able to garner something at the very least regardless of the CBA (unless its something crazy like his contract length bites the acquiring team horribly...which seems unlikely). But the ever changing CBA makes things both interesting and uncertain.
The hypothetical you pose isn't put forth in SC's initial post. He's not arguing redundant asset vs. positional needs. He's just saying Luongo is likely to be bought out. That's it.
To contend what you are saying: Redundant asset or not, Luongo still carries far more value than Booth. So you should be able to recoup value better in the long-run. Regardless of current positional needs.
View Public Profile
Bleach Clean's albums
Find More Posts by Bleach Clean