Luongo: The Neverending Story
View Single Post
01-05-2013, 11:44 AM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Originally Posted by
As John Adams stated: "Facts are stubborn things."
Lou is a former top goalie who is 33 years old with concerns regarding a groin injury who was benched last season during the play-offs and replaced by a rising, young star who is now seen as the team's starter after being signed to a long term $4 million contract.
I'll assume that by your quote you were intending to present the facts? Let's look at them shall we?
- Former top goalie based on what metric or analysis? Groundless.
- Concerns over his groin injury in Sept. 2010? Is it a fact to infer concern?
- "Benched" or replaced? Each have a different meaning.
Prior to the lock out, the Nucks tried unsuccessfully to trade Lou, but were unable to make a deal largely it seems because of his contract which runs another 10 years with a $5.33 million cap hit, but which pays Lou $6.7 million per year through age 40 before tailing off. Canuck fans say that that his buy - out price ( assumed to be in the $40-50 million range under the proposed amnesty terms of the new CBA) is too high and no one would pay it.
- Tried unsuccessfully? Is every team unsuccessful prior to dealing a player?
- How do you know it was because of his contract?
- There's also Canucks fans that don't think it will ever get to a buy-out point. Regardless of the contract.
Assuming that there is a 2012-13 partial season at a$70 million cap, the Nucks for the balance of the season can afford to keep and pay Lou to ride the pines assuming that Schneider plays consistently well. If Schneider plays inconsistently, then there is an instant goalie controversy. If Schneider cannot handle the starters job with the added pressure of Lou looking over his shoulder and associated locker room distractions, then Lou resumes the starters role with unknown results ranging from paying very well to playing poorly.
Now onto 2013-14, with the new CBA in effect, the Nucks will have $9.3 million tied up in 2 goalies. Schneider has proven to be a solid starter (likely) or crapped out (possible) or somewhere in between. Lou has proven to be solid in spot duty( likely) or returned as a starter with unknown results and is now 34 years old.
I suggest that, in a shortened season with a looming cap reduction, that few major trades will occur during the balance of 2012 - 13, but will await the off-season. Since prior efforts to trade Lou have failed, it is even less likely that he gets moved. That takes us to the off season, when the wealthy teams over the $60 million cap will all be scrambling to shed players and salary,including the Nucks. The teams with cap space will presumably be bargain shopping, which may include other veteran goalies among the cap casualties.
- Less likely he gets moved = Supposition, not fact.
- Cap space teams bargain shopping = Assumption. There are some that operate only to the floor, which is less than 60m. These teams will likely stay to the floor, wherever it should be, OR stay at their current budget which is still less than 60m. It is an assumption on your part to speculate that every team with space will be spending to the cap.
Btw, a growing trend among some teams in the NHL has been towards lower priced goalies, in part due to the success of the Red Wing model and in part because of some flop signings (ask the Flyers).
It is now the off season, please identify for me the teams that are lining up to trade value for a 34 year old, second string goalie with a 9-year contract that many Nucks fans say is way too rich to amnesty if he craps out.
And Btw that is the best case scenario for the Nucks because it assumes that Schneider proved to be the man. The alternative is that they keep Lou and trade/ cut Schneider. In which case, I agree that Lou will not be amestied.
- Please show this trend of cheaper goalies in an objective analysis. If you can't, you are again fabricating information.
- It is not _now_ the offseason. It is the __lockout__ now, where GMs are not allowed to trade assets. The offseason ended in October.
Here's a question for you: If the intention of a cap-circumvention contract is to artificially lower the cap-hit beyond what it should be, illegally, is such a deal more favourable to teams in a reduced cap environment, or less? And since I know it will be brought up, assume that there will be someway for teams to remove 1way contracts from their roster, as was the case in the last CBA.
View Public Profile
Bleach Clean's albums
Find More Posts by Bleach Clean