View Single Post
01-10-2013, 02:30 PM
winsome, loathsome
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 10,747
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
I know. I just think it's a good year for Toronto to "retool". They have a 0% chance of winning the SC this year. They have a bunch of pending UFAs up front. And given the current roster, theyre projected to finish near the bottom.

They also don't quite know what they have in Reimer/Scrivens. I don't have much hope for either of them. But it'd be a bit silly if we made a trade, and then one of them had a breakout season.

I'd like to see them sell the guys that won't be here longterm who are pending UFAs and the ones they can't resign (Lupul and Bozak for example might have longterm spots, but may not want to sign), draft one of the top forwards in the draft (unless there's a D they just can't pass on), and then go hard in free agency. We could possibly get Backstrom in free agency as well to handle the short-term goaltending needs after this season.

Versus trading for Luongo, having his big risky contract, losing something like Frattin+Kadri+2nd in terms of the "future", having him push us into a mediocre finish for the year, not good enoguh to win anything, not bad enough to draft a top prospect. Given that we'd traded for Lou, it wouldn't make much sense to be sellers, so we'd probably hold onto most or all of our pending UFAs and miss out on any value they had as well.

Logically, I just don't see the longterm benefit of bringing in Lou.
Fair enough ... I suppose I don't see your team in quite the same light.

If that's what you have to give up to get Luongo, it's almost nothing with regards to the immediate cost to the Leafs. I think it's far too risky to give up a season with the players on the roster at this point with the hopes of possibly landing Backstrom.

I would also say that one of your goalies now would benefit a great deal from playing along side Luongo.

Either way, there are different approaches and the one you've suggested here one way to go, it just seems much riskier than trading for LUongo. I have to say, I don't agree with all this concern about Luongo's contract. It's become extremely popular to sight this as a huge problem, but I doubt too many GM's are worried about something that MAY become and issue in five years.

quat is offline