Thread: Proposal: Van-NJ (yes, Luongo)
View Single Post
04-15-2013, 10:32 AM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 973
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
Yawn... Nash, Gaborik, Pominville, Erat, Bishop, Lindback, Morrow, Iginla, Brassard, Clowe, Bouwmeester, Roy, Regher, Leopold, Murray, Ryder, Lombardi, Bobrovsky, Ribeiro, Visnovsky, Michalek, Ott, J. Staal, B. Sutter, Foligno, Methot, Dubinsky, JVR, L. Schenn, etc all say hello.

All I'm hearing from you is a bunch of delusional excuses as to why Luongo hasn't been traded. Yea, it has nothing to do with his trade value. It all has to do with the CBA, the shortened season, and the lockout. Dozens of players have been traded in that time frame, including a number of very significant players, most of whom were not pending UFAs when traded.
None of which are goalies with long-term contracts penalized by the new CBA. There are already only 30 starting goalie spots. The number of destinations is reduced by the contract (as I pointed out, the top 6-7.... let's say 10 cap spending teams to be safe, can't risk the cap penalty).

The reason why Luongo wasn't traded is very simple.... No one was willing to pay what Gillis wanted. Whether that was a top prospect+ or a mid round pick - we have no idea.

What I find interesting is that everyone agrees the Leafs had interest at some point after the CBA was agreed upon. Ignoring what they were willing to give up, that alone indicates that a team (at least 1) was willing to risk the contract - the major sticking point. From there it was all about trade value.

As I've said.... he may be moved for scraps, but he can be moved and I would bet something of value to the Canucks is gained.

ohnoeszz is offline