HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Toronto Maple Leafs- Goalie Situation #2

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-17-2012, 12:34 PM
  #76
JKsilverstick*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabresandcanucks View Post
Thats being too selective,

Vancouver fans will post the Jeff Carter trade to CBJ last summer as their example. The difference between Chicago's and Vancouver's situation is that Vancouver is not in a CAP bind. Vancouver can be patient so long as Schneider signs for at least one year.
Chicago didn't HAVE to trade Campbell either. Just like Vancouver, they had a player that had shifted down the depth chart, and they were paying a player more than the position they were playing, so he was traded to open up more opportunities now and in the future.

In fact, Vancouver is likely more pressured to make the trade than Chicago was, because Luongo more-or-less decides Schneider's fate. Vancouver cannot afford to sign Schnieder for 1 year. 100% guarantee that wont happen.

There is a HUGE difference between Carter and Luongo. Carter has a 10-year deal signed at less than his worth at the age of 27, as he enters his prime. Luongo has a 10-year deal at his current worth at the age of 33, as he enters post-prime. 30-40 goal scorers also fetch more on the market than #1 goalies.

Carter was the 14th-highest scoring center the year before he was traded, and was the 3rd-best goal-scorer in the league. Luongo was 25-27th in Save%, 30th in GAA and was replaced by his backup in the playoffs.

Also, like it or not, Luongo essentially being run out of town by your fan-base lowers his value. Only 1 team being mildly interested in him also lowers his value. Uncertainty with the CBA also lowers his value.

JKsilverstick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:39 PM
  #77
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKsilverstick View Post
Chicago didn't HAVE to trade Campbell either. Just like Vancouver, they had a player that had shifted down the depth chart, and they were paying a player more than the position they were playing, so he was traded to open up more opportunities now and in the future.

In fact, Vancouver is likely more pressured to make the trade than Chicago was, because Luongo more-or-less decides Schneider's fate. Vancouver cannot afford to sign Schnieder for 1 year. 100% guarantee that wont happen.

There is a HUGE difference between Carter and Luongo. Carter has a 10-year deal signed at less than his worth at the age of 27, as he enters his prime. Luongo has a 10-year deal at his current worth at the age of 33, as he enters post-prime. 30-40 goal scorers also fetch more on the market than #1 goalies.

Carter was the 14th-highest scoring center the year before he was traded, and was the 3rd-best goal-scorer in the league. Luongo was 25-27th in Save%, 30th in GAA and was replaced by his backup in the playoffs.

Also, like it or not, Luongo essentially being run out of town by your fan-base lowers his value. Only 1 team being mildly interested in him also lowers his value. Uncertainty with the CBA also lowers his value.
You can keep trying to justify why you feel Luongo will be traded for crap plus a late round pick, it isn't happening.

CommonMeans* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:42 PM
  #78
GordieHoweHatTrick
Registered User
 
GordieHoweHatTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 13,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thOverdrive View Post
could see 1 of 2 possibilities happening if a FAIR deal goes down.

Schenn + Ashton/Colborne + Connolly + pick for Luongo + Raymond/Pick

Kulemin + Colborne + Connolly for Luongo + Raymond

My gauging of value again may be off because I've followed Luongo for years now and I know he's an excellent goaltender despite what all his rabid haters think. Note that Raymond is added as a compensation for Burke if he feels his forward depth is thinning out

After listing out the roster after both trades, I think Toronto is better off trading Schenn than Kulemin (point of strength rather than weakness).
I noticed you included Connolly in both of your proposals. I would've proposed him myself but wanted to avoid any needless altercations. The Canucks are without Kesler until December (?) so I have to ask, is management going to be looking for a short-term fix to shore up the depth at center? Connolly would be a prime candidate to fill that role imo. He's bashed on HF but reality is he's still a solid #3 who could be a filler in the #2 spot. He may not have the tenacity fans like to see from a competitor but he is useful, mainly on the PP and PK. 5v5 he seems lackadaisical. Still, I think he'd be a useful 2nd asset in any deal involving Luongo. Canucks fans don't have to agree but if you're going to shore up the center position where else are you planning to look? I'm just spit-balling here because, frankly, I highly doubt the Leafs would be so keen on just dumping Connolly like Leafs fans would suggest anyway but I thought it merits a discussion.

GordieHoweHatTrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:43 PM
  #79
JKsilverstick*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thOverdrive View Post
You don't actually believe that do you? I can't fabricate the thought process behind one of LACK and a late round pick. I know Leaf fans want to get amazing value for their 'garbage' but in what World does that help the Canucks? Do they get better with one year of say Lombardi? There is so much room for a potential good trade and Gillis is gonna opt for that room. Toronto has some valuable assets (some being valued to high but I don't follow the Leafs enough to say they aren't) and their prospect pool can be replenished with their top pick this year (and potential to sign Schultz).

Both GM's realize they can both benefit from a trade and that's going to happen. No Luongo won't get Gardiner + the 5th overall and no way in hell will he get Mike ****in Komiserak + a late round.

Vancouver probably values Kulemin, Ashton and Frattin the most out of the TML forwards because of their natural ability to play RW effectively (we already have Sedin, Booth and Higgins who are above say MacArthur) and with tenacity. Schenn, though having a terrible season, would heavily help Vancouver if he can get back into form (and he will now that the turd known as Wilson is gone). Prospects like Ashton, Kadri and Colborne are needed for both parties, but Toronto can afford to give one of those assets up if it fixes their biggest issue since ever (Franchise goaltender). Out of LACK, I feel only Connolly would be targeted (1 year contract and partial replacement for Kesler)

I could see 1 of 2 possibilities happening if a FAIR deal goes down.

Schenn + Ashton/Colborne + Connolly + pick for Luongo + Raymond/Pick

Kulemin + Colborne + Connolly for Luongo + Raymond

My gauging of value again may be off because I've followed Luongo for years now and I know he's an excellent goaltender despite what all his rabid haters think. Note that Raymond is added as a compensation for Burke if he feels his forward depth is thinning out

After listing out the roster after both trades, I think Toronto is better off trading Schenn than Kulemin (point of strength rather than weakness).
You're looking at what helps Vancouver, but not what helps Toronto. This isn't about what helps Vancouver. This is Vancouver trying to get rid of an asset that nobody seems to want.

Luongo is a good goalie. I'm not a hater, as you say. I also realize the situations that Salary Caps present, and how it affects the value of players. Campbell is a good player too, and deserved a return of much more than Olesz.

Vancouver's benefit from trading Luongo will be cap space now and in the future. Keeping Luongo not only doesn't benefit you at all, but it forces difficult decisions with regards to Schneider, and the longer you hold onto Luongo, the harder it will be to trade him, especially if plans would be to use him as a backup this year. This might be the last chance to trade Luongo.

This is one of the dangers that teams run into with longer deals, that people are too ignorant to see. You may get more value at the beginning of the deal, but you get less value at the end of the deal, and if you need to trade him, you don't have a chance to get value for him.

JKsilverstick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:44 PM
  #80
JKsilverstick*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
You can keep trying to justify why you feel Luongo will be traded for crap plus a late round pick, it isn't happening.
Cap space for the next 10 years is not crap in a Salary Cap world. You don't want to believe me, that's your decision, and your disappointment if Luongo is traded.

JKsilverstick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:45 PM
  #81
sabresandcanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKsilverstick View Post
Chicago didn't HAVE to trade Campbell either. Just like Vancouver, they had a player that had shifted down the depth chart, and they were paying a player more than the position they were playing, so he was traded to open up more opportunities now and in the future.

In fact, Vancouver is likely more pressured to make the trade than Chicago was, because Luongo more-or-less decides Schneider's fate. Vancouver cannot afford to sign Schnieder for 1 year. 100% guarantee that wont happen.

There is a HUGE difference between Carter and Luongo. Carter has a 10-year deal signed at less than his worth at the age of 27, as he enters his prime. Luongo has a 10-year deal at his current worth at the age of 33, as he enters post-prime. 30-40 goal scorers also fetch more on the market than #1 goalies.

Carter was the 14th-highest scoring center the year before he was traded, and was the 3rd-best goal-scorer in the league. Luongo was 25-27th in Save%, 30th in GAA and was replaced by his backup in the playoffs.

Also, like it or not, Luongo essentially being run out of town by your fan-base lowers his value. Only 1 team being mildly interested in him also lowers his value. Uncertainty with the CBA also lowers his value.
Even if I grant you your point, the Canucks still do not have to move Luongo. They could trade Schneider. They could keep both. Need I remind you of Boston's goaltending situation a couple of seasons ago?

Look at the Carter trade at the deadline as well....what the heck had Carter done last year to be worth Jack Johnson and a first? He was on a long term contract, known for having off ice issues, and was not producing...yet that was the return. Why? Market forces.

Edit: My bad Carter did not go for a 1st as well this year....


Last edited by sabresandcanucks: 06-17-2012 at 12:54 PM.
sabresandcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:46 PM
  #82
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKsilverstick View Post
Cap space for the next 10 years is not crap in a Salary Cap world. You don't want to believe me, that's your decision, and your disappointment if Luongo is traded.
It's actually a 5.3 mil cap hit for the next 6-7 years. Not a lot for an elite goaltender in a world where the cap increases.

CommonMeans* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:46 PM
  #83
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKsilverstick View Post
Cap space for the next 10 years is not crap in a Salary Cap world. You don't want to believe me, that's your decision, and your disappointment if Luongo is traded.
That's a great point that Canuck fans are missing. Having all that cap space given for the next decade alone is huge value.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:47 PM
  #84
sabresandcanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKsilverstick View Post
Cap space for the next 10 years is not crap in a Salary Cap world. You don't want to believe me, that's your decision, and your disappointment if Luongo is traded.
CAP space is relative to how much the CAP goes up....and if this is about CAP space Vancouver buries his contract in the minors....

CAP space also doesn't get you into the playoffs or win you a cup. You as a Leafs fan should understand this well.

sabresandcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:48 PM
  #85
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
That's a great point that Canuck fans are missing. Having all that cap space given for the next decade alone is huge value.
It's only a valid point if AV can somehow find a way to ice a team without a goaltender. Otherwise, that (small) cap hit of 5.3mil will be used up on a goalie over that same time period. Hence, no cap savings.

CommonMeans* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:49 PM
  #86
sabresandcanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
That's a great point that Canuck fans are missing. Having all that cap space given for the next decade alone is huge value.
5.3 million is really not that much when the CAP could be around 70 million + moving forward. It's all relative.

sabresandcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:51 PM
  #87
GordieHoweHatTrick
Registered User
 
GordieHoweHatTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 13,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
That's a great point that Canuck fans are missing. Having all that cap space given for the next decade alone is huge value.
I don't think anyone is missing that point. Luongo isn't dead cap for a decade, that's sensationalizing his contract. Komisarek is dead cap for a half decade though, that's fact.

GordieHoweHatTrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:51 PM
  #88
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallHockeyLegend View Post
There's a couple obvious flaws in your logic...

1) Goalies don't carry as much trade value as scoring/gritty forwards.

2) If Luongo was truly one of the best goalies in the league, he wouldn't be on the trade block. Luongo is what he is, a great regular season goalie who is on a very long contract and is only getting older.

3) Any team trading for Nash willing to give up significant assets is not doing so thinking that he isn't a top 10 winger in the league. They're doing it thinking that he is. If you disagree with that, it's your prerogative however your opinion of Nash does not determine his trade value.

That being said, I agree there is no way Vancouver trades him for a salary dump and a low end pick. If Vancouver doesn't feel they're improving their team through addition in a Luongo trade, then no trade will be made. There's simply not enough incentive for them to dump him at this point. If they go through next season with Schneider clearly taking the reigns and leaving absolutely zero doubt, then at that point Vancouver might lower their expectations and take best offer.

If a deal goes through it will probably look something like this:

MacArthur + Armstrong + 2nd for Luongo + 4th or 5th

This addresses Vancouver's needs without taking anything away from Toronto's building blocks. If Vancouver does not feel this is sufficient value, Vancouver will probably trade Luongo somewhere else or hold onto him for at least another year
.
That's pretty horrendous.

Anders freaking Lindback got moved for two 2nds and a 3rd...

Armstrong is worth nothing, the Canucks have zero interest and have 4 guys that play the same game. MacArthur is such a marginal upgrade it wouldn't be worth it.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:52 PM
  #89
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
That's a great point that Canuck fans are missing. Having all that cap space given for the next decade alone is huge value.
... You have to replace that with another goalie. $5.3 mil is not a huge amount for a #1 goalie.

If you're going as cheap as you probably can these days on a number one you might save $1.5 mil.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:53 PM
  #90
sabresandcanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
That's pretty horrendous.

Anders freaking Lindback got moved for two 2nds and a 3rd...

Armstrong is worth nothing, the Canucks have zero interest and have 4 guys that play the same game. MacArthur is such a marginal upgrade it wouldn't be worth it.
MacArthur isn't bad, but he doesn't help the Canucks who have a similar player in Higgins.

sabresandcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:53 PM
  #91
GordieHoweHatTrick
Registered User
 
GordieHoweHatTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 13,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
That's pretty horrendous.

Anders freaking Lindback got moved for two 2nds and a 3rd...

Armstrong is worth nothing, the Canucks have zero interest and have 4 guys that play the same game. MacArthur is such a marginal upgrade it wouldn't be worth it.
Tampa Bay also had like 4 2nd rounder this year. It's all relative. Still, I agree with you, it's a pretty bad proposal. The Nucks have Sedin/Booth/Higgins/Raymond that play MacArthur's position

GordieHoweHatTrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:53 PM
  #92
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
... You have to replace that with another goalie. $5.3 mil is not a huge amount for a #1 goalie.

If you're going as cheap as you probably can these days on a number one you might save $1.5 mil.
You have your #1 goalie though. Corey Schneider. Yes, he's getting an increase soon, but he's a young starter for years to come.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:55 PM
  #93
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
You have your #1 goalie though. Corey Schneider. Yes, he's getting an increase soon, but he's a young starter for years to come.
He gets traded if the crap being spewed in this thread is any indication of Luongo's return value.

Care to give up Gardiner and your first for Schneider?

CommonMeans* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:57 PM
  #94
sabresandcanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
You have your #1 goalie though. Corey Schneider. Yes, he's getting an increase soon, but he's a young starter for years to come.
True,

but Vancouver has holes they need to fill. Any trade that doesn't work towards fixing their internal weaknesses is not worth making.

sabresandcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:57 PM
  #95
Petes2424
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
Just stop with the fake-fix of having to deal Luongo soon. Again, if the value for Luongo is what some here suggest - one of a LACK and 2nd - then Schneider is traded instead. Fix over.
So under that scenario how does Luongo react? And do they really want to move Schneider because their back is against the wall with Luongo? That would be a big no.

Luongo is the clear player to be moved here. It's time to move on for the Canucks. This whole situation can blow up on them if not handled correctly. The worst thing that can happen is Schneider agrees to a one year deal.

Petes2424 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:57 PM
  #96
mikeo1
Registered User
 
mikeo1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordieHoweHatTrick View Post
I don't think anyone is missing that point. Luongo isn't dead cap for a decade, that's sensationalizing his contract. Komisarek is dead cap for a half decade though, that's fact.
Komisarek has 2 years on his contract and can actually play. Luongo has 9 and will be riding the bench - that's dead cap.

mikeo1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:58 PM
  #97
daveleaf
Registered User
 
daveleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,605
vCash: 500
At the end of the day you have an aging goalie signed for a very long time that has already said publicly that he wants out. You have an emerging young player that his RFA contract is up and probably won't sign a long term deal knowing Roberto will still be there. He doesn't want to answer those questions every day and neither does Luongo. So what do you do, qualify him and hope he doesn't walk in one year?

Not many teams want to take on that contract and with TB trading for Lindback that number just diminished by 1!


From my perspective, Van is not in a position of strength but with removing this player and getting something back in return will solidify the locker room and remove all the goalie questions.

GM can be stubborn if he wants and see this window close that he has really really quick.

daveleaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:58 PM
  #98
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
Just stop with the fake-fix of having to deal Luongo soon. Again, if the value for Luongo is what some here suggest - one of a LACK and 2nd - then Schneider is traded instead. Fix over.
Agreed. It is looking likely that the best course of action is to part with Schneider assuming Luongo wants to stay.

Rinzler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:59 PM
  #99
daveleaf
Registered User
 
daveleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petes2424 View Post
So under that scenario how does Luongo react? And do they really want to move Schneider because their back is against the wall with Luongo? That would be a big no.

Luongo is the clear player to be moved here. It's time to move on for the Canucks. This whole situation can blow up on them if not handled correctly. The worst thing that can happen is Schneider agrees to a one year deal.
It's dead cap if he is only playing 15-20 games a year and counts 5+ mill on the cap.

daveleaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 12:59 PM
  #100
GordieHoweHatTrick
Registered User
 
GordieHoweHatTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 13,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
He gets traded if the crap being spewed in this thread is any indication of Luongo's return value.

Care to give up Gardiner and your first for Schneider?
No. There's 0 perpetual bottom feeding teams that would give up their most promising prospect and a 5th overall selection for a relatively unproven goalie. One asset, maybe, but not both. For the sake of discussion, even if Toronto were to give up one of those assets, Schneider would have to come with at least a 5 year contract. Prospects and picks are a team's restricted property for longer than that.

GordieHoweHatTrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.