HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Why The Tampa Trade Matters

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-18-2012, 12:24 PM
  #176
BillyD
JUST WIN BABY
 
BillyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKsilverstick View Post
I believe that somewhere was the start.
hockey trade>>bank robbery>>hypocrites who oppose the seal trade

BillyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 04:11 PM
  #177
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
That's a terrible analogy.

It's more like being opposed to mortgaging a house over 40 years, knowing you'd have smaller payments but for a longer period. But, when it came time to buy the house you really wanted, you have to assume the 40 year mortgage, and assume all the risks that come with it.
Its really shouldn't make any difference if a person is opposed to a 40 year mortgage on principle by signing/negotiating it yourself or acquiring it by buying your home and assuming it.. Its still a 40 year mortgage either way you look at it.

If you're opposed to it, to the point of wanting the rules changed as Burke is in the new CBA with these long cap circumvention contracts like Luongo, then you should want no part regardless of situation to remain consistent to ones beliefs. That is my point here !!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
It is interesting that I agree with Mess regarding Luongo. Except for the hypocrit part. But I don't think Burke will go there.
Definition of HYPOCRITE

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue.
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

How does this not apply to this situation if Burke acquires Luongo and his contract, after going public and speaking out against them?

Burke shouldn't go there based on his own beliefs, thus not trading for Luongo to remain true to his word.. Whether his own rules should come before the interests of the team is another debate altogether.

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 04:23 PM
  #178
TeamBester
Debunked
 
TeamBester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,489
vCash: 500
Burke stated a long time ago that he accepts the contracts signed by the NHL.

TeamBester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 04:29 PM
  #179
JKsilverstick*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Its really shouldn't make any difference if a person is opposed to a 40 year mortgage on principle by signing/negotiating it yourself or acquiring it by buying your home and assuming it.. Its still a 40 year mortgage either way you look at it.

If you're opposed to it, to the point of wanting the rules changed as Burke is in the new CBA with these long cap circumvention contracts like Luongo, then you should want no part regardless of situation to remain consistent to ones beliefs. That is my point here !!!!

Definition of HYPOCRITE

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue.
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

How does this not apply to this situation if Burke acquires Luongo and his contract, after going public and speaking out against them?

Burke shouldn't go there based on his own beliefs, thus not trading for Luongo to remain true to his word.. Whether his own rules should come before the interests of the team is another debate altogether.
So if Burke thought last year that the league should reduce the percentage share of revenues that players will receive in the next CBA to 50%, Burke should have operated with a Salary Cap of 6-7 million dollars less than other teams?

Or maybe he thinks that players should only receive 40% of revenues. Should Burke operate 20 million below the cap just because he thinks that?

No, his job is to do what's best for his team first, and what's best for the league second. The only hypocrite here is you.

JKsilverstick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 04:47 PM
  #180
Calacatz
Pak-trick!
 
Calacatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Agreed

Fans that believe in a team building system through drafting and development have their focus on Reimer/Scrivens, and what may be coming down the pipeline through the draft.

If the Leafs current youngsters are not ready yet than you need a short-term solution of a vet backup with strong leadership/mentoring abilities to increase the development of your own. Had Leafs traded for Lindback (age 24) and chose to develop and build around him as TB is attempting that would have been a right move similarly for the Leafs at this stage.

If you bring in a starting goalie for the next decade like Luongo, then you are relegating one of Reimer/Scrivens to a long-term back up position and the other one departed out of the organization as you can only carry 2 goalies and soon waivers will become an issue with Reimer/Scrivens.

In fact one of Reimer/Scrivens may be heading out in the trade for Luongo as Vancouver would likely ask for one for organizational depth behind Schneider.

Teams often draft their own starting goalies.. Quick, Lundqvist, Brodeur, Miller, Fleury etc etc and develop then into being their #1 netminders. In fact Vancouver dealing Luongo and turning to Schneider is an example of the very same thing, of moving out the vet to give the young player the reigns..

Here in Toronto "the grass is always greener" and they covet others possessions to build their teams and how has that worked out so far since 1967?.
Sorry I am late with this reply, but this is stupid. We don't have a real blue chip #1 goalie. We can't put all our ducks on Reimer & what the hell has Lindbank accomplished in his career playing on a better team to boot as a back up?

We have fans in this market that spend $350 a ticket to see a winning product. If you can gat a 1a goalie & $$ isn't a problem you go out and get it especially if we can afford the stupid contracts we throw out year after year.

I have a lot more confindence if the Leafs having a legit cup shot within the next 5 years with Luongo then waiting for the next youngster to pan out. Your theory is a joke Mess. The leafs since the lockout have been experimenting in net without grabbing the true #1 (Raycroft, Toskala, The Monster, Reimer etc)

Last time I checked when the leafs were in the playoffs and competititve with a shot to go far they had a 1a vet between the pipes.

Rask was the last blue chip we had in the system to become the home grown guy but we rolled the dice on another forder calder winner and it bit us.

Luongo puts the goaltending issues to rest.

Calacatz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 04:49 PM
  #181
deprw
Registered User
 
deprw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Finland
Posts: 156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamBester View Post
Burke stated a long time ago that he accepts the contracts signed by the NHL.
I think even Nonis said that in the radio last few weeks. Burke don't like those deals and wouldn't sign those, but they are willing to accept one in a trade.

Hypocrite is interesting term and saying that Gillis does the dirty work for Burke in this case is utterly stupid. This isn't con situation, this situation where Burke can take advantage of Canucks goalie situation. Gillis signed that contract with purpose to keep Luongo for remainder of his contract. Clearly there is big possibility that isn't happening and they're hand are cuffed because of that contract. Gillis dug his grave and if we take that contract we are taking advantage of it. Same time we help Canucks to solve this problem. Off course we are taking that cap circumvention contract but that isn't the case. Yes it's one reason they have trouble to trade him and it's good thing for us. That contract though is against Burkes values, but his not getting Luongo for that contract. His acquiring Luongo because we need reliable goalie. There isn't any on the market beside Luongo.

There isn't any planning or con in this, it's hockey trade for us. That contract is sour taste in this possible decision. It's purely hockey trade for us, that cap number isn't factor here. That contract is against Burkes values, but player has more value to us than any of those UFAs there.

I have thought this a lot. First I was against it. There is still BIG BUT, if the price is affordable to us. Like soft deal should be. They have to consider this: Luongo is in his best shape top5 goalie in this league, in worst case far better than mediocre probably top10 still. His old and he has bad term in his contract. 33 year old goalie isn't that bad if you look other goalies we had Belfour or Joseph end of their careers. His cap hit is good.

We could really use him for lets say 5-6 years in best case 7-8 years. Then we can bury him if need to. Everything depend on how much will he cost? If price is right we take him and if it isn't we just let them suck with it.

Solid goaltending league top5 esque could bolster this rebuild to another level. We would be much closer with great goalie. Lombardi, Connolly and Armstrong are of the books after next season. Frattin, Kadri, Colborne, D'Amigo are getting there. If we can pump our bottom6 with cheaper contracts we have more money for top line guys.

There are another options though, rolling with Reimer & Scrivens or we can sign Josh Harding etc. Don't know. Sometimes I'm jealous that people like Burke or Nonis get paid for watching hockey, but this isn't that time. That is hard decision and we don't really know what Gillis thinks about all of this. I 110% sure that they are talking about Luongo in Torontos end.

deprw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 04:52 PM
  #182
Calacatz
Pak-trick!
 
Calacatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,179
vCash: 500
Mess you analogy using mortgages is so stupid its not even funny. When you lock into a Amortization period you have a projected rate of cost over 40 years, but for example if you do a 5 year fixed and the rates change over that time, you can easily re-structure that mortgage for the next term and opt out vs contining at the same rate.

Luongo's salary after 6 years does the same. His investment to play hockey for $1 million nearing 40 may not (most likely WILL NOT) interest him at all and he will opt out or restructure a deal.

I have no idea where the heck you were going for that 40 year BS

Calacatz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 06:15 PM
  #183
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calacatz View Post
Mess you analogy using mortgages is so stupid its not even funny. When you lock into a Amortization period you have a projected rate of cost over 40 years, but for example if you do a 5 year fixed and the rates change over that time, you can easily re-structure that mortgage for the next term and opt out vs contining at the same rate.

Luongo's salary after 6 years does the same. His investment to play hockey for $1 million nearing 40 may not (most likely WILL NOT) interest him at all and he will opt out or restructure a deal.

I have no idea where the heck you were going for that 40 year BS
The mortgage analogy wasn't mine.. I was responding to another poster who used it.. Check the thread..

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 07:03 PM
  #184
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
I won't pretend to be a mortgage expert but it was used to counter "it's ok to rob the bank robber" argument.

My bad calacatz.

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 07:07 PM
  #185
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Hey Mess, is someone a hypocrit every time they change their mind?

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 07:24 PM
  #186
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
Hey Mess, is someone a hypocrite every time they change their mind?
Last I checked Loungo wasn't a Leaf (yet), so no one including Leafs GM is contradicting anything at this point, nor changing their minds on cap circumventing contracts.

He might very well stick to his beliefs, and go another direction in net, making any such discussion regarding hypocrisy a moot point.

So its all good at this time.. Burke's defense team can take a seat, exhale and relax as no ones on trial at present.

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 07:42 PM
  #187
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Last I checked Loungo wasn't a Leaf (yet), so no one including Leafs GM is contradicting anything at this point, nor changing their minds on cap circumventing contracts.

He might very well stick to his beliefs, and go another direction in net, making any such discussion regarding hypocrisy a moot point.

So its all good at this time.. Burke's defense team can take a seat, exhale and relax as no ones on trial at present.
The fact he hasn't done anything doesn't change your posts bashing him. Heck, we've spent 2 years hearing you bash him for trading Kadri.

Hey, isn't calling people "Burke defenders" flaming? I thought it was.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/member.php?u=77

Or is it only if you call people haters? Or spell Brian's name wrong?

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 07:53 PM
  #188
Deebo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,202
vCash: 500
A hypocrite is someone who calls a 3rd round pick for a plug like Mayers is a good deal but a 2nd rounder for a quality vet like Liles a waste because he likes the GM who made the first deal.

Deebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 08:00 PM
  #189
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
....Steps...away.....slowly....

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 08:48 PM
  #190
BlueBaron
Registered User
 
BlueBaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto, On
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Robbing a Bank is against the rules, however mugging the robber, and making off with the spoils of his bounty is morally okay on principle because hey after all you didn't rob the bank yourself. You could change bank robber to con artist that sets up a scheme to rob money from people, and then making conning the con artist okay in the above analogy if the bank robber is wrong for legal reasons and doesn't apply here to make the same point.

However this is exactly the Luongo situation now for the Leafs GM, because he vehemently opposes signing such a contract himself and refuses to do it passing on available UFA talent in the process to do so, however signing off on a trade to acquire it, is reconciled simply by adjusting to the ways of doing business and therefore now acceptable. By this logic the adjustment in beliefs should occur at the beginning of the process and Burke should be lining up with 10+ year cap circumvention front loaded contract offers for Parise and Suter this summer, not figuring out ways to acquire them after someone else signs them first.

Its like opposing the killing of animals on beliefs of animal rights and conservation, and then wearing an expensive fur coat while protesting against it.

You're either for or against something, not against it only when it doesn't benefit you, but fine if you can exploit the situation to your own best interests because others are doing it.
I'm not sure your analogy is really a good fit for the situation. Your bank example is trading one crime for another, as opposed to a philisophical rule difference. Killing animals is also a bad example because you are equating life to money. I think something more along the lines of :

Being opposed to legal handguns, voting for an MP that also is against them but after losing the battle, when they are made legal, carrying them in your gun shop to stay in business. This is a more accurate example of the principal (lol and in our case only buying second hand ones ). You may not like doing it but you have to or you could get shut down. Keep in mind this is about a game, not a major morale issue.


Last edited by BlueBaron: 06-18-2012 at 09:08 PM.
BlueBaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 09:04 PM
  #191
Happy Fan
nifty
 
Happy Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deprw View Post
I think even Nonis said that in the radio last few weeks. Burke don't like those deals and wouldn't sign those, but they are willing to accept one in a trade.

Hypocrite is interesting term and saying that Gillis does the dirty work for Burke in this case is utterly stupid. This isn't con situation, this situation where Burke can take advantage of Canucks goalie situation. Gillis signed that contract with purpose to keep Luongo for remainder of his contract. Clearly there is big possibility that isn't happening and they're hand are cuffed because of that contract. Gillis dug his grave and if we take that contract we are taking advantage of it. Same time we help Canucks to solve this problem. Off course we are taking that cap circumvention contract but that isn't the case. Yes it's one reason they have trouble to trade him and it's good thing for us. That contract though is against Burkes values, but his not getting Luongo for that contract. His acquiring Luongo because we need reliable goalie. There isn't any on the market beside Luongo.

There isn't any planning or con in this, it's hockey trade for us. That contract is sour taste in this possible decision. It's purely hockey trade for us, that cap number isn't factor here. That contract is against Burkes values, but player has more value to us than any of those UFAs there.

I have thought this a lot. First I was against it. There is still BIG BUT, if the price is affordable to us. Like soft deal should be. They have to consider this: Luongo is in his best shape top5 goalie in this league, in worst case far better than mediocre probably top10 still. His old and he has bad term in his contract. 33 year old goalie isn't that bad if you look other goalies we had Belfour or Joseph end of their careers. His cap hit is good.

We could really use him for lets say 5-6 years in best case 7-8 years. Then we can bury him if need to. Everything depend on how much will he cost? If price is right we take him and if it isn't we just let them suck with it.

Solid goaltending league top5 esque could bolster this rebuild to another level. We would be much closer with great goalie. Lombardi, Connolly and Armstrong are of the books after next season. Frattin, Kadri, Colborne, D'Amigo are getting there. If we can pump our bottom6 with cheaper contracts we have more money for top line guys.

There are another options though, rolling with Reimer & Scrivens or we can sign Josh Harding etc. Don't know. Sometimes I'm jealous that people like Burke or Nonis get paid for watching hockey, but this isn't that time. That is hard decision and we don't really know what Gillis thinks about all of this. I 110% sure that they are talking about Luongo in Torontos end.
iF there's any negotiation for luongo I'm 100 % sure nonis is the main guy responsible like he was in vancouver, I love this guy more than burke.

Happy Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 11:24 PM
  #192
Leafs24Seven*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 1000 Islands Usa/Can
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
Great post silverstick.... your 100% dead on about Brain, i mean Brian Burke!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JKsilverstick View Post
Get off your high horse.

It's not lies. Go look at the Marlies. Go look at the players Burke has drafted. He is doing exactly what he said he would; just not doing it the stupid way by overpaying for "tough" veterans that will be useless to us in the time we are competing. Toughness costs extra. He acquires softer, cheaper talented players (and plays a more run and gun style) while building up his army in the minors, they rack up the points, and then they get a higher return for these softer placeholders as they trade them away and the tougher kids come in (as well as the more defensive-minded coach).

It's the perfect strategy really. All of you just like to hate so much that you are too ignorant to see it. Burke does exactly what he says. He just may not do it in the exact way you like.

Leafs24Seven* 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 02:47 PM.

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.