HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
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.

Luongo to Columbus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-30-2012, 03:06 PM
  #76
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,713
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
I totally agree with the rest of it, but why a top 4D? Bieksa, Hamhuis, Edler and Garrison seem like a pretty good D to me man.
Injury insurance, plus a steady righty to play with Ballard as insurance against Tanev not progressing as quickly as we all think he will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by candyman82 View Post
I don't know if a deal can be made between the Jackets and Canucks that really helps both teams. David Savard is one of our stronger RH defensive prospects who may become the odd man out with the additions of Erixon and Murray. We are very low on playmakers, but if Johansen steps up his game Brassard could become available. Jared Boll or Colton Gillies could be part of a deal for the 3rd/4th liner bit. I would would be very hesitant to give up any of our recently acquired pieces, for the first time in Jackets history we seem to have really solid depth. Additionally, you would almost have to take back Steve Mason in order to make the money work.
Brassard wouldn't be terrible, but isn't he a center? Can he play wing? Or would he be more the 2c/3c I mentioned? If you really are low on playmakers, I'd personally accept a top six player with size...just Umberger and Kesler kind of have that hate/hate thing going.

Savard I thought would have been top five in the prospect pool, ie not likely available, but if he might be, I'm not one to complain.

Boll is a fine addition, and I'd much rather him to Gillies. I can't say either holds a lot of value, but again, a small added extra could work for us as well.

Mason can work for us, cash wise. Worst case scenario, we could always flip him for picks or a player later, but as a back up to Schneider I think we could do worse.

If any or all of the pieces mentioned are possibly in play, I've heard worse offers.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 03:38 PM
  #77
KISSland
Registered User
 
KISSland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
EWWWWW!

You don't speak for the Canucks fan base, or at least this Canucks fan.

Not at all a fan of Brassard, nor do I think it makes sense to acquire Mason or add picks and Raymond.

Terrible.
Yeah maybe I added too much on our side since we are taking on Mason which is essentially a cap dump..

Maybe Columbus throws in the pick.. Luongo, Raymond for Brassard, Mason, 2nd? Or Savard. Don't know how much Columbus values him right now with Erixon and Murray.

And you're the one wanting a top 6 fwd/top 4 dman, a 1st round pick and a top prospect for Luongo right?

KISSland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 03:48 PM
  #78
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Figz14 View Post
And you're the one wanting a top 6 fwd/top 4 dman, a 1st round pick and a top prospect for Luongo right?
That's me.

More NHL player than top 6 fw or top 4 d.

The caliber of the NHL player factors in the level of the top prospect. 1st round pick IMO has to come alongside, regardless of the player or prospect.

Elite level players always return 1st round picks ++.

Luongo should be able to return Brassard + Savard + 1st, but IMO that's a pretty weak return. Not a fan of Brassard at all...Savard I don't think makes this squad any time soon, and the 1st is a 1st (Columbus has 3 for 2013).

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 03:51 PM
  #79
KISSland
Registered User
 
KISSland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
That's me.

More NHL player than top 6 fw or top 4 d.

The caliber of the NHL player factors in the level of the top prospect. 1st round pick IMO has to come alongside, regardless of the player or prospect.

Elite level players always return 1st round picks ++.
I usually agree with this, but it always depends on the player, the market, and the term that the player is on. These reasons why I feel we won't get anywhere close to actual value for Luongo, but I hope I'm wrong.

I hope we can get at least a 1st + a roster player coming back

KISSland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 03:58 PM
  #80
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Figz14 View Post
I usually agree with this, but it always depends on the player, the market, and the term that the player is on. These reasons why I feel we won't get anywhere close to actual value for Luongo, but I hope I'm wrong.

I hope we can get at least a 1st + a roster player coming back
Yeah, I don't need HFboards to tell me what his value is.

For the most part it's teams that want him badly trying to diminish his value to Canuck fans (has no effect on the actual return) or fans of teams that are rivals with the Canucks (Edmonton and Calgary stand out) that want to discount his abilities...although he's consistently beaten the tar out of their clubs for the last 6 years, it's no wonder they don't like the guy.

I think my NHL player + top prospect + 1st round pick isn't even true value for Luongo, I've actually taken contract, NTC, etc into account. If Luongo didn't have the 3 circumvention years or an NTC, with his current cap hit, his value would be astronomical. I don't think a player, pick and prospect is an astronomical price....nor do I think Gillis is as inept as Scott Howson.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 03:59 PM
  #81
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Luongo's NTC allows Gillis and to a lesser extent, Luongo to dictate the terms...not Burke or Tallon.

Burke has absolutely no leverage to dictate any terms....Tallon moreso, because there is a clear upgrade to be had for him, with a player that *wants* to join his team.

It's not often high profile players choose to go to Florida, back to back off-seasons where Tallon could acquire a top pairing defensman and a top goalie would definitely help Florida continue to lure higher profile, top level free agents IMO.
Both teams don't need Luongo. They have the absolute leverage like all teams do when inquiring about a player with a NTC who wants to waive there. (See Nash, Rick)

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:01 PM
  #82
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Both teams don't need Luongo. They have the absolute leverage like most teams do when inquiring about a player with a NTC. (See Nash, Rick)
Yeah, except Howson blinked.

Gillis can bring Luongo back and at worst they are still an elite team in the Western Conference.

Even if Howson stood strong, he could have brought Nash back and still would have likely been looking at lottery picks.

That's the leverage.

Those teams may not need Lu, but it's quite evident, especially in Toronto's case they severely need an upgrade.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:04 PM
  #83
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Yeah, except Howson blinked.

Gillis can bring Luongo back and at worst they are still an elite team in the Western Conference.

Even if Howson stood strong, he could have brought Nash back and still would have likely been looking at lottery picks.

That's the leverage.

Those teams may not need Lu, but it's quite evident, especially in Toronto's case they severely need an upgrade.
Not really. Burke and Tallon have both been selling 'youth movement' and in the case of Tallon, he already has a playoff team. Burke on the other hand seems content with Reimer as his starting goalie and past history shows that he doesn't like signing players to long term deals.

Gillis has to eventually blink since he can't keep both netminders come playoff time. More controversy.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:09 PM
  #84
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Not really. Burke and Tallon have both been selling 'youth movement' and in the case of Tallon, he already has a playoff team. Burke on the other hand seems content with Reimer as his starting goalie and past history shows that he doesn't like signing players to long term deals.

Gillis has to eventually blink since he can't keep both netminders come playoff time. More controversy.
Agree to disagree, since I've probably contributed heavily to this thread going off topic.

Why can't Gillis keep both. Can't is a pretty absolute statement.

Vancouver always has controversy...nothing will change, moving him for crap, probably contributes just as much to a controversy than having two excellent goalies ie. Boston 2011 (I know, more of an exception than the rule, but it happens).


*On topic* still interested in hearing what a Blue Jackets fan would offer (or what they think Howson would offer) for Roberto Luongo.

I don't see a ton that I'd like from Columbus anyhow, anything good, likely doesn;t get offered...and I don't like Brassard as a player = Non-starter in my books.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:13 PM
  #85
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Agree to disagree, since I've probably contributed heavily to this thread going off topic.

Why can't Gillis keep both. Can't is a pretty absolute statement.

Vancouver always has controversy...nothing will change, moving him for crap, probably contributes just as much to a controversy than having two excellent goalies ie. Boston 2011 (I know, more of an exception than the rule, but it happens).


*On topic* still interested in hearing what a Blue Jackets fan would offer (or what they think Howson would offer) for Roberto Luongo.

I don't see a ton that I'd like from Columbus anyhow, anything good, likely doesn;t get offered...and I don't like Brassard as a player = Non-starter in my books.
It's just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt. It might be too much of a distraction come playoff time. And also, teams that need to move a player with a NTC that would only specify to go with a certain team almost always get shafted value wise. If Luo didn't have that NTC, I might agree with you.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:13 PM
  #86
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Not really. Burke and Tallon have both been selling 'youth movement' and in the case of Tallon, he already has a playoff team. Burke on the other hand seems content with Reimer as his starting goalie and past history shows that he doesn't like signing players to long term deals.

Gillis has to eventually blink since he can't keep both netminders come playoff time. More controversy.
So let's get this straight, Vancouver can't keep both because it might lead to problems in the future despite helping ensure they will make the playoffs (if one goalie goes down we're not screwed) but Toronto doesn't need either because they are happy to suck and miss the playoffs (despite a lot of discussion about Burke's leash in Toronto and guys getting mad that they haven't made the playoffs in forever)?

Is that basically what you are trying to say phrased another way?

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:16 PM
  #87
v3rs3
Registered User
 
v3rs3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 167
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to v3rs3
The most I'd offer for Luongo and that contract is a 2nd round pick + Gillies/Boll. That contract is just horrible. I'd rather us finish in the bottom 5 than give up a top 6 plus a first.

v3rs3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:16 PM
  #88
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Not really. Burke and Tallon have both been selling 'youth movement' and in the case of Tallon, he already has a playoff team. Burke on the other hand seems content with Reimer as his starting goalie and past history shows that he doesn't like signing players to long term deals.

Gillis has to eventually blink since he can't keep both netminders come playoff time. More controversy.
I'll disagree with the bolded only because I don't believe that Burke is content with Reimer. At this point it's impossible for me to prove that this is the case but I give Burke credit for being a decent GM and a pretty bright guy.
As for Tallon, I think that he will be interested in improving a team that finished just 2 points out of 8th place.

vanwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:16 PM
  #89
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
So let's get this straight, Vancouver can't keep both because it might lead to problems in the future despite helping ensure they will make the playoffs (if one goalie goes down we're not screwed) but Toronto doesn't need either because they are happy to suck and miss the playoffs (despite a lot of discussion about Burke's leash in Toronto and guys getting mad that they haven't made the playoffs in forever)?

Is that basically what you are trying to say phrased another way?
Yes. Both teams have different set of expectations.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:19 PM
  #90
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
I'll disagree with the bolded only because I don't believe that Burke is content with Reimer. At this point it's impossible for me to prove that this is the case but I give Burke credit for being a decent GM and a pretty bright guy.
I was merely speculating. I actually do think Burke has faith in Reimer and he was fine before the concussion. It's a big risk though that may cost your season.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:23 PM
  #91
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
I was merely speculating. I actually do think Burke has faith in Reimer and he was fine before the concussion. It's a big risk though that may cost your season.
I think that he's said that he is willing to go into next season with Reimer as the starter. I'd be shocked if he said anything else as he would weaken his bargaining position. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that if Vancouver had goaltending like Reimer last year I would not be happy if my GM did nothing. I view the goaltending position as the most important one on the team. If you get good goaltending it improves your team at every other position too. I'm not saying that Burke has to get Luongo but I don't see any other reasonable options out there. That could change maybe but I don't think so.

vanwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:30 PM
  #92
Intense Rage
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakydave View Post
They may not be happy about it but they are powerless to stop it.
I bet the Devils thought the same when they signed Kovalchuk to that ridiculous cap circumventing deal.

Intense Rage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 04:57 PM
  #93
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,713
vCash: 50
Well, if this was infact the offer, or if parts need to be added or tweaked, Brassard, Boll, Savard and Mason for Luongo or whatever our package is.

Brassard - top 9 center, playmaker...I'm still unclear about how he would handle the wing if we would use him with Kesler.

Savard - a prospect I must have been overvaluing, or is merely expendable with the changes/additions to Columbus' roster this off season. I had him at similar value to Schroeder, but I will be the first to admit I know little about the BJ's prospects.

Boll - Bottom 6 winger, fiesty, can hit, can fight, can take a regular shift. Ideally a partner in crime with Volpatti, Kassian and/or Lapierre. He adds little value, but he fills a role.

Mason - A backup/cap dump. He holds no value to me under these circumstances, and his inclusion was at the behest of Jacket's fans, as he would be redundant as a 3rd stringer with Bob and Lu.

Seems on par with Kulemin/Franson/Lombardi to me. Kulemin > Brassard, Franson < Savard, Lombardi = Boll, Mason.

There are pieces I'd like better, but if this is the best offer, I've heard worse.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 06:39 PM
  #94
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
Well, if this was infact the offer, or if parts need to be added or tweaked, Brassard, Boll, Savard and Mason for Luongo or whatever our package is.

Brassard - top 9 center, playmaker...I'm still unclear about how he would handle the wing if we would use him with Kesler.

Savard - a prospect I must have been overvaluing, or is merely expendable with the changes/additions to Columbus' roster this off season. I had him at similar value to Schroeder, but I will be the first to admit I know little about the BJ's prospects.

Boll - Bottom 6 winger, fiesty, can hit, can fight, can take a regular shift. Ideally a partner in crime with Volpatti, Kassian and/or Lapierre. He adds little value, but he fills a role.

Mason - A backup/cap dump. He holds no value to me under these circumstances, and his inclusion was at the behest of Jacket's fans, as he would be redundant as a 3rd stringer with Bob and Lu.

Seems on par with Kulemin/Franson/Lombardi to me. Kulemin > Brassard, Franson < Savard, Lombardi = Boll, Mason.

There are pieces I'd like better, but if this is the best offer, I've heard worse.
I honestly like this package of a deal. It seems it could fill some holes in Vancouver. Though I don't understand the need for Boll and his inclusion, but if others are insistent of it than I wouldn't be that opposed to change from a yes to a no.

Mason is what he is, no value but could easily serve as a back up, and with a steady D corps in front of him may turn his career around and become a solid NHL back up goalie. Or become the Wolves goalie.
Brassard is young enough to warrant at least a look in a more depth role with some offensive upside. But mostly he brings size and another left handed center into the fold that we do need. If he isnt a top 6 guy, with Manny on the team, Brassard could easily become a new younger bigger Manny Malhotra. Lets not forget Manny was highly drafted and thought to be a scorer as well.
Savard seems to be the real catch of this deal, being a solid right hand Dman prospect.

Since CBJ traded Nash and seems to be filling more depth than just straight out stars, I think a player like Raymond would benefit greatly from an increase in offensive role and PP time. Could with Dubi's expected production fill the missing 25-40 goals that Nash was producing.

mstad101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 07:10 PM
  #95
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,384
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
Well, if this was infact the offer, or if parts need to be added or tweaked, Brassard, Boll, Savard and Mason for Luongo or whatever our package is.

Brassard - top 9 center, playmaker...I'm still unclear about how he would handle the wing if we would use him with Kesler.

Savard - a prospect I must have been overvaluing, or is merely expendable with the changes/additions to Columbus' roster this off season. I had him at similar value to Schroeder, but I will be the first to admit I know little about the BJ's prospects.

Boll - Bottom 6 winger, fiesty, can hit, can fight, can take a regular shift. Ideally a partner in crime with Volpatti, Kassian and/or Lapierre. He adds little value, but he fills a role.

Mason - A backup/cap dump. He holds no value to me under these circumstances, and his inclusion was at the behest of Jacket's fans, as he would be redundant as a 3rd stringer with Bob and Lu.

Seems on par with Kulemin/Franson/Lombardi to me. Kulemin > Brassard, Franson < Savard, Lombardi = Boll, Mason.

There are pieces I'd like better, but if this is the best offer, I've heard worse.
I don't like giving up Savard, but I guess I could live with that. I'd really prefer if we got back someone like Raymond in the process if we're giving up that package, tho - we could use a speedster who'll score more than two goals in a season so as to keep Gillies on the bench.

(Bonus: that would leave Derek Dorsett as the only CBJ player drafted under the MacLean regime. )
(No, you can't have him. )

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards

Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 07:19 PM
  #96
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
I don't like giving up Savard, but I guess I could live with that. I'd really prefer if we got back someone like Raymond in the process if we're giving up that package, tho - we could use a speedster who'll score more than two goals in a season so as to keep Gillies on the bench.

(Bonus: that would leave Derek Dorsett as the only CBJ player drafted under the MacLean regime. )
(No, you can't have him. )
Thing is. I don't think the Canucks would have a single piece from that package on their radar.

You can bet the first player they ask for is young Mr. Johansen, and it likely won't get anywhere with the Blue Jackets and I highly doubt they move anyone they acquired in the Nash deal, so basically Columbus is just like Toronto and Florida fans - wanting a top level goalie for peanuts.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 07:26 PM
  #97
leaffansince1961
Registered User
 
leaffansince1961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Thing is. I don't think the Canucks would have a single piece from that package on their radar.

You can bet the first player they ask for is young Mr. Johansen, and it likely won't get anywhere with the Blue Jackets and I highly doubt they move anyone they acquired in the Nash deal, so basically Columbus is just like Toronto and Florida fans - wanting a top level goalie for peanuts.
I beg to differ......we are all the same......wanting a top level goalie with a bad contract for fair market value. If Van was asking a fair price....the deal would have been done by now.

Just like when you list your house.....after being on the market for awhile.....you lower your asking price.

leaffansince1961 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 07:29 PM
  #98
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaffansince1961 View Post
I beg to differ......we are all the same......wanting a top level goalie with a bad contract for fair market value. If Van was asking a fair price....the deal would have been done by now.

Just like when you list your house.....after being on the market for awhile.....you lower your asking price.
Only if you HAVE to sell. If you're rich, You don't.

You can wait for the markets.

luongo and Schneider make the Canucks 'rich'.

Fair market value has to entail pieces that the Canucks want.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 07:31 PM
  #99
leaffansince1961
Registered User
 
leaffansince1961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Only if you HAVE to sell. If you're rich, You don't.

You can wait for the markets.

luongo and Schneider make the Canucks 'rich'.

Fair market value has to entail pieces that the Canucks want.
That's the only way to possibly increase the price.......waiting for someone else's need to increase. But it's a dangerouse game. If the need doesn't arise.......it's a very expensive piece to let sit on the bench.

The question VAN will have to deal with is can you utilize Lu's cap hit elsewhere. Letting it sit on the bench doesn't really help your team.

leaffansince1961 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2012, 07:37 PM
  #100
leaffansince1961
Registered User
 
leaffansince1961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 175
vCash: 500
Also, you might be able to get the price you are asking if you put of Cory instead. That should indicate how back Lu's contract is and why it'll be hard to move him.

leaffansince1961 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 07:16 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.