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.

Vancouver - Chicago (Lu, Edler, Kane, Hammer)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-01-2012, 04:12 PM
  #26
KISSland
Registered User
 
KISSland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
Considering that Vancouver shouldn't have a problem extending Edler I don't think it's good value for the Canucks. Kane will put up more points than Edler but the black hole he'd leave on defense would probably hurt the team's offense more overall. The Canucks already have 3 Kane-caliber players in the Sedins and Kesler, but there's only 1 Edler.
I'd say Kane has accomplished more in his career than either of those 3 players. And I would take him over either of the 3 with everything into consideration.

KISSland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:17 PM
  #27
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: Fiji
Posts: 25,899
vCash: 50
Kane's not on the trading block, so it's a no go from the start.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:21 PM
  #28
sup bro*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by andbreatheme View Post
Enjoy Crawford.
I'd rather have Crawford short term @ 2.6 than Luongo at 5.3 burning up cap space and crapping the bed for the better part of the next decade.

sup bro* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:24 PM
  #29
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,744
vCash: 50
Major pass from this Canucks fan. Kane is a super player, but we need our 50 point defender more then another 80--100 point winger.

Hjalmarsson for Luongo is a ruddy insult if we look at Kane for Edler as a 1 for 1 trade.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:25 PM
  #30
LeX4cavalier
Registered User
 
LeX4cavalier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckgenius View Post
Kane alone for Edler and Lu would be overpayment.

Make it Sharp and Hammer for Lu and Edler.
I wouldn't do a signed Edler alone for Kane, Edler is much more valuable to the Canucks then Kane would be. Why trade our #1 dman for someone who'd be our 3rd/4th best forward.

LeX4cavalier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:40 PM
  #31
Puckgenius*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: At the rink
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeX4cavalier View Post
I wouldn't do a signed Edler alone for Kane, Edler is much more valuable to the Canucks then Kane would be. Why trade our #1 dman for someone who'd be our 3rd/4th best forward.
Hawks would want Hamhuis over Edler as Edler is soft as a marshmallow.

If Canucks want Kane it would have to be Hamhuis + Luongo + Burrows + two 1st which I know they wont do.

Puckgenius* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:41 PM
  #32
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,626
vCash: 500
No. Kane has far more value than Edler (UFA), I would do Hammer for Lu..maybe. But I dont want to give anything of value for Luongo, I would rather role with a crappy G tandem for the next year than trade a valuable piece for Lu.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:41 PM
  #33
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,744
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckgenius View Post
Hawks would want Hamhuis over Edler as Edler is soft as a marshmallow.

If Canucks want Kane it would have to be Hamhuis + Luongo + two 1st which I know they wont do.
I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. The none-bolded just adds to the confusion.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:44 PM
  #34
LeX4cavalier
Registered User
 
LeX4cavalier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckgenius View Post
Hawks would want Hamhuis over Edler as Edler is soft as a marshmallow.

If Canucks want Kane it would have to be Hamhuis + Luongo + Burrows + two 1st which I know they wont do.
Please don't feed this troll

LeX4cavalier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:46 PM
  #35
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 500
Luongo's value is not particularly good at all, considering it's publically known he wants out, and only a few teams are even trying to acquire him.

Vancouver is never getting Kane for Luongo, extra pieces notwithstanding.

Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:54 PM
  #36
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,744
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Luongo's value is not particularly good at all, considering it's publically known he wants out, and only a few teams are even trying to acquire him.

Vancouver is never getting Kane for Luongo, extra pieces notwithstanding.
We aren't seeking Kane for Luongo though. That's the calibre of overpayment it would take to get us to move him to a team that we have faced in the final 3 out of the last 4 years. Perceived value is great, but short of an obvious overpayment, we have no reason to make Chicago a better team for scraps, so...one of the big name players on Chicago would be coming back.

This would be much closer to a Edler vs. Kane debate though, as Edler is far and away more valuable then Luongo to the Canucks.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:57 PM
  #37
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,744
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
No. Kane has far more value than Edler (UFA), I would do Hammer for Lu..maybe. But I dont want to give anything of value for Luongo, I would rather role with a crappy G tandem for the next year than trade a valuable piece for Lu.
By all means. Luongo won't be moved for scraps, especially when other teams would offer more then Hammer, and especially not when Chicago has played us 3 out of the last 4 years in the playoffs. All sarcasm and jerkiness aside, if that's the best offer the Blackhawks can muster for Luongo, I hope Emery and Crawford get it done again this year.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:01 PM
  #38
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
By all means. Luongo won't be moved for scraps, especially when other teams would offer more then Hammer, and especially not when Chicago has played us 3 out of the last 4 years in the playoffs. All sarcasm and jerkiness aside, if that's the best offer the Blackhawks can muster for Luongo, I hope Emery and Crawford get it done again this year.
Thats the funny thing, no one is offering anything of good value, unless GMMG's commanding way more than he should be. I don't care if VAN wont take scraps, Chicago isn't trading anything of value and helping VAN either.

I would rather have a season of the 3rd worst goaltending than trade value for Lu..hopefully Stan and the gang feel the same.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:08 PM
  #39
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
No thanks. We've seen what Kane does when he has the Roxy at his hands:


Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:17 PM
  #40
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
We aren't seeking Kane for Luongo though. That's the calibre of overpayment it would take to get us to move him to a team that we have faced in the final 3 out of the last 4 years. Perceived value is great, but short of an obvious overpayment, we have no reason to make Chicago a better team for scraps, so...one of the big name players on Chicago would be coming back.

This would be much closer to a Edler vs. Kane debate though, as Edler is far and away more valuable then Luongo to the Canucks.
I completely agree with you - I was just posting from the Chicago side of things.

I wanted Luongo on the Hawks, because I'm one of the few Blackhawk fans who isn't blinded by the idiotic hate that the guy inexplicably attracts. But I realized a long time ago that the 'Nucks would never trade him here, not unless there is an absurd overpayment from Chicago. Which in and of itself is impossible, because we have the Hallowed King of Hesitancy Stan Bowman running the show here (not that I'm upset the Hawks won't overpay terribly for Luongo - obviously I'm not).

Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:36 PM
  #41
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,817
vCash: 500
Chicago gets owned in that trade.

On paper is appears to have decent value, but this is a proposal that factors in absolutely nothing surrounding the circumstances of those players. In other words, this is an NHL12 trade.

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:41 PM
  #42
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,587
vCash: 500
Kane won't be traded.
I can't understand why Edler would be traded. He just swapped injury risks by bringing in Garrison.

I think neither team considers the deal.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:42 PM
  #43
Cool Hand Goof*
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Victoria BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 500
as much as i love kane

i still want to see this happen and be happy



Cool Hand Goof* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:51 PM
  #44
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,744
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
I completely agree with you - I was just posting from the Chicago side of things.

I wanted Luongo on the Hawks, because I'm one of the few Blackhawk fans who isn't blinded by the idiotic hate that the guy inexplicably attracts. But I realized a long time ago that the 'Nucks would never trade him here, not unless there is an absurd overpayment from Chicago. Which in and of itself is impossible, because we have the Hallowed King of Hesitancy Stan Bowman running the show here (not that I'm upset the Hawks won't overpay terribly for Luongo - obviously I'm not).
I don't even think the overpayment has to be absurd, just a player that will impact our roster as much as Luongo would impact the Hawks. Hjalmarsson is not that guy. A package of lesser pieces would be acceptable if its from a team that isn't likely to steamroller our team in the first few rounds of the playoffs.Toronto, Floriida, Columbus...these teams won't become superpowers with Luongo (at least not for the foreseeable future) where as Chicago has the offence, defence and would have superstar goaltending to be the top team for years to come.

It's only an overpayment to people hung up on the contract and not what he would do for your team now, and more then likely later.

Back to the OP though, still no.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:53 PM
  #45
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King goof View Post
as much as i love kane

i still want to see this happen and be happy
Yep!

Oh, heh... as much as I'd like Edler on the Hawks, I don't want it at the expense of Kane! Because I still want to see this happen and be happy.




Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 06:08 PM
  #46
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,735
vCash: 50
I'd package Edler with Luongo if somebody demanded him, otherwise I'd try to move Ballard.

In the event Edler is added and Luongo waives his NTC I would rather talk to Ottawa, Detroit and Philidelphia.

I would never accept Kane, as long as I'm able.

JuniorNelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 06:18 PM
  #47
Horvat2Virtanen
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Horvat2Virtanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,032
vCash: 50
As a Canucks fan I take this deal. Edler is valuable due to the position he plays, he's a top defender in the league, and I understand why other Canucks fans value him so highly. But after the signing of Jason Garrison I feel Edler isn't as untouchable as before. I feel like Garrison will be another Hamhuis for the team and will be an ideal partner for Chris Tanev in the near future forming another top shutdown pair. Keith Ballard showed flashes of returning to his Pre Vancouver form which would slightly lessen the loss of Edler.

Don't get me wrong Edler is a vital piece to the Canucks organization, but when a player like Patrick Kane is coming the other way he's made expendable. Kane is an ideal winger for fellow country men Ryan Kesler and David Booth, Kane adds the playmaking element to Booth and Kesler's shoot first game. With Kane Vancouver adds a dynamic offensive player which will only help there offensive shortcoming come playoff time. A top 6 of Sedin-Sedin-Burrows-Booth-Kesler-Kane would be among the best in the league.



Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Booth-Kesler-Kane
Higgins-Arnott-Hansen
Raymond-Lapierre-Kassian

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Garrison-Tanev
Ballard-Hjalmarsson

Schneider

Horvat2Virtanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 06:20 PM
  #48
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,013
vCash: 500
I'm calling this a troll proposal.

The vast majority of Hawk fans don't even want Luongo because we've seen first hand his temperment and want no part of him when the going gets tough - especially for $5M a year for a bunch more years. I'll take my chances with Crawford this year and if that doesn't work look to upgrade next year.

There's no way we trade Kane to a rival. Not a chance.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 06:53 PM
  #49
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,020
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
You'd be hard pressed to find a single Hawks fan who likes this trade. Awful, awful proposal.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 07:09 PM
  #50
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 5,938
vCash: 500
Lou and elderand another player for Kane Crawford and two other players could work.


Lou is actually cheap relatively per year for a goalie of his caliber. Any other Goldie they traded for or signed at his level would ost more per year.

After the trade Chicago pushes for a mulligan contract rule where they are able to effectively kill and redo a contract.

Djp 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 06:57 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.