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, 07:15 PM
  #51
ZetterBurger
Registered User
 
ZetterBurger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I wouldn't do this trade.

Edler = Kane(admittedly assuming Edler resigns long-term wherever)
Luongo>> Hjaalmarsson
Getting Hjalmarsson straight up for Luongo would be great for the Canucks. Everybody in the league knows you don't want anything to do with him why would they pay a lot for him? Get real. Howson got an okay package for Nash and they were saying they just won't trade him if a good deal doesn't come up. Here you have a guy who knows he will be traded and whose team is trying to get someone to take him. He won't return much.

ZetterBurger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 07:20 PM
  #52
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZetterBurger View Post
Getting Hjalmarsson straight up for Luongo would be great for the Canucks. Everybody in the league knows you don't want anything to do with him why would they pay a lot for him? Get real. Howson got an okay package for Nash and they were saying they just won't trade him if a good deal doesn't come up. Here you have a guy who knows he will be traded and whose team is trying to get someone to take him. He won't return much.
Accepting Kesler for Datsyuk would be great for the Red Wings. Saying something absurd doesn't make it true.

Hjalmarsson for Luongo...if that's the best offer, we hold on to Lu. We have no real need for Hjalmarsson, his cap hit isn't saving us enough to do anything significant, and he'd be part of the highest paid third pairing in the league.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 07:23 PM
  #53
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,189
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZetterBurger View Post
Getting Hjalmarsson straight up for Luongo would be great for the Canucks. Everybody in the league knows you don't want anything to do with him why would they pay a lot for him? Get real. Howson got an okay package for Nash and they were saying they just won't trade him if a good deal doesn't come up. Here you have a guy who knows he will be traded and whose team is trying to get someone to take him. He won't return much.
that is just simply speculation
"everybody in the league knows .....blahblah"
everybody in the league knows jack.
all we know is he hasnt been traded yet. Why is a ton of speculation. Maybe there's zero market, but more likely Gillis is looking for premiere talents on early, cheap contracts and the price is too high. He can afford to wait. The fact is that wherever Luongo might go (Fla, TO, Chi, Cbs, etc) he is a massive improvement for those teams in that position. Say what you will about Crawford, but it's true. Hjarmlsson for Luongo is a steal, and you know it. Kane is worth more, no doubt, but adding Edler and Hjarm makes this in the ballpark, whether or not you like it.

I wouldnt do it, personally, because moving Edler opens up too big a hole vs the hole Kane fills, but I admit Kane is the best player in the deal. Anyway try to keep the speculative vitriol out of the discussion...

NYVanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 07:25 PM
  #54
n00bxQb
Registered User
 
n00bxQb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrei Kostitsyn View Post
From a neutral perspective, my first thought is that Vancouver still needs to add a piece. Maybe a decent forward prospect to offset the loss of Kane somewhat?
2 stars for 1 star + okay NHLer and ... the Canucks need to add?

n00bxQb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:14 PM
  #55
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
TOGuy14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,412
vCash: 500
Brutal for chicago

TOGuy14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:20 PM
  #56
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
You'd be hard pressed to find a single Hawks fan who likes this trade. Awful, awful proposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbonyRaptor View Post
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.
It wasn't a troll proposal, and I think you're both guilty of extreme overstatement. The only way this is an "awful, awful proposal" is if you're underrating Luongo.

Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:23 PM
  #57
25Bieksa3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
No thanks.

I'd rather have some players of some value on the way to Vancouver. Way too lopsided for Chicago.

25Bieksa3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:23 PM
  #58
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
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.
This is a reasonable argument. But you have to give to get, and in my opinion, the Canucks are in dire enough need of a creative offensive stud on the 2nd line to warrant a downgrade at D. Turning Edler into Hjalmarsson makes our defense worse. But adding Kane makes our top-6 so much better.

Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:29 PM
  #59
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,313
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.
Because Kane is 23, because our defense is still good enough without Edler but I expect our offense to struggle in the playoffs without an upgrade at RW2. Because Luongo has to go somewhere (the posters who say he ABSOLUTELY CANNOT STAY are wrong, but he should go), and no one in the east can give us a guy like Kane, who is one of the best 5 RWs in the league.

Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:31 PM
  #60
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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.
I don't think that GMs operate this way. You make the best team you can. Its like making a trade in Monopoly. Sure, you don't want to give your opponent a monopoly, but if you get one back and you think it gives you a better chance to win doing so, you do it.

Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:32 PM
  #61
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Kane's not on the trading block, so it's a no go from the start.
Neither is Edler, but let's just make-believe.

Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:36 PM
  #62
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
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.
I haven't played since NHL08.

As for the circumstances of the players, all I'll say is these guys are professionals.

Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:37 PM
  #63
Chris Hansen
THESE LEGS ARE FRESH
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,472
vCash: 500
Slightly off-topic, but people seriously believe that Edler (signed or not) has equal trade value to Patrick Kane?

I knew Kane was underrated on HF, but come on now.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:39 PM
  #64
25Bieksa3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Slightly off-topic, but people seriously believe that Edler (signed or not) has equal trade value to Patrick Kane?

I knew Kane was underrated on HF, but come on now.
I think from a pure player perspective, Kane has more value. But Kane doesn't have the kind of off the rink lifestyle that I think leads to a long and productive career.

I know that's totally arbitrary and conjecture to the nth degree, but i just have no interest in having anything to do with Kane.

25Bieksa3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:58 PM
  #65
Chris Hansen
THESE LEGS ARE FRESH
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 25Bieksa3 View Post
I think from a pure player perspective, Kane has more value. But Kane doesn't have the kind of off the rink lifestyle that I think leads to a long and productive career.

I know that's totally arbitrary and conjecture to the nth degree, but i just have no interest in having anything to do with Kane.
I don't really want to get into that, but I am almost obligated to say that Kane's off-ice "issues" are so horrendously overblown, it makes me depressed I once wanted a job in sports media.


Last edited by Chris Hansen: 08-01-2012 at 09:03 PM. Reason: grammar
Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:00 PM
  #66
sup bro*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 417
vCash: 500
this thread is full of lose.

Kane=Edler


sup bro* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:02 PM
  #67
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Swearengen View Post
I don't think that GMs operate this way. You make the best team you can. Its like making a trade in Monopoly. Sure, you don't want to give your opponent a monopoly, but if you get one back and you think it gives you a better chance to win doing so, you do it.
There is more involved than just improving your team. GM's arent going to want to take on too many 9+yr deals, and arent going to want to piss of fans by trading popular players for one of the most disliked in Chicago. They also wont want to improve the team they are in direct competition with. Trading Lu doesn't hurt the Nucks, Schneider is better. Trading Bolland or Hossa, or Kane, or Hammer, etc, hurts Chicago in other areas but improves the canucks in other areas.

A deal for Lu to Chcago isnt going to happen unless its for scraps plus a decent prospect/pick.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:08 PM
  #68
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Swearengen View Post
It wasn't a troll proposal, and I think you're both guilty of extreme overstatement. The only way this is an "awful, awful proposal" is if you're underrating Luongo.
Let's just agree to disagree. You and most Canuck fans value Luongo much more than I and most Hawk fans do. Simple as that. I have nothing against Luongo - he's probably a decent guy. But I'd live in fear of him spitting the bit at the most inopertune time. I'd rather take my chances with Crawford bouncing back to playing like he did his rookie year.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:13 PM
  #69
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,189
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
There is more involved than just improving your team. GM's arent going to want to take on too many 9+yr deals, and arent going to want to piss of fans by trading popular players for one of the most disliked in Chicago. They also wont want to improve the team they are in direct competition with. Trading Lu doesn't hurt the Nucks, Schneider is better. Trading Bolland or Hossa, or Kane, or Hammer, etc, hurts Chicago in other areas but improves the canucks in other areas.

A deal for Lu to Chcago isnt going to happen unless its for scraps plus a decent prospect/pick.
Are you seriously advocating that the downgrade of losing Hjarmlsson greater than the upgrade of adding Luongo? Wow, homer much?

NYVanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:20 PM
  #70
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,189
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
this thread is full of lose.

Kane=Edler

Yeah the hawk homerism is out of control in this thread

Kane is > Edler
And lunogo is < hjarmalsson

it's not miles off in one direction or the other

NYVanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:30 PM
  #71
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
Are you seriously advocating that the downgrade of losing Hjarmlsson greater than the upgrade of adding Luongo? Wow, homer much?
What some Canuck fans refuse to acknowledge is that some Hawk fans don't hold Luongo in as high regard as you do because we've seen him choke against the Hawks and don't trust him to consistently pull through when things start going downhill in a game. I'm not denying that he can play at an elite level most of the time - but because there is that doubt that Hawks fans have seen up close, I wouldn't want to invest $5M for a bunch of years in that proposition. Simple as that.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:38 PM
  #72
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,438
vCash: 500
Is Hjarm seriously this good? Hawks fans actually believe a guy who plays at best #4 on their team is better value than a #1 goalie?

I am a Canuck fan who would actually like Kane on this team since Kesler and Kane seem to have that cocky attitude and I think they'd thrive together.

But I'm not willing to be burned by Lu and the Hawks offense in the playoffs just to downgrade from Edler to Hjarm.

I don't think Hjarm could even displace Ballard in our line up since he's not accustomed to our system and isn't the quickest guy. Though he is decent shot blocker and would be one of the better crease clearers we'd have without Edler on the team.


I truly loved the Edler is soft as a marshmallow comment. Made my day after the Bertuzzi to Van thread was closed

mstad101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:38 PM
  #73
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
Yeah the hawk homerism is out of control in this thread

Kane is > Edler
And lunogo is < hjarmalsson

it's not miles off in one direction or the other
You are entitled to you opinion, as am I, and I can call homerism on you too because you value Luongo much more highly than I do. That's my opinion and it's backed up with the fact that I've seen Luongo choke against the Hawks and in my opinion that his elite goalie play when things are going good is completely undone by those few chokes.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:39 PM
  #74
RyanCallahan24*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,019
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.



Edler approves this message.

RyanCallahan24* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:42 PM
  #75
bikesbikesbikes
Registered User
 
bikesbikesbikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckgenius View Post
Hawks would want Hamhuis over Edler as Edler is soft as a marshmallow.
Where do you get your information? He doesn't fight, but Eddie hits like a freight train and plays on the edge. Hugely underrated.



bikesbikesbikes 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 03:31 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.