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.

Van/Chi then Van/Was

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2012, 11:48 AM
  #76
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 23,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
If you put stock into "reports we heard" - and the fact that your entire post is based around them suggests that you do - then your list is totally off base. Unless Dave Bolland has no real value, can't be used by the Blackhawks and is signed to an unmanageable contract they need to unload.
Bolland rumor was false and not Bowman never even thought about it. Face it, you won't get what you wish you get


he told it to me via facebook....

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:54 AM
  #77
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,987
vCash: 500
a proposal that all 3 fanbases hate -- congrats!

NYVanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:55 AM
  #78
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,801
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
Bolland rumor was false and not Bowman never even thought about it. Face it, you won't get what you wish you get


he told it to me via facebook....
I can tell you to face it, we will get what we wish(even if it's not from Chicago) with just as much credibility.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:34 PM
  #79
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
Bolland rumor was false and not Bowman never even thought about it. Face it, you won't get what you wish you get


he told it to me via facebook....
Well of course not, I wish the Flyers would loan Bryz to the KHL and deal us Giroux and Couturier..

As for the Bolland rumour, I suppose it is false but every single other rumour is true, hence Luongo would return a young player of the Luke Schenn / James Van Riemsdyk calibre.. ie. a hell of a lot more than Dave Bolland.

Maybe Stan Bowman thinks less of Roberto Luongo than other GMs or maybe he is less willing to part with the assets needed to improve his teams, in which case you're probably correct; but the fact is that your list is preposterous in light of what we've heard.

Then again maybe it's all bunk, and the Canucks will as you implied be dealing Luongo for Mike Komisarek and a 4th, or the dreaded Steve Montador/Rostislav Olesz/Michal Frolik (how does a team take on that many bad contracts that quickly, by the way?) trifecta.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:43 PM
  #80
stryfe604
Believes in Yzergod
 
stryfe604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
More value than Luongo.

Value = 1st round pick, top prospect, solid NHL player signed to decent contract

What I would give up for Luongo = 2nd rd pick or later, mid range prospect, cap dump.
Now I'm not a huge advocate for the Canuck fanbase asking price, but come on seriously? That is insulting. If you are speaking from a point of "we don't need him, so we offer crap." understandable, but if that is your honest opinion of his overall value then you are king homer.

But also, with the CBA problems, and the fact that this contract was signed to benefit Vancouver and keep Lou in Vancouver it becomes inherently hard to move the contract. Lou's contract when signed was to keep him in Vancouver for life, not move him in 2 years.

stryfe604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:44 PM
  #81
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
a young player of the Luke Schenn / James Van Riemsdyk calibre.. ie. a hell of a lot more than Dave Bolland.


I'm sure the Sedins also think Luke Schenn is "a hell of a lot more than Dave Bolland." After all, Luke Schenn has completely shut them down how many times now?

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:49 PM
  #82
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post


I'm sure the Sedins also think Luke Schenn is "a hell of a lot more than Dave Bolland." After all, Luke Schenn has completely shut them down how many times now?
I'd take Dave Bolland to play a one game elimination for my team ten times out of ten over Luke Schenn.

That being said, Bolland is an unrestricted free agent at the end of next season, he's had some pretty bad injury troubles and he is probably best as a third liner (albeit one of the better ones in the league) which would be great for the Canucks but does speak to his limitations.

Schenn and JVR are recent top five picks who are every day players each with the potential to have larger impacts on the game than Bolland does now at what is likely his peak, both players are locked up long term at reasonable deals.

You can rag on Schenn and he has struggled - although frankly I think Ron Wilson made an absolute mess of his defense - but he undeniably still possesses all the potential he did as a blue chip prospect just a couple of years ago.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:49 PM
  #83
stryfe604
Believes in Yzergod
 
stryfe604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Well of course not, I wish the Flyers would loan Bryz to the KHL and deal us Giroux and Couturier..

As for the Bolland rumour, I suppose it is false but every single other rumour is true, hence Luongo would return a young player of the Luke Schenn / James Van Riemsdyk calibre.. ie. a hell of a lot more than Dave Bolland.

Maybe Stan Bowman thinks less of Roberto Luongo than other GMs or maybe he is less willing to part with the assets needed to improve his teams, in which case you're probably correct; but the fact is that your list is preposterous in light of what we've heard.

Then again maybe it's all bunk, and the Canucks will as you implied be dealing Luongo for Mike Komisarek and a 4th, or the dreaded Steve Montador/Rostislav Olesz/Michal Frolik (how does a team take on that many bad contracts that quickly, by the way?) trifecta.
See that is half right. Burke felt his highest limit (if true) was Luke Schenn, nothing more. Meaning that Gillis believed Lou deserved higher. Now perception on the value of Luke Schenn becomes a question, but if that was his highest he would go (and Burke be crazy with trades, not in a good way) then is Lou's value that high, or Gillis just being stubborn? I say this because for what we know of rumours that were semi confirmed (use that term very loosely), that this was the only trade where a detailed trade was put out.

stryfe604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:55 PM
  #84
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stryfe604 View Post
See that is half right. Burke felt his highest limit (if true) was Luke Schenn, nothing more. Meaning that Gillis believed Lou deserved higher. Now perception on the value of Luke Schenn becomes a question, but if that was his highest he would go (and Burke be crazy with trades, not in a good way) then is Lou's value that high, or Gillis just being stubborn? I say this because for what we know of rumours that were semi confirmed (use that term very loosely), that this was the only trade where a detailed trade was put out.
A lot of people believe Burke is a great trader - he is certainly better at it than he is at signing unrestricted free agents. He's pulled off some really nice deals even during his time with the Leafs to acquire Phaneuf (who I don't like but was by a wide margin the best player in the deal, although he also picked up Keith Aulie and then traded him for a big young former first rounder in Carter Ashton), Jake Gardiner and Joffrey Lupul, etc.

As for whether Luongo's value is higher than Luke Schenn's or not, I suspect Burke probably was trying to shop Schenn for the best return he could get - and when he couldn't get Luongo he turned around and acquired JVR instead.

That tells me that in his mind Luongo probably has the highest value of the three. Obviously that is speculative but I don't see why he would have offered something up for an inferior player first, and I don't see why he would have pulled the trigger on a trade or even made an offer if he thought Schenn had significantly higher value than either player.

Maybe Mike Gillis believes Luongo's value is far and away higher than either young player (and on the ice it undoubtedly is), but we can't do anything other than speculate on that. If we accept the Schenn offer as fact and interpret that along with the subsequent Schenn/JVR swap, we have a pretty clear picture of how one NHL GM values Roberto Luongo in related to two other players (and a clear picture of how Mike Gillis values him in relation to one of those two players).

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:55 PM
  #85
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
I'd take Dave Bolland to play a one game elimination for my team ten times out of ten over Luke Schenn.

That being said, Bolland is an unrestricted free agent at the end of next season, he's had some pretty bad injury troubles and he is probably best as a third liner (albeit one of the better ones in the league) which would be great for the Canucks but does speak to his limitations.

Schenn and JVR are recent top five picks who are every day players each with the potential to have larger impacts on the game than Bolland does now at what is likely his peak, both players are locked up long term at reasonable deals.

You can rag on Schenn and he has struggled - although frankly I think Ron Wilson made an absolute mess of his defense - but he undeniably still possesses all the potential he did as a blue chip prospect just a couple of years ago.
When discussing the value of players with multiple NHL seasons, proof >> potential

Bolland has proved that he's one of the best shutdown centers and playoff performers playing today.

Schenn and JVR have proved that they have just enough potential to struggle and still have trade value.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 01:01 PM
  #86
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
When discussing the value of players with multiple NHL seasons, proof >> potential

Bolland has proved that he's one of the best shutdown centers and playoff performers playing today.

Schenn and JVR have proved that they have just enough potential to struggle and still have trade value.
Mmmkay. I mean it's ludicrous to judge Schenn and Van Riemsdyk's on ice results by the same standard as Bolland when you are talking about trade asset value given DB is four years older than either of them, just like it is ludicrous to completely ignore their contract status, but I'm not going to sit here and argue that with you.


Last edited by dave babych returns: 08-21-2012 at 01:06 PM.
dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 01:24 PM
  #87
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
a proposal that all 3 fanbases hate -- congrats!
Every thread I have seen involving Ballard and Luongo involves hatred from all fan bases involved.

The other fanbases don't especially want eithre of Ballard or Luongo's contracts. Vancouver fans want the moon.

blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 01:25 PM
  #88
TurdFerguson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
I doubt any team will trade for Luongo prior to a new CBA being reached. Why trade for him now when the cap can drop and his value drops even further than it is at the moment? Vancouver can easily find themselves 7 million above the cap with 9.3 tied up in goalies AND have guys like Burrows and Edler looking for shiny new contracts next year.

He's a better goalie than Crawford without a doubt and I have no problem with him on the Hawks, I'm not even worried about his playoff performance because any goalie can get hot, but it makes sense to wait it out. It's not like other teams are rushing to get him.

TurdFerguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 01:51 PM
  #89
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurdFerguson View Post
I doubt any team will trade for Luongo prior to a new CBA being reached. Why trade for him now when the cap can drop and his value drops even further than it is at the moment? Vancouver can easily find themselves 7 million above the cap with 9.3 tied up in goalies AND have guys like Burrows and Edler looking for shiny new contracts next year.
A reduction in the cap ceiling makes Roberto Luongo's contract better, not worse.

It might be temporarily tough for the Canucks but there's no doubt that a reduction in the available cap space around the league improves the value of a contract with an artificially low cap hit.

Quote:
it makes sense to wait it out. It's not like other teams are rushing to get him.
This I agree with. We don't even know when the next NHL game is going to be played.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 02:03 PM
  #90
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
A reduction in the cap ceiling makes Roberto Luongo's contract better, not worse.

It might be temporarily tough for the Canucks but there's no doubt that a reduction in the available cap space around the league improves the value of a contract with an artificially low cap hit.



This I agree with. We don't even know when the next NHL game is going to be played.
No...it means teams have less cap space to spend. Luongo's contract does not lower his cap hit relative to his salary all that much. Meanwhile, the contract length remains the larger issue. If the cap is not consistently going up, you have to worry more and more about longer term contracts.

As other posters have mentioned it puts more pressure on Vancouver to get rid of him.

blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 02:10 PM
  #91
stryfe604
Believes in Yzergod
 
stryfe604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
No...it means teams have less cap space to spend. Luongo's contract does not lower his cap hit relative to his salary all that much. Meanwhile, the contract length remains the larger issue. If the cap is not consistently going up, you have to worry more and more about longer term contracts.

As other posters have mentioned it puts more pressure on Vancouver to get rid of him.
If the owners have there way there would be a 24% roll back on salaries also. But you are right it doesn't make his contract any better. It stays the same. I have stated in a prior post that this contract was signed to benefit Vancouver. Lou was expected to stay in Van his whole career not get traded in 2.

stryfe604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 02:20 PM
  #92
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
No...it means teams have less cap space to spend.
I agree. This makes said cap space more valuable, and any means of conserving it valuable to those teams willing to spend over the cap (which with a lower salary cap is a larger number of teams than do so now).

Quote:
Luongo's contract does not lower his cap hit relative to his salary all that much.
$1.4m, that's enough for a significant upgrade elsewhere - say from a Chris Higgins to a Michael Ryder, for example.

(Furthermore in a cap environment that is not inflationary, your measly extra $1.4m goes much further in the free agent market - look at the deals signed near that price point in the years when the cap did not rise by much compared to those signed at that point in the years where it went up $4-5m.)

Quote:
Meanwhile, the contract length remains the larger issue. If the cap is not consistently going up, you have to worry more and more about longer term contracts.
I don't really agree. I mean, bad long term contracts get worse but if Luongo isn't showing signs of slowing down then that's not really an issue. Some teams will undoubtedly be wary but even small market ownership groups like the Panthers are okay with taking on Luongo's contract which seems to refute this notion.

Quote:
As other posters have mentioned it puts more pressure on Vancouver to get rid of him.
It depends entirely on whether there's a salary rollback and on whether the Canucks can find another, more palatable way to get under the cap.

If there's no decent offer on the table for Luongo and you can dump Mason Raymond and get under the cap with both goaltenders, I think you do it and move a goaltender next summer when teams have the flexibility - the cap would have to go down tens of millions for Luongo's $5.3m cap hit to not be at least as palatable as what legitimate starting goaltenders are going to be getting as UFAs (if there are any) in 2013..

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 05:39 AM
  #93
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 23,872
vCash: 500
you think Luongo will be a Top10 goalie in 3 years?

If not, his contract would suck for sure

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 10:25 AM
  #94
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,801
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
you think Luongo will be a Top10 goalie in 3 years?

If not, his contract would suck for sure
Personally I do think he will be. People may disagree with me, but he has shown no signs of declining, and is imo the 5th best goalie after Lundqvist, Quick, Rinne, and Price.

It's impossible for us o know how GMs think Luongo will age, though, all though the recent trend(with Brodeur, Thomas, all proving capable of cup-contender quality goaltending at a later age), my guess would be that they would find the risk worth it.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 10:40 AM
  #95
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
you think Luongo will be a Top10 goalie in 3 years?
I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be at the very least in the conversation, right now he's showed no sign of slowing down from his top 5 form of the past six or seven seasons.

Quote:
If not, his contract would suck for sure
Really? His contract is only just a "top 10" deal in terms of cap hit, and more importantly it's falling down the list; in three years Jon Quick will have pushed him down to 10; you could have Jaroslav Halak, Tuukka Rask and Jonas Hiller hitting the cap for more than Luongo and a slew of others (Pavelec, Schneider, Lehtonen, Howard, Smith) into the same range.

Lundqvist, Miller, Backstrom and Kiprusoff will have expired by then but easily three of the four should extend at a number higher than Luongo's cap hit.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 10:59 AM
  #96
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 23,872
vCash: 500
His Cap hit would still be to high. If he becomes an average goalie at best, his contract would kill every contending team that spends to the Cap - like the Hawks do.

I'd take him as long as the Hawks keep all of the guys they really want to keep (including 2-3 prospects)
If Gillis doesn't accept to this, I take a gamble for 1 more year with Craw and hope that he plays like he did in the 10/11 season.

I have a feeling that the Hawks will add a goalie next offseason knowing how the new CBA is structured and all is written on paper. I think a goalie that will be a UFA knows about this situation and could think about not resigning with his current team with the hopes to play for a contender (I think about a guy like Lehtonen)

Bubba88 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 07:33 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.