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.

Luongo to Chicago (Mod Warning #93)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-25-2012, 04:42 PM
  #251
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Chicago isn't giving up a significant roster player or prospect for Luongo.


Last edited by ThirdManIn: 08-25-2012 at 08:55 PM. Reason: yes it is
HockeySensible is online now  
Old
08-25-2012, 04:52 PM
  #252
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
Chicago isn't giving up a significant roster player or prospect for Luongo.
like everything else, speculation

we do not know what the GMs of these 2 clubs would or would not do in a trade
we do know that fans of these 2 clubs will never see eye to eye


Last edited by ThirdManIn: 08-25-2012 at 08:55 PM. Reason: quote/other stuff
NYVanfan is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 05:09 PM
  #253
topchowda
Registered User
 
topchowda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Source?
i should have said there are only 2 teams that would be the right fit since his list has not been released. However most talks are him to Florida and Chicago and sources such as Dreger says those are two highly likely places with him holding a NTC.

source: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...go-could-land/

http://digitaljournal.com/article/328072

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=399474


So Florida, Chicago seem to be the front runner with Toronto in there too

topchowda is online now  
Old
08-25-2012, 05:20 PM
  #254
crazyhawk
Registered User
 
crazyhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topchowda View Post
Id say something around frolik, shaw & beach for Lu.

Reasons? Just look to the Rick Nash trade.

CBJ had their hands tied and had to trade him. Vancouver is even more limited because Lu only wants to go to hawks and panthers.

I think Florida is set in net and doesnt need Lu. So its fair to give a 2/3 line effective winger, a decent prospect and a boom/bust prospect for a massive contract on an ageing goalie.
Frolik .. yes
Shaw .. no
Beach .. not yet as I would not be able to stomach playing against either Shaw or Beach on the nucks!

How's about Frolik, Danault & Olesz

crazyhawk is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 08:12 PM
  #255
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyhawk View Post
Frolik .. yes
Shaw .. no
Beach .. not yet as I would not be able to stomach playing against either Shaw or Beach on the nucks!

How's about Frolik, Danault & Olesz
I have a feeling Canuck fans will find that insulting. JS.

nhlfan9191 is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 08:32 PM
  #256
huntison
Registered User
 
huntison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,587
vCash: 500
Luongo + Booth + 1st 2013 + 1st 2014

for

Kane

huntison is online now  
Old
08-25-2012, 08:53 PM
  #257
Crymson
Fire Holland
 
Crymson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,254
vCash: 500
I see an odd thought process on this issue from some Canucks fans on this board. There seem to be two central, opposing ideas to it: "We want to move our unreliable goalie, who is saddled with a bad contract, so that our other, better goalie can take over" and "We expect a king's ransom in return." Those two don't mesh. The Canucks want to move Luongo because, as noted, he's not sufficiently reliable in net. To make matters worse, his contract sucks. Trading an unreliable goaltender who has a bad contract is not easy. A big return will not be had. And Canucks fans should not expect one, because the reasons that Luongo are being traded are the reasons why his trade value is not very high.

Crymson is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 09:06 PM
  #258
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntison View Post
Luongo + Booth + 1st 2013 + 1st 2014

for

Kane
Absolutely not from Chicago.

Chris Hansen is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 09:14 PM
  #259
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,956
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyhawk View Post
Frolik .. yes
Shaw .. no
Beach .. not yet as I would not be able to stomach playing against either Shaw or Beach on the nucks!

How's about Frolik, Danault & Olesz
Garbage, absolute garbage. If we deal with Chicago, Bolland is apart of the equation or no deal. Frolik is essentially a bust at this point, Danault is nothing and Olesz is a dump. We get nothing while Chicago improves tremendously in net.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crymson View Post
I see an odd thought process on this issue from some Canucks fans on this board. There seem to be two central, opposing ideas to it: "We want to move our unreliable goalie, who is saddled with a bad contract, so that our other, better goalie can take over" and "We expect a king's ransom in return." Those two don't mesh. The Canucks want to move Luongo because, as noted, he's not sufficiently reliable in net. To make matters worse, his contract sucks. Trading an unreliable goaltender who has a bad contract is not easy. A big return will not be had. And Canucks fans should not expect one, because the reasons that Luongo are being traded are the reasons why his trade value is not very high.
Not necessarily. We are more inclined to trade Luongo because Schneider is younger and already shown steps of becoming a future elite goaltender. In seven years he will be that age Lu is now, thus if expectations are met we would have phenomenal goaltending for the better part of the next decade. That said, Luongo may have his hiccups but he remains a top ten, arguably top five, goaltender and while some of us are willing to accept something more reasonable than Kane or Hossa. We are not trading him for another team's trash.

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
08-25-2012, 09:34 PM
  #260
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crymson View Post
The Canucks want to move Luongo because, as noted, he's not sufficiently reliable in net. To make matters worse, his contract sucks.
Neither of those things is true. Luongo lost the net because the team was playing like crap and Schneider has posted a .930 save % over the last couple seasons. Luongo's play the last couple seasons has been the best of his career and reliable enough to win back to back presidents trophies and a trip to the finals. He's being traded because he wants out, not because we want him out, like fans have any say in the matter.

I'm not going to get into a back and forth on his contract because that's been done. 6.7m is right in line with what similar goalies make and a 5.3m cap hit is icing on the cake. This chicken little idea that Luongo is going to milk every last dollar out of his contract while he sucks later in his career is not born in reality.

Scurr is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 09:36 PM
  #261
Ubi Sunt
QQ Joe
 
Ubi Sunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
If we deal with Chicago, Bolland is apart of the equation or no deal.
Ok, then no deal.

Plus, Chicago would need a good back-up for when Luongo gets pulled in the playoffs and then gets benched for the next game.

So what's the point?

Ubi Sunt is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 09:38 PM
  #262
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,956
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
Chicago isn't giving up a significant roster player or prospect for Luongo.
Vancouver isn't accepting <insert team's> trash for Luongo.

See how we reach an impasse? Alas, these threads tend to be a redundancy of the same. The only offers we usually receive are complete throw aways followed by how much Luongo supposedly sucks and/or his contract is worse than the plague.

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
08-25-2012, 09:47 PM
  #263
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Sunt View Post
So what's the point?
Winning game 7.

Scurr is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 09:54 PM
  #264
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Vancouver isn't accepting <insert team's> trash for Luongo.

See how we reach an impasse? Alas, these threads tend to be a redundancy of the same. The only offers we usually receive are complete throw aways followed by how much Luongo supposedly sucks and/or his contract is worse than the plague.
At least when Canucks fans were debating with leafs fans there were some people who were finding a middle ground (5th overall + Gardiner vs. Komisarek +4th).

There was actually some decent discussion hidden in there.

Here its just Hawks and Canucks fans bickering and no sort of middle ground whatsoever.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 09:56 PM
  #265
huntison
Registered User
 
huntison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,587
vCash: 500
Sharp for Luongo + Booth + 1st

huntison is online now  
Old
08-25-2012, 10:02 PM
  #266
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
False. Other teams fans are trying to convince us hes a backup goalie with a horrible contract.

I was in the trade Schneider camp prior to it being obvious Lu was the odd man out.
I think most Canucks fans would say if Schneider can be AS good as Luongo it would be a huge win.

Schneider is younger, and slightly cheaper. His upside is solid, but its still uncertain he will be a franchise goalie like Luongo.

I think the Canucks will get a sufficient return for Luongo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crymson View Post
I see an odd thought process on this issue from some Canucks fans on this board. There seem to be two central, opposing ideas to it: "We want to move our unreliable goalie, who is saddled with a bad contract, so that our other, better goalie can take over" and "We expect a king's ransom in return." Those two don't mesh. The Canucks want to move Luongo because, as noted, he's not sufficiently reliable in net. To make matters worse, his contract sucks. Trading an unreliable goaltender who has a bad contract is not easy. A big return will not be had. And Canucks fans should not expect one, because the reasons that Luongo are being traded are the reasons why his trade value is not very high.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 10:04 PM
  #267
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Bolland + Beach + 1st

For

Luongo + Schroeder.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 10:41 PM
  #268
crazyhawk
Registered User
 
crazyhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
At least when Canucks fans were debating with leafs fans there were some people who were finding a middle ground (5th overall + Gardiner vs. Komisarek +4th).

There was actually some decent discussion hidden in there.

Here its just Hawks and Canucks fans bickering and no sort of middle ground whatsoever.
It helps when the two teams aren't bitter rivals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
Bolland + Beach + 1st

For

Luongo + Schroeder.
Hawks are thin down the middle and cannot afford to lose a center.
And really, Canuck fans if you feel Lou is worth so much then why not just keep him?!
After all MG appears to be saying all is good with the two going forward.
I would much rather deal with Ottawa for Lehner or even Bishop.

crazyhawk is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 10:44 PM
  #269
tempest2i
Myxomatosis
 
tempest2i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cowtown
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
There was actually some decent discussion hidden in there.

Here its just Hawks and Canucks fans bickering and no sort of middle ground whatsoever.
But there's a very interesting (and recent) history between the Hawks and the Canucks. The playoff battles, fights and all that stuff.

That's why I have trouble envisioning the Hawks doing a deal with the Canucks. It just seems like a non-starter to me. Luongo might be willing to accept a trade to Chicago, but I don't know how comfortable either team would be putting a deal together.

tempest2i is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 11:00 PM
  #270
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyhawk View Post
It helps when the two teams aren't bitter rivals.



Hawks are thin down the middle and cannot afford to lose a center.
And really, Canuck fans if you feel Lou is worth so much then why not just keep him?!
After all MG appears to be saying all is good with the two going forward.
I would much rather deal with Ottawa for Lehner or even Bishop.
While losing Bolland does hurt, Schroeder gives them an NHL ready prospect up the middle.

I think Canucks fans are fine keeping Luongo, but it doesnt take a genius to see long term its not an ideal situation.

They have an expendable asset, and hopefully can fill some organizational needs.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 11:15 PM
  #271
crazyhawk
Registered User
 
crazyhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
While losing Bolland does hurt, Schroeder gives them an NHL ready prospect up the middle.

I think Canucks fans are fine keeping Luongo, but it doesnt take a genius to see long term its not an ideal situation.

They have an expendable asset, and hopefully can fill some organizational needs.
I don't know much about Schroeder but "NHL ready" doesn't necessarily mean a 2LC or 3LC slot and that's what the Hawks would need if Bolland left.
I don't know for sure about Canuck fans and Lou but I have been on the CDC many times reading the Lou threads and well let's call it a 50/50 split on Lou.
Really though, as a few have mentioned on this thread I can't see the Hawks and Canucks doing a deal as they are just to close to the 3 consecutive playoff meetings and all the rivalry etc. I mean can a Canuck fan embrace Bolland what with the " Sisters " comments and all?!
With Lou I will always see him post game after game 6 in Chicago after the 7 goals against. These memories will never go away!

crazyhawk is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 11:19 PM
  #272
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tempest2i View Post
But there's a very interesting (and recent) history between the Hawks and the Canucks. The playoff battles, fights and all that stuff.

That's why I have trouble envisioning the Hawks doing a deal with the Canucks. It just seems like a non-starter to me. Luongo might be willing to accept a trade to Chicago, but I don't know how comfortable either team would be putting a deal together.
I think both GMs are trying to ice the best roster possible at the end of the day.

Im sure neither wants to help a rival, but really theres still only a small chance these teams meet up in the playoffs.

Im sure MG would rather deal to Toronto or Florida (all things being equal) but if Chi makes the best offer thats another story.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
08-26-2012, 12:07 AM
  #273
Intense Rage
Registered User
 
Intense Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
While losing Bolland does hurt, Schroeder gives them an NHL ready prospect up the middle.

I think Canucks fans are fine keeping Luongo, but it doesnt take a genius to see long term its not an ideal situation.

They have an expendable asset, and hopefully can fill some organizational needs.
So you want us to deal Bolland in the hopes that a diminutive center prospect can somehow replace his presence? You are right there is a difference between us and Toronto, we don't want Luongo. We have had first hand account of the circus show with him in net in the playoffs. We don't want nor need that.

Intense Rage is offline  
Old
08-26-2012, 12:07 AM
  #274
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
I think both GMs are trying to ice the best roster possible at the end of the day.

Im sure neither wants to help a rival, but really theres still only a small chance these teams meet up in the playoffs.

Im sure MG would rather deal to Toronto or Florida (all things being equal) but if Chi makes the best offer thats another story.
The last place in the world you'd ever expect Luongo to get traded is Chicago. Amazing it's even being considered.

nhlfan9191 is offline  
Old
08-26-2012, 12:22 AM
  #275
BonkTastic
"Small Sample Size!"
 
BonkTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jakarta, IDN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
False. Other teams fans are trying to convince us hes a backup goalie with a horrible contract.
To be fair, that's just the Blackhawks fans.

The rest of us are trying to explain that Luongo has less value than his skill would otherwise dictate due to:

a) the circumstance of the situation (trade request from a player with a contract that contains a NMC almost always result in trades that see NMC players go for less than their skill value would dictate, regardless of how amicable the relationship seems at the moment)
b) the fact that since the lockout, goalies tend to have less trade value than position players
c) the fact that there is significant precedent to support both claim A and B.
d) the length and cap hit of his contract weighed against the uncertainty of what the new CBA will hold (whenever it gets resolved). This last point is a guess, as we haven't seen any players over 30 with "long term cap circumvention"-style deals (long term deals, front loaded with salary and back-loaded with hyper-declining salaries) dealt yet, although most people seem to agree that the contract does present a hurdle in trade talks, and would hurt value.

BonkTastic is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:27 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.