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.

Article on Luongo practices this morning and greatly favors return to Panthers

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-05-2012, 08:47 AM
  #101
Nanabijou
Playoffs back at Nat
 
Nanabijou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
You know you are basically saying, "Trade us your franchise goalie who is still a top 3-10 goalie in the league for scraps." We will give you next to nothing back and make you take a bad contract (so you don't even really get that much cap space) but you will get to clear his contract.

Umm...no thanks.

If we find a way to use Luongo's cap space, then we can start talking about trading him somewhere for a 2nd. Otherwise, there's no reason to trade him unless it's for something that will help our team.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, do you believe Luongo would be your best player if you got him?


Yes, I do believe Luongo would be the best player on the CBJ. He may even be the best player for the next 3-4 years. It's the next 6-7 years of his contract and his age that scares every interested team.

And yes, I am saying that Luongo will either be traded for something like a 2nd round pick, or if a more significant asset is included, there will also be a cap dump coming back. If we want to define that as scraps, that's fine.

Here's what my thinking boils down to. I think Luongo and Vancouver want to move on in separate directions. I think this desire will only intensify over the next few months (provided there is hockey). I also think that the market for luongo is currently near non-existent and may even get worse depending on what the new CBA looks like. No matter what I think about Luongo's value as a goaltender, if demand is low the return is going to be low.

Perhaps the Canucks will get lucky - there may be an escape clause written into the new CBA or there will be a bunch of injuries to starting goalies early in the season to teams that Luongo wants to play for. But, unless these dominoes fall the right way for the Canucks, I don't see how your proposed trade value for Luongo make sense for any team in the league.

Nanabijou is online now  
Old
09-05-2012, 08:55 AM
  #102
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,385
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Let me lead in with this, the context of my last post was important:
-My last post was in response to a comment that CBJ had nothing the Canucks would want. You need to see it in that context.
I get that, but I don't think that was executed well because it made it look like we'd have to significantly overpay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
-I also stated that this is what I would want from CBJ, not what CBJ should be willing to give us.
Mission hella accomplished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
-I actually think having Luongo as insurance for Schneider makes sense. At worst, he's a solid backup who gives the team a chance to win every night and helps ease Schneider's workload in his first season as a starter. At best, he wins the starting job back and plays lights-out (see Tim Thomas 2010-11).
Honestly, that makes sense to me too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
The general consensus is that you got screwed in the Nash deal...why would I want my team to get screwed?
That's the consensus of those who aren't actually paying attention. In terms of feedback we've gotten, what we normally hear is that it's something of a lateral move overall that ultimately needed to happen. There are plenty of folks who think we're a vastly better team as a result in the sense that having no top-line forwards is a perverse advantage - the opposing defense doesn't have anyone they can point to and say "that's the guy we need to shut down". (I'm not sure if that's the sort of thing that can last, but, well, who knows?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Luongo helps you win more than Nash does. It's a simple matter of a franchise goalie being more important than a 59-70 point winger.
I don't doubt for one moment that Luongo is an awesome player that would do amazing things for the Jackets. I would love to have him. But that contract is potentially murderous, and it worries me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Moore + a late 1st doesn't do jack squat for the Canucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Like I said, I'd rather see CBJs 1st in the deal than all of LAK 1st + NYR 1st + Dubinsky. Again, this is all for relative value, not that I think CBJ would trade their 1st this year.
I think the essential disconnect here is that you're insistent on getting quality current roster players back. Given that you think keeping Luongo makes sense, I can see and understand why you feel that way, but there are few who agree. That's the context in which most of the other folks here are operating.

(Also, I think Moore's getting a tad underrated here, but, meh, that's me nitpicking.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Really? I consider Carter's performance similar to Nash's 59, 66, and 67 point performances in the last 3 seasons. Nash was a drifter who didn't even pretend to play defense. Umberger is probably better than a 40 point forward. Vermette got worn down after a few years in CBJ before being moved.
#1: You'd have had to have watched them. Nothing could be more unlike.
#2: This is the most ludicrously untrue statement in your entire (otherwise fairly well thought out) post. Nash wasn't our best defensive forward, but he was very good at it - particularly when used on the PK (which Hitch and Richards did plenty of, but Arniel perversely kicked him off of to "minimize his minutes", never mind that it instantly made the PK much, much worse ).
#3: Ain't no "probably" about it. He's consistently been in the 50-60 point range since the year before he got here.
#4: Offensively, yes, but defensively he was as strong as ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
"Trimming the fat" wasn't the issue. Other than goaltending, your roster was fine going into last season.
We discovered the hard way that it wasn't. The defensemen we had were underachieving to start the year and then we started getting blueline injury after blueline injury after blueline injury, which precipitated a total disaster and obliged us to rebuild it.

And in the meantime, the trade for He Whose Name Has Been Excised was an epic disaster. The guy was constantly on the IR (and seemed less than eager to be off of it), pouting endlessly while he was here, and playing without heart or desire for about, oh, 25 or so of the 30 or so games he played here. You truly had to see his performance here to believe it - they say, for example, he's a good backchecker, but when he turns over the puck in the offensive zone, and is the only hockey player (not just Blue Jacket, but player on the ice) aside from the opposition goaltender still in the offensive zone when the resulting odd-man rush scores, then you've got a massive liability on your hands. And I'm not reciting a single-game anecdote - this happened several times. The guy simply refused to play competitive hockey for the Blue Jackets. His name is mud here in a way that makes the Messier Vancouver years seem joyful and happy days of success, and that's why we basically erased his name from jerseys. There's some folks who probably wouldn't mind doing a few Stalin-era style photoshops removing his face from the press conference photos where Wisniewski was introduced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
If you don't want Luongo for that price. That's okay. I'm not trying to convince you to take him.
The bulk of this post - with so many repeated comments about how important goaltending is and the state of Columbus's goaltending and how Luongo made Vancouver great and so forth - suggests otherwise. Maybe that's not your intent, and I believe you when you say you want to keep him, but that's not how your post was written.

__________________
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  
Old
09-05-2012, 09:03 AM
  #103
pb1300
BLEED RED
 
pb1300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aiyio, Greece
Country: Greece
Posts: 10,643
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to pb1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
So for the first year(this season) he will be in the AHL. The season after he will be eased into the NHL with Theodore starting most games, and in the third year he becomes your number one. I believe that is what I said, and that is assuming all goes well.

Also, seeing as Thomas won the cup at 38 and Brodeur took his team to the SCF at 40, Luongo at 35 is not as bad as you make it out to be.(although admittedly not ideal)
How did I make anything seem overly bad I said I would rather go with Markstrom because he can grow with the rest of the youth on this team.

Regardless, Luongo just doesnt make much sense to the Panthers, unless they can get him for pennies on the dollar, ie. salary going back the other way, and none of our top prospects moved. He would probably improve our chances of making the playoffs, but the payoff in the long run is just not worth it. The Panthers are fine in goal, and IF we were to use our prospects as trade pieces, I would expect Tallon to make a move for a forward. And all this is coming from a huge Luongo fan, who would welcome him back with open arms.

pb1300 is online now  
Old
09-05-2012, 10:07 AM
  #104
alpine4life
Registered User
 
alpine4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Well, he's in the AHL this season, so unless he will be a starter in his first season in the NHL, I think it will be in 3 years. And I believe he's had two knee surgeries so far.
only one, and it was last year...

Quote:
Transactions / Injuries / Suspensions
2012-04-26 - Assigned to San Antonio (AHL).
2012-04-24 - Recalled from San Antonio (AHL).
2012-02-13 - Assigned to San Antonio (AHL).
2012-02-13 - Missed 14 games (knee injury).
2012-01-13 - Knee injury, injured reserve.

2012-01-09 - Knee injury, sidelined indefinitely.
2012-01-04 - Recalled from San Antonio (AHL).
2011-12-06 - Assigned to San Antonio (AHL).
2011-12-05 - Recalled from San Antonio (AHL).
2011-11-28 - Assigned to San Antonio (AHL).
2011-11-19 - Recalled from San Antonio (AHL).
2011-11-07 - Assigned to San Antonio (AHL).
2011-01-25 - Assigned to Rochester (AHL).
2011-01-23 - Recalled from Rochester (AHL).
2010-10-03 - Assigned to Rochester (AHL).
2010-05-28 - Signed by the Florida Panthers to a three-year entry-level contract.

alpine4life is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 10:11 AM
  #105
alpine4life
Registered User
 
alpine4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muminek View Post
What about Markstrom?
will be traded to the Oils next year for the 1st ovl pick

alpine4life is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 10:24 AM
  #106
Blad Meaning Gud
Yu - Behr - Doe
 
Blad Meaning Gud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,589
vCash: 50
Jovo, Kopecky and Clem.. Otherwise, keep him.

Blad Meaning Gud is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 11:01 AM
  #107
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,963
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gudbranson4Prez View Post
Jovo, Kopecky and Clem.. Otherwise, keep him.
We'll do just that then. Why trade him for garbage?

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
09-05-2012, 11:04 AM
  #108
InterceptSchenn
Good Evening MrFrost
 
InterceptSchenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
MacArthur, Franson, McKegg and a 2nd for Lu and a 1st

InterceptSchenn is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 11:11 AM
  #109
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,736
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by InterceptSchenn View Post
MacArthur, Franson, McKegg and a 2nd for Lu and a 1st
Nope. We get nothing of value to us. Mac's nice, Franson's nice...we have pieces like them. McKegg would be a nice little addition to our prospect pool too, but you want a first with that? Jovo, Kopecky and Clem actually looks better then that.

Cogburn is online now  
Old
09-05-2012, 11:14 AM
  #110
InterceptSchenn
Good Evening MrFrost
 
InterceptSchenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
Nope. We get nothing of value to us. Mac's nice, Franson's nice...we have pieces like them. McKegg would be a nice little addition to our prospect pool too, but you want a first with that? Jovo, Kopecky and Clem actually looks better then that.
My main reason for this proposal was that Mac has 1 year left and Franson is RFA. You are not tied up with them if you traded for them. That first will most likely be in the mid 20's (although a deep draft). Heck I would trade Reimer, Gunnarsson (our most underrated D man) and Mac for Lu. Elite goalies don't come around often.

InterceptSchenn is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 11:22 AM
  #111
DennisReynolds
the implication
 
DennisReynolds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InterceptSchenn View Post
MacArthur, Franson, McKegg and a 2nd for Lu and a 1st
Hell I'd do it.

DennisReynolds is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 11:43 AM
  #112
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,594
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
This year in the AHL, next year he'd play backup in the NHL to ensure that he can face NHL level shooters. If that goes well, he'd be a starter the year after that (i.e. 3 years). If there's any adjustment period you are looking at 4 years and he'll be a year away from UFA by then if the rules don't change.

Trusting a goalie with no NHL experience to be your full-time starter is a recipe for disaster, especially if you have intentions of actually being competitive.

In a certain respect the Canucks were lucky that Schneider was a backup last year, if he put up his stats while playing 50-60 games, he probably would be asking for a contract with a cap hit higher than Luongo's.



Just Moore + LAK 1st would make us a significantly worse team now and not really give us good options for the future (i.e. trade deadline). I don't make the trade because it really doesn't help us. This changes if we need to make room for Doan or something like that.
If he stayed healthy this year its pretty likely he would get called up mid-season to start that transition as a backup, probably doing a full split 40-40 the year after.

I should of been more clear in my initial post, it might take 3 years for him to be a full time starter, I more so meant 3 years was longer than I thought it would take him to become and NHL regular (playing some meaningful games).

InfinityIggy is online now  
Old
09-05-2012, 11:44 AM
  #113
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,963
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by InterceptSchenn View Post
My main reason for this proposal was that Mac has 1 year left and Franson is RFA. You are not tied up with them if you traded for them. That first will most likely be in the mid 20's (although a deep draft). Heck I would trade Reimer, Gunnarsson (our most underrated D man) and Mac for Lu. Elite goalies don't come around often.
Better but still of little use to us. Something like Kadri, Mac/Gun/Ashton and Connolly would be more around our ballpark.

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
09-05-2012, 11:44 AM
  #114
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,435
vCash: 500
I don't know why anyone make Luongo proposals any more...

Canucks fans think he has high value (he doesn't).

Non-Canucks fans think they will get him for spare sparts (they won't).

When the deal goes down it will be somewhere in the middle. But I think proposals have run their course around here regarding Luongo. Circles of baseless garbage back and forth.

Reign Nateo is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:07 PM
  #115
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
I don't know why anyone make Luongo proposals any more...

Canucks fans think he has high value (he doesn't).

Non-Canucks fans think they will get him for spare sparts (they won't).

When the deal goes down it will be somewhere in the middle. But I think proposals have run their course around here regarding Luongo. Circles of baseless garbage back and forth.
I really think the issue is: Vancouver need Luongo more than most team in the league.

Take florida for example: They have Theodore, Clemmensen and Markstrom.

Vancouver without Luongo have Lack and Schneider for a total of 68gp experience.

If Luongo was a UFA right now, Vancouver would need him more than Florida, or many other teams does.

So its normal that the gaps between the asking price and offer is too large for a trade to happen. Its also the reason why according to Gillis Luongo staying in Vancouver is the leading possibility.

Luongo could be moved at the deadline or summer 2013.

palindrom is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:12 PM
  #116
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,285
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
You know you are basically saying, "Trade us your franchise goalie who is still a top 3-10 goalie in the league for scraps." We will give you next to nothing back and make you take a bad contract (so you don't even really get that much cap space) but you will get to clear his contract.
Well, if that's what they're saying, you'd be trading Schneider, wouldn't you? If Luongo was still your franchise goalie he wouldn't be on the block.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:16 PM
  #117
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,263
vCash: 8345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
We'll do just that then. Why trade him for garbage?
Because you need to get rid of his burdensome contract.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:21 PM
  #118
pb1300
BLEED RED
 
pb1300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aiyio, Greece
Country: Greece
Posts: 10,643
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to pb1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
I don't know why anyone make Luongo proposals any more...

Canucks fans think he has high value (he doesn't).


______________

Non-Canucks fans think they will get him for spare sparts (they won't).

When the deal goes down it will be somewhere in the middle. But I think proposals have run their course around here regarding Luongo. Circles of baseless garbage back and forth.
I agree with you, and that black line is where I value him, which would be slightly in favor of the team trading for him. Gillis is not in control of the situation, even if he does have Luongo under contract. Florida does not have to take him, he is more of a luxury than a necessity, so Gillis has no advantage in talks with Tallon. That is why Florida fans are so hesitant to move a top prospect for Luongo, not because we dont want him, but because he isnt a necessity at the moment. The best prospect/proposal I would make is Shore or Robak/Kopecky/Clemmensen/2nd rounder for him.

pb1300 is online now  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:27 PM
  #119
Laus723
Future Now
 
Laus723's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 27,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpine4life View Post
only one, and it was last year...
He's had two. Second was last season.

__________________
So you're saying there's a chance!
Laus723 is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:29 PM
  #120
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
Nope. We get nothing of value to us. Mac's nice, Franson's nice...we have pieces like them. McKegg would be a nice little addition to our prospect pool too, but you want a first with that? Jovo, Kopecky and Clem actually looks better then that.
Take away Van's 1st....i still do it.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:30 PM
  #121
RECsGuy*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,478
vCash: 500
Gillis' need to deal Luongo will increase and his asking price will decrease when the cap drops. As I've stated in the past, Luongo will be dealt at nearly the same moment the new CBA is implemented.

RECsGuy* is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:30 PM
  #122
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Well, if that's what they're saying, you'd be trading Schneider, wouldn't you? If Luongo was still your franchise goalie he wouldn't be on the block.
If Luongo hadn't have piped up at the end of the year, Schneider would be on the move. This issue of Lu being too far from florida for his wife has been simmering in the background for a while, Lu took this opportunity to make a move for his family. It has nothing to do with his play, which was excellent again last season.

Scurr is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:32 PM
  #123
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Better but still of little use to us. Something like Kadri, Mac/Gun/Ashton and Connolly would be more around our ballpark.
I shouldn't, i'm gonna get roasted by my brethern...BUT...the bolded i would do.(Could be Mac OR Ashton)

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:35 PM
  #124
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Well, if that's what they're saying, you'd be trading Schneider, wouldn't you? If Luongo was still your franchise goalie he wouldn't be on the block.
There's a lot of truth to this.

nhlfan9191 is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:46 PM
  #125
Uncle dans leg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4
vCash: 500
First off, hi!
I have been posting on Canucks sites for years but am quite pleased to have found this one. It has fans from all teams which can only enrich the capacity for objectivity. I am quite interested in everyones take on these players and will be around now indefinitely!

So the topic seems to me to be Luongos' worth around the league, especially in Florida and Toronto.
Florida is absolutely LOADED with young talent and I reckon are poised to be the best team in the NHL within 5 years. Where there appears to be the slightest of weaknesses(and I must say it's slight) is in the crease. Markstrom has been a pretty damn good goalie prospect but hasn't taken that big step we expected just quite yet. I would think this is the only reason that there's even the slightest hint of interest in Luongo.
So is it enough to give away one of their precious blue chip prospects? It would definitely turn a perceived weakness into a position of strength but what will it cost?

If I'm Tallon, I wouldn't do it. Not until I see if what I got isn't going to get the job done and also what the collective will look like.

Of course Vancouver wants top players/prospects in return. They have depth in net and would be better served allocating the resources Luongo occupies to their weaknesses....namely young players and prospects.

Personally I can't see Florida parting with what VCR requires to complete a trade of this magnitude. They are wise to hang on to their youth as it won't be long until they are dominating with or without Luongo.

Just my opinions!

Uncle dans leg 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 09:44 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.