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.

Gillis: Potential Return For Luongo May Not Improve Canucks **Mod Warning #86**

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2012, 10:32 PM
  #101
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
This is highly debatable. You're only considering the factor that will bring his value down, the 'backup factor'. For all we know this could be offset and then some by a new CBA if, for instance, the owners get a favourable deal that makes his contract more palatable. Market fluctuations will also play a BIG role in Luongo's future value, and we can't exactly be predicting how the market will fluctuate in the next few months. Not to mention Luongo's actual play next season.

We all like to pretend we're authorities here on HF, but any predictions into Luongo's future value are going to be half-baked at best. All we can really do are pinpoint the factors that will contribute to his value.
Of course -- there's basically 3 big factors that affect Luongo's value....

The CBA -- Which of course will be resolved before hockey is played and the "backup factor" begins to take effect. Yeah we can speculate all day as to where it ends up and what kind of moves the Canucks have to make as a result, but we're really just talking out our ###es, because none of us know.

Market Demand for A Goaltender -- This is a factor completely outside of Gillis' control. It could go up, could go down as games get played. None of us are in a position to predict which way it's gonna go, and realistically, neither is Gillis. So when being objective, he can't really consider this factor. This likely isn't going to change before games get played.

The "Backup Factor" -- This of course is within Gillis' control and fairly certain. Luongo's appeal as a goaltender is going to decrease if he remains in Vancouver.

What those 3 factors mean -- The decision to trade him before / after the new CBA really comes down to betting on what that new CBA looks like. I'm inclined to believe that he's better off trading him with CBA certainty, but I also don't have inside information as to the specifics in negotiations.

However, the decision to trade him before games are played is an easy one. Demand is uncontrollable and can go up or can go down, but Luongo's appeal as a goaltender will certainly go down as his role is diminished.

As for Jeff Carter, I really don't see the comparison. Howson traded for him and it didn't work out. They traded him as soon as they could while maximizing his "futures" value (i.e. in a trade where a team is selling for futures, the return is always best near the deadline). The Canucks certainly don't view themselves as deadline sellers this year, and are unlikely to be willing to pay Luongo an equal proportion of his yearly salary only to be off the team at the more important time of year.

seanlinden is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 10:34 PM
  #102
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,176
vCash: 500
So different means bad (means can't improve)... Is that a universal truth?... Does anyone have any examples of when different is a good thing? A valuable thing? What sort of cookie cutter world do we live in, that different is assumed bad... For christ sake, an article that says Luongo is ok to stay, and one obscure word from Gillis, and that becomes the focal point of this thread... This thread is the SAME as all the Luongo threads... And that SAMENESS is a bad thing...

Gillis did not say the potential return for Luongo may not improve Canucks... To have a thread title that reads, Gillis:potential return for Luongo may not improve Canucks is just as accurate as if the thread title read, Gillis:potential return for Luongo may improve Canucks... Both, equally wrong... because Gillis said neither... Yet, the tone directs whatever agenda is being served...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 09-12-2012 at 10:52 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 10:59 PM
  #103
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
You don't see the comparison between Carter and Luongo because you don't want to. As you said:

"They traded him as soon as they could while maximizing his "futures" value (i.e. in a trade where a team is selling for futures, the return is always best near the deadline)."

As long as the Canucks are confident Schneider can carry the load in the playoffs then this statement can apply to Luongo just as easily as it did to Carter. If Gillis thinks he can get better value (in futures or otherwise) during the season/at the deadline then he's going to wait until then, which is what appears to be unfolding.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:13 PM
  #104
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,303
vCash: 500
The actual quote for reference: (posted by SunshineRays on the Canucks board):


Q: Does a Luongo trade have to make you better right now?

A: It has to give us an opportunity to be different. I don't think you replace an allstar goalie and necessarily feel you have to be better. But you have to be different. And that's what we're looking to try and do. We need some help in certain areas. We need to get younger we need to have opportunities moving forward that can help us".


Different and younger. Could that mean prospects ready to contribute soon, but not quite there yet? Possibly. That type of return would not make the Canucks better in the here and now. But perhaps different?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:17 PM
  #105
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
 
SmellOfVictory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,884
vCash: 114
From the makeup of the team, it wouldn't hurt the Canucks to have more high-end forward prospects. I think they'd even benefit significantly in a couple of years from just trading Luongo for some picks (1st and a 2nd, maybe?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
I see them playing about 50% of the games each, with one of them getting up to 15% more starts if they are playing lights out. for those of you who are math challenged that works out to nearly 2/3 of the starts.
Actually 15% more of 50% would be 57.5% of the starts, which is still closer to 1/2 the starts than 2/3 of the starts, if just barely.

I know what you meant, but I love being pedantic.

SmellOfVictory is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:19 PM
  #106
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Gillis said this? I'm really confused.

Why on earth would he say that? The Luongo situation has bewildered the bejesus out of me.

I know that Luongo isn't Mr. Clutch in the playoffs, but the Canucks' goalscoring goes down the drain too. If the Wings could win a cup with Osgood, then the Canucks can certainly win a cup with Luongo.

Schnider is younger, has proven to be a damn good starting goalie. He isn't making as much money and his contract isn't insanely long. Luongo on the other hand has shown signs that he's quite picky towards which team he plays for.

I don't even get why Luongo is on the trade table. Schnider would easily land Vancouver a proven top 6 forward to give Vancouver the offensive edge they need to look like number one candidates to make it to the finals again.

Luongo seems desperate to go back to Florida, but Markstrom looks like the real deal and I'm not sure Tampa would be willing or able to afford to cough up anything significant to acquire Luongo.

Trade Schnider for a forward and just accept that having a gold medal winning goalie for the next million years is good enough.

thadd is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:22 PM
  #107
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
Gillis said this? I'm really confused.

Why on earth would he say that? The Luongo situation has bewildered the bejesus out of me.

I know that Luongo isn't Mr. Clutch in the playoffs, but the Canucks' goalscoring goes down the drain too. If the Wings could win a cup with Osgood, then the Canucks can certainly win a cup with Luongo.

Schnider is younger, has proven to be a damn good starting goalie. He isn't making as much money and his contract isn't insanely long. Luongo on the other hand has shown signs that he's quite picky towards which team he plays for.

I don't even get why Luongo is on the trade table. Schnider would easily land Vancouver a proven top 6 forward to give Vancouver the offensive edge they need to look like number one candidates to make it to the finals again.

Luongo seems desperate to go back to Florida, but Markstrom looks like the real deal and I'm not sure Tampa would be willing or able to afford to cough up anything significant to acquire Luongo.

Trade Schnider for a forward and just accept that having a gold medal winning goalie for the next million years is good enough.

What did Gillis say? Or rather, what did you interpret?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:23 PM
  #108
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,467
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
Gillis said this? I'm really confused.

Why on earth would he say that? The Luongo situation has bewildered the bejesus out of me.

I know that Luongo isn't Mr. Clutch in the playoffs, but the Canucks' goalscoring goes down the drain too. If the Wings could win a cup with Osgood, then the Canucks can certainly win a cup with Luongo.

Schnider is younger, has proven to be a damn good starting goalie. He isn't making as much money and his contract isn't insanely long. Luongo on the other hand has shown signs that he's quite picky towards which team he plays for.

I don't even get why Luongo is on the trade table. Schnider would easily land Vancouver a proven top 6 forward to give Vancouver the offensive edge they need to look like number one candidates to make it to the finals again.

Luongo seems desperate to go back to Florida, but Markstrom looks like the real deal and I'm not sure Tampa would be willing or able to afford to cough up anything significant to acquire Luongo.

Trade Schnider for a forward and just accept that having a gold medal winning goalie for the next million years is good enough.
I would be fine with that. Probably because Gillis wouldn't have gotten much when he was only a RFA, and now that he's signed him it would be lousy to trade him before he's played a game. I would have no problem trading Schneider.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:37 PM
  #109
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
What did Gillis say? Or rather, what did you interpret?
Saying that the team would be different without their All-Star goalie... just talking about having interest in trading Luongo is screaming "Please! Just take him away for ANYTHING."

Why trade Luongo for a discount price when you can get Schnider at fair value?

It's crazy.

thadd is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:51 PM
  #110
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Of course the Canucks aren't going to win the trade when they trade Luongo...it is very very seldom that a team that trades away a top 5 NHL goalie over the past decade wins that trade. The team will be different, but as long as the Canucks can get an asset that addresses a primary need then it will be a good trade. Right now, the Canucks need a top 6 forward. If the Canucks sign Shane Doan, then a third line center, top 4 right side puck moving defenseman, and top level prospects will be next on the wishlist.

Just to put things into perspective: For example (to explain Gillis's comments the way I see them). Trading Luongo for Joffrey Lupul does not mean the Canucks win the trade (by virtue of the better player going to Toronto), but it does make the Canucks different.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:54 PM
  #111
ponder
Registered User
 
ponder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
honestly don't see where Liles fits in our lineup. It forces the Canucks to dump Ballard, and it doesn't make much sense to deal Luongo for a dman only to dump Ballard at a low price. And as I've said many times, there is no need to dump Ballard, now that he should be finally able to settle onto his natural side as a the 3rd pairing left side dman, and gets to play next to a player that he's shown chemistry with in the past (where he's played his best hockey in Vancouver).

Otherwise, the Canucks top-4 is already set (Hamhuis-Bieksa, Edler-Garrison). So what's really the point in bringing in a $4mill/yr dman, who's tied up for another 4 years? The Canucks don't need Liles to help the PP (already a top-rated PP and adding Garrison to it). So really, how much does it benefit the team to deal Luongo for a dman, only to have to drop Ballard for nothing just to clear his salary to fit in Liles?

And MacArthur doesn't make a lot of sense either. The Canucks have a lot of wingers as it is. If they're adding another one, it has to be a legit top-6 guy that addresses team needs (like Doan would)... otherwise you have Daniel and Burrows on the top unit, and Booth, Higgins, Hansen and Raymond juggling on the 2nd and 3rd lines. Again, I ask how much sense does it make to trade Luongo for another 2nd/3rd line tweener who doesn't bring anything we don't already have?

I'd rather deal Luongo for prospects/draft picks that address organization holes long-term than trade him for pieces that we already have, that further force us to dump other salary or other assets at rock bottom prices just to fit the roster.

If Liles/MacArthur are the type of offers Gillis is getting, I'd rather just hold on to Luongo and see if he can generate a better return during the year. As we see every year, teams get more desperate as the season goes on (why we often see higher prices paid for rentals at the deadline then we do for those same players with a full year on their contracts in the offseason).

The trade I suggested at the start of the offseason was Luongo to Toronto for Ashton and Colborne, and add in Lombardi as a pure salary dump if necessary. I'd still make that offer now. I wouldn't touch Liles at all... MacArthur possibly, only because he has a year left on his deal and can fit in somewhere (probably force us to dump Raymond)... but again, it doesn't make sense to add players that don't really improve our roster, while forcing us to dump other assets at low prices just to fit them - which would be the case with Liles, having to dump (or waive) Ballard. That doesn't seem like very good asset management to me.
Yeah, Liles would basically be an upgrade on Ballard, and MacArthur an upgrade on Raymond. This would allow you to trade Ballard and Raymond for picks/prospects (probably not great ones, but OK ones), while upgrading your current lineup and giving yourself a better shot at the cup right now.

I'd actually way rather deal Ashton, Colborne and Lombardi for Luongo than Liles and MacArthur. Lombardi is useless, Colborne I see as a career borderline NHLer (a guy who makes the NHL for short stints here and there, but who generally spends more time in the AHL than NHL), and Ashton I can see being a 3rd line winger, but we have plenty of prospects in a similar mould (Frattin, Biggs, Ross, Leivo, etc.).

I'm still not sure whether the Leafs SHOULD trade for Luongo even if he would be willing to come here. He would certainly improve us quite a lot in the short term, but his contract could become terrible long term. Also, 2013 is an incredibly strong draft for centres (MacKinnon, Barkov, Monahan, Shinkaruk, etc.), finishing low in 2012/13 might be our best shot at finally getting a #1 C, if we stand pat with the current roster I could see us drafting very high, but if we trade for Luongo we likely won't be able to draft one of the stud centres. With that being said, IF the Leafs were to trade for Luongo, I would rather give up Lombardi/Ashton/Colborne than Liles/MacArthur.

ponder is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:58 PM
  #112
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,467
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponder View Post
Yeah, Liles would basically be an upgrade on Ballard, and MacArthur an upgrade on Raymond. This would allow you to trade Ballard and Raymond for picks/prospects (probably not great ones, but OK ones), while upgrading your current lineup and giving yourself a better shot at the cup right now.

I'd actually way rather deal Ashton, Colborne and Lombardi for Luongo than Liles and MacArthur. Lombardi is useless, Colborne I see as a career borderline NHLer (a guy who makes the NHL for short stints here and there, but who generally spends more time in the AHL than NHL), and Ashton I can see being a 3rd line winger, but we have plenty of prospects in a similar mould (Frattin, Biggs, Ross, Leivo, etc.).

I'm still not sure whether the Leafs SHOULD trade for Luongo even if he would be willing to come here. He would certainly improve us quite a lot in the short term, but his contract could become terrible long term. Also, 2013 is an incredibly strong draft for centres (MacKinnon, Barkov, Monahan, Shinkaruk, etc.), finishing low in 2012/13 might be our best shot at finally getting a #1 C, if we stand pat with the current roster I could see us drafting very high, but if we trade for Luongo we likely won't be able to draft one of the stud centres. With that being said, IF the Leafs were to trade for Luongo, I would rather give up Lombardi/Ashton/Colborne than Liles/MacArthur.
I would want Kadri as a starting point. We have no need for potential third liners, I'd want someone that can make an impact to our roster. For whatever reason his transition has been slow to the Leafs, he would do well with a change of scenery.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
09-13-2012, 12:04 AM
  #113
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I would want Kadri as a starting point. We have no need for potential third liners, I'd want someone that can make an impact to our roster. For whatever reason his transition has been slow to the Leafs, he would do well with a change of scenery.
If we don't sign Doan then I would say it starts with Lupul.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 12:35 AM
  #114
SunshineRays
Registered User
 
SunshineRays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
This has definitely been taken out of context (as usual due to Vancouver media). They take bits and pieces from interviews, and paste them into a story. If you listen to the 'full' interview, here's what happened (I posted this in another thread):

Question: Does a Luongo trade have to make you better right now?

Answer: It has to give us an opportunity to be different. I don't think you replace an allstar goalie and necessarily feel you have to be better. But you have to be different. And that's what we're looking to try and do. We need some help in certain areas. We need to get younger, we need to have opportunities moving forward that can help us.

Translation: You can't replace an all-star goalie with a better goaltender - it's literally not possible. Therefore, we will look different next yr. We will make a trade for specific players that fill certain areas - and those players will be younger.

Also,

Question : Is it hard to get good value for him when everyone knows....?

Answer: No. We've had solid proposals. But they're not what we're looking for, they're solid. But they're not what we're trying to accomplish. We're going to go as far as we can to get what we want to accomplish out of this".

Translation: We're not likely to make a trade till we get the specific players we are targetting. He's basically employing the same strategy he did with Hodgson at trade deadline.


Last edited by SunshineRays: 09-13-2012 at 12:42 AM.
SunshineRays is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 12:40 AM
  #115
Avim86
Registered User
 
Avim86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal , Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,512
vCash: 500
I know people are going to freak out but the perfect fit would be Vinny for Luongo +.

Luongo
B prospect or 2nd 2013 or maybe even Booth.


for

Vinny


Tampa solves their Goalie issues (Luongo gets too much hate) and Vancouver adds a legitimate threat on their 2nd line.

Avim86 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 12:43 AM
  #116
Pyrophorus
Registered User
 
Pyrophorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eastern GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Pyrophorus Send a message via Yahoo to Pyrophorus Send a message via Skype™ to Pyrophorus
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
If we don't sign Doan then I would say it starts with Lupul.
...and goes down from there sure.

Pyrophorus is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 12:46 AM
  #117
Pyrophorus
Registered User
 
Pyrophorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eastern GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Pyrophorus Send a message via Yahoo to Pyrophorus Send a message via Skype™ to Pyrophorus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Bryzgalov definitely does not have negative value. He is a fairly good starting goaltender, if overpaid. Similar to Dion Phaneuf, who is a decent #1 defenseman, but overpaid. A good prospect(the term top is misleading, he isn't even the best prospect in Toronto) and a 2nd is hardly breaking the bank.

EDIT: What if I took out the 2nd?
Bryz hates the ex-Anaheim triumvirate now in Toronto.

Pyrophorus is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 01:09 AM
  #118
Xav
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Xav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cascadia
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,079
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrophorus View Post
...and goes down from there sure.
I was gonna say Bozak and a 2nd (as a joke) but you guys would turn that down

Xav is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 01:16 AM
  #119
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
Saying that the team would be different without their All-Star goalie... just talking about having interest in trading Luongo is screaming "Please! Just take him away for ANYTHING."

Why trade Luongo for a discount price when you can get Schnider at fair value?

It's crazy.

Actually, Gillis has been pretty candid about trading Lu for some time. The possibility of it. He was on Team1040 twice. Both times, he referred to dealing Lu as an inevitability. This is not news.


I can understand your point of view if this is the first time you're seeing anything like this regarding this situation. But really, nothing's changed on that front. The "news" is actually Lu's willingness to suit up for Van, in any capacity. That's what really came out of this... Some will not be able to reconcile the possibility of Lu returning to Van, even for a while, after all that's transpired. This is direct evidence against that... Straight from the horse's mouth...


As to dealing Schneider: Gillis will not do a sign and trade. Schneider is here to stay.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 01:18 AM
  #120
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
I have always said that for VAN to get a useful return for Luongo VAN would have to sweeten the pot.

No one needs to trade with VAN. No one needs to take on that crazy contract.

The teams that are in a position where a goalie like Luongo might make the difference, are not about to help VAN.

Add in Luongo's less than stellar, playoff, Olympic etc. performance....

If I am a GM, my main thought is that as long as VAN has Luongo's cap hit, they can't spend that cap space elsewhere. TO take on Luongo's contract is to help the Canucks. As a rival GM do I want to do that?

As the fan of a team that could use some goaltending stability... I don't think Luongo wants to come to TOR. If he hates VAN media pressure, he surely doesn't want to go to a worse(even more of a microscope) place.

This is going to be an interesting situation going forward.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrophorus View Post
Bryz hates the ex-Anaheim triumvirate now in Toronto.
Actually I would think Burke keeping his word to Ilya and releasing him unconditionally in ANH would be a good thing. But I have no evidence one way or the other.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 01:21 AM
  #121
danaluvsthekings
Registered User
 
danaluvsthekings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
You don't see the comparison between Carter and Luongo because you don't want to. As you said:

"They traded him as soon as they could while maximizing his "futures" value (i.e. in a trade where a team is selling for futures, the return is always best near the deadline)."

As long as the Canucks are confident Schneider can carry the load in the playoffs then this statement can apply to Luongo just as easily as it did to Carter. If Gillis thinks he can get better value (in futures or otherwise) during the season/at the deadline then he's going to wait until then, which is what appears to be unfolding.
I would say there are a few differences between Carter and Luongo, mainly being that Luongo plays a position where you only get to play 1 guy at a time whereas Carter is just going to be 1 of your 12 forwards. There are going to be a lot more teams looking to fill a hole up front than to fill their goaltending hole. The Kings were having trouble scoring and thought Carter was a fit because of their ex Flyers connections and Mike Richards. A lot of other teams probably were leery of trading for Carter and had LA not been willing, Columbus would either still be sitting on Carter or would have gotten less if they felt they absolutely needed to trade him at the deadline. Carter's got a long contract like Luongo does, but like I said, you're picking up a guy that is going to be one of your top 6 forwards for a long time.

Most teams, when looking to acquire a goalie at the trade deadline, are looking for a backup goalie, not a starter. Because of his contract, you're obviously not trading for Luongo to be your backup, he's a long term commitment as your starter. Teams with an established starter who might be struggling or injured aren't going to look to acquire Luongo because they figure at some point their starter will rebound or will get healthy again. It might cost you for that particular season, but you don't trade for a guy with a contract like Luongo's because your starter, who is signed for multiple years more, might be out 3-4 months. That's the problem in hoping that the market will change. It's a small number of teams interested in Luongo now and those teams are likely going to be the ones interested in 6 months or a year from now.

danaluvsthekings is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 01:34 AM
  #122
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillis
We’re going to do our best to make sure that Roberto is taken care of whether he is here or somewhere else,” Gillis said. “We’re going to look at his best interests, but also look at ours.”
With this statement, is Gillis saying that they received a solid offer from Toronto, but he won't consider sending Luongo to Toronto, for obvious reasons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luongo
“Whatever the future holds is going to be fine with me,” Luongo said.
With this statement, is Luongo saying that whatever the future holds, it is going to be fine with him?

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 01:38 AM
  #123
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,303
vCash: 500
Perhaps we're not looking at this the right way?


Maybe it's not about 2-3 destination teams? Maybe it's one destination team, FLA, that requires another team to facilitate the deal. In this case, it's not about markets changing, it's about bringing that new team to the fore and working things out with them.


Edit: So it's not about a small number of teams willing to take him on. It's about one team, FLA, that Gillis and Lu want to deal with. Likewise, Tallon has also shown interest, even if lukewarm to this point. Maybe a 3rd team can bridge the gap between the two.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 01:41 AM
  #124
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets View Post
Luongo to Tampa Bay, Malone and Tokarski to NJ and Zubrus + Tallinder to Vancouver...?
Whats up with NJ getting a solid player for scraps in both ur proposals? As a Canuck fan I say no need for u NJ we'll just take Malone and Tokarski for Luongo.

Ched Brosky is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 01:46 AM
  #125
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kassian Train View Post
I don't think so. There are some important parts of the article that you are missing.

1.) Trade may involve three teams.
2.) Solid offers made, but nothing that has swept that off his feet.
3.) Assets / Players that are being offered are something that we have a part of the Canucks already (hence the term different)

That's what I got out of it. I don't think his stance has changed. I just think that he doesn't want someone that is a bag of pucks.
The definition of ""solid" trade proposals" according to Gillis mean a proposals not of his liking.

Maybe its me, but i have a different definition of a "solid" trade proposals.

palindrom 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 06:45 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.