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.

Luongo: "Whatever the future holds is going to be fine with me"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-18-2012, 02:15 PM
  #26
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theLongR0D View Post
I don't see Luongo taking this threat too seriously. You really think Vancouver would rather let him go for nothing then trade him for something, regardless how terrible the return is
For the same reason NJ kept Parise and let him go for nothing, I do... and Gillis isn't going to accept a return that hurts the Canucks... Cap dumps hurt the Canucks... The Canucks have to be careful of the contracts they take on... They're right up to the cap as it is...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 02:20 PM
  #27
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theLongR0D View Post
I don't see Luongo taking this threat too seriously. You really think Vancouver would rather let him go for nothing then trade him for something, regardless how terrible the return is
If the return consists of cap dumps, then yes waiving him would be better.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 02:54 PM
  #28
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,922
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
I'm not talking about now or when the season starts... But if we're well into the season and the Canucks need cap space for additions while Luongo only has Florida and a bunch of teams not needing goalies on his list and no decent offer is coming you tell Luongo to expand his list or threaten to put him on waivers. At that point to do think Luongo continues to hold pat on a limited list or take his chances with waivers?
Frankly I'd rather convert Ballard, Raymond for picks and waive Malhotra before putting Luongo on waivers.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 02:55 PM
  #29
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,142
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye View Post
For the same reason NJ kept Parise and let him go for nothing, I do... and Gillis isn't going to accept a return that hurts the Canucks... Cap dumps hurt the Canucks... The Canucks have to be careful of the contracts they take on... They're right up to the cap as it is...
Thats a completely different scenario.

InfinityIggy is online now  
Old
09-18-2012, 02:57 PM
  #30
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
If the return consists of cap dumps, then yes waiving him would be better.
If the return is only a cap dump, then that makes sense. But surely there will also be value going with the cap dump, and then you can dump the new cap hit without alienating Luongo who fans have an attachment to. It would be much easier to waive a new guy who doesn't fit in.

And is waivers and possibly seeing him go to Edmonton a worthwhile risk?

smoke meat pete* is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 03:01 PM
  #31
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
If the return is only a cap dump, then that makes sense. But surely there will also be value going with the cap dump, and then you can dump the new cap hit without alienating Luongo who fans have an attachment to. It would be much easier to waive a new guy who doesn't fit in.

And is waivers and possibly seeing him go to Edmonton a worthwhile risk?
I would rather waive Luongo than take any return that includes Mike Komisarek.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 03:04 PM
  #32
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfinityIggy View Post
Thats a completely different scenario.
In one scenario, the player is helping for a playoff run... and then potentially let go for nothing in the offseason...

In the other scenario, the player is helping for a playoff run... and then potentially let go for nothing in the offseason...

How they end up returning nothing is different... In one, the player is an UFA... In the other, the player is being argued to be worthless...

But the result is the same... The player helps for the playoffs, and then is off the team for zero return...

Is getting nothing in return a perfect outcome? Of course not... Luongo helping for a playoff run and then getting something of real value for Luongo would be perfect... But I'm personally prepared to let Luongo go for nothing, (if it means helping for a cup run) although I don't think Luongo would return nothing... I'm not necessarily looking for perfect... Just perfect enough for the Canucks to win a cup... and Luongo is perfect enough to help (therefore, if the return isn't also perfect enough to help, I'd much rather Luongo stay)... I understand Luongo has warts... but that doesn't affect his value to the Canucks... Everything being argued why Luongo should be worth pennies on the dollar does not apply to the Canucks... As Gillis said, Luongo is welcome on this team...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 09-18-2012 at 03:21 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 03:12 PM
  #33
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I would rather waive Luongo than take any return that includes Mike Komisarek.
I won't disagree with you that there are limits to who the cap dump could be, and komo is without question the wrong guy for the Canucks.

smoke meat pete* is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 03:17 PM
  #34
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,922
vCash: 5555
I wonder what other teams like Ottawa or Washington might be willing to give up.(If Holtby can't handle being a starter, or if Anderson could be sent to Columbus or Toronto maybe?)

Part way through the season they may look to improve their goaltending before the playoffs(especially Washington, as the only have Ribeiro as a rental).

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 03:42 PM
  #35
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,142
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye View Post
In one scenario, the player is helping for a playoff run... and then potentially let go for nothing in the offseason...

In the other scenario, the player is helping for a playoff run... and then potentially let go for nothing in the offseason...

How they end up returning nothing is different... In one, the player is an UFA... In the other, the player is being argued to be worthless...

But the result is the same... The player helps for the playoffs, and then is off the team for zero return...

Is getting nothing in return a perfect outcome? Of course not... Luongo helping for a playoff run and then getting something of real value for Luongo would be perfect... But I'm personally prepared to let Luongo go for nothing, (if it means helping for a cup run) although I don't think Luongo would return nothing... I'm not necessarily looking for perfect... Just perfect enough for the Canucks to win a cup... and Luongo is perfect enough to help (therefore, if the return isn't also perfect enough to help, I'd much rather Luongo stay)... I understand Luongo has warts... but that doesn't affect his value to the Canucks... Everything being argued why Luongo should be worth pennies on the dollar does not apply to the Canucks... As Gillis said, Luongo is welcome on this team...
One players contract was up at the end of said playoff run, the other is locked up for another decade. Completely different.

InfinityIggy is online now  
Old
09-18-2012, 03:55 PM
  #36
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
If the return is only a cap dump, then that makes sense. But surely there will also be value going with the cap dump, and then you can dump the new cap hit without alienating Luongo who fans have an attachment to. It would be much easier to waive a new guy who doesn't fit in.

And is waivers and possibly seeing him go to Edmonton a worthwhile risk?
My definition of a "cap dump to Vancouver" is a player who is clearly undesirable because of his contract - and doesn't fit the roles (with the attributes) the Canucks are trying to do... AV has very particular tastes who should go where, and play what role... Ballard's a good player, but he didn't fit the role given... Taking salary back is different to me... For a good roster player who fits within the role given, absolutely I'm not against that...

3rd line center: Malhotra-type attributes
2nd line winger: Doan-type attributes (why Gillis was after him)
Right-side dman: Weber-type attributes (why Gillis was after him)
Dman prospect: Schultz-type attributes (why Gillis was after him)
Back-up goalie: Luongo-type attributes (why Gillis doesn't want to trade him)

The type of game these players play is what AV and Gillis are looking for (in terms of roster players)... So, any player who resembles this I personally don't necessarily consider a cap dump, regardless of what the player makes in salary... but it depends on the player... If the player returning does not have these types of attributes, then they will likely be put into a position to struggle or a doghouse (like Ballard, Wellwood, etc.)... and would be a "cap dump to Vancouver" because it's basically just dumping cap space on without helping the team move forward...

I don't consider certain roster players on Toronto "cap dumps", but rather "cap dumps to Vancouver"... Not necessarily needed or valuable here, but perhaps would be elsewhere...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:01 PM
  #37
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfinityIggy View Post
One players contract was up at the end of said playoff run, the other is locked up for another decade. Completely different.
Both potentially end up worthless, because of these polar opposite contract lengths... (If I understand the argument of those saying Luongo will be worthless in a year)...

The reason why they are worthless is less important than the result that they are worthless... The point I'm trying to make is that I'd be pleased to have Luongo on the team for another playoff run, even if that means he returns nothing for this benefit (exactly like how NJ was prepared to ride the season out with Parise - I understand where NJ was coming from)...

Teams pay a good prospect + good pick for a rental player all the time for playoff runs... If not jumping on a prospect + good pick (or less) return, therefore actually costing the Canucks this in opportunity cost, I'm completely fine with it... Although my opinion is that Luongo will still be valuable this time next year...

Like NJ decided to keep Parise to help for a playoff run, my vote would be for Luongo to help for a playoff run... regardless if Luongo is worthless (or not) at the end of it, as a result... Unless, of course, Luongo can return a nice return before, I'd like to keep Luongo for another playoff run...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:09 PM
  #38
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,489
vCash: 341
Knew that was going to happen from the beginning, but so many of you said no they can't keep both.

AndyPipkin is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:14 PM
  #39
BeersHockey
Registered User
 
BeersHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
I'm not talking about now or when the season starts... But if we're well into the season and the Canucks need cap space for additions while Luongo only has Florida and a bunch of teams not needing goalies on his list and no decent offer is coming you tell Luongo to expand his list or threaten to put him on waivers. At that point to do think Luongo continues to hold pat on a limited list or take his chances with waivers?
There is one huge flaw in this scenario: Lu publicly states that he will not play for teams X,Y, or Z (top of the waiver wire), however he will play for team A (FLA). FLA has rejected the top prospect + 1st + request from VAN for Lu's services. Team X, Y or Z picks Lu up and turns him into futures (multiple picks and prospects, just not top of either). Waiver team gets something, Lu gets what he wants, and VAN gets nothing. Worst case scenario for Luongo, he pulls a Jeff Carter and collects $6mm during his tantrum until he is traded.

BeersHockey is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:18 PM
  #40
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
vCash: 500
If there's a cap rollback, I don't see his value going higher though, teams will have less cap room going forward.

Soundwave is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:20 PM
  #41
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,401
vCash: 500
I can't beleive these Luongo threads are still going... What could there possibly be to discuss that hasn't been covered 97 times?

Reign Nateo is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:24 PM
  #42
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,922
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
If there's a cap rollback, I don't see his value going higher though, teams will have less cap room going forward.
Although if the cap goes down, that makes his cap hit especially attractive, compared to similar goalies around the league(Lehtonen just re-signed for a 6 mil cap hit, ex.)

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:29 PM
  #43
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyPipkin View Post
Knew that was going to happen from the beginning, but so many of you said no they can't keep both.
No one said it was impossible. It's just bad asset management and one that will not last very long and one that could see Luongo's value fall lower than it is now.

smackdaddy is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:29 PM
  #44
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Although if the cap goes down, that makes his cap hit especially attractive, compared to similar goalies around the league(Lehtonen just re-signed for a 6 mil cap hit, ex.)
Agreed. Luongo's cap hit ranks 9th in the NHL. For the quality goaltender he is, that's a bargain.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:30 PM
  #45
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
If there's a cap rollback, I don't see his value going higher though, teams will have less cap room going forward.
A cap circumvention contract is more of a benefit with a low cap... With a high cap, a cap circumvention contract is more of a nice-to-have, and less of a need-to-have... Those players with much lower cap hits than what their play suggests become more attractive... It happened when the cap was low with the last CBA... Good to great players with good cap hits became less available to trade, more valuable to teams... Also, with a low cap, there will likely be more team holes than a team has now with a $70 mill cap ceiling... A way to plug multiple holes with a single cork is to have excellent goaltending...

I'd bet that with a low cap, Luongo would still be valuable, to the right team, at the right time... Of course though, with a low cap, the Canucks might be pressured to trade Luongo to the wrong team, at the wrong time... If the right team isn't there when the Canucks are pressured...

If there is no pressure to act (be it, cap space desperately needed or great return being offered forcing the issue), IMHO, wait... Luongo is good with it... Schneider is good with it... Gillis is good with it... It'll work out fine... If the cap is so low, most teams will need to adapt and change the make-up of their team, so I don't think Gillis should act now on something that may or may not be negative later... especially when it has a chance to be more positive later...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:30 PM
  #46
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,922
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
No one said it was impossible. It's just bad asset management and one that will not last very long and one that could see Luongo's value fall lower than it is now.
It's at least as likely to get higher, in which case it is simply a gamble, not poor asset management.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:33 PM
  #47
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,489
vCash: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
It's at least as likely to get higher, in which case it is simply a gamble, not poor asset management.
It's a gamble either way, but its a better for us to keep more of a sure thing.

AndyPipkin is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:54 PM
  #48
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I wonder what other teams like Ottawa or Washington might be willing to give up.(If Holtby can't handle being a starter, or if Anderson could be sent to Columbus or Toronto maybe?)

Part way through the season they may look to improve their goaltending before the playoffs(especially Washington, as the only have Ribeiro as a rental).
If Holtby can't handle being a starter yet, Washington gets a STOPGAP until he can handle it.

nhlfan9191 is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 05:06 PM
  #49
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
If Holtby can't handle being a starter yet, Washington gets a STOPGAP until he can handle it.
You mean someone like a Corey Crawford or Jose Theodore perhaps? Maybe not Theodore since he's been there, done that, but I think it opens up the doors for a possible 3-way trade.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 05:40 PM
  #50
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeersHockey View Post
There is one huge flaw in this scenario: Lu publicly states that he will not play for teams X,Y, or Z (top of the waiver wire), however he will play for team A (FLA). FLA has rejected the top prospect + 1st + request from VAN for Lu's services. Team X, Y or Z picks Lu up and turns him into futures (multiple picks and prospects, just not top of either). Waiver team gets something, Lu gets what he wants, and VAN gets nothing. Worst case scenario for Luongo, he pulls a Jeff Carter and collects $6mm during his tantrum until he is traded.
This is where you're wrong. Van gets something. They get to lose his $5.3mill cap hit without taking any bad contracts back. If the return is better than that, sure trade him. But all Canuck fans are hearing here is that he's worth little to nothing - sell him for pennies on the dollar - and the Canucks would be forced to take on a bad contract. For a contending team, taking on a bad contract while getting prospects who may not even help this team in a few years - if at all - isn't better than just losing that contract and using that cap space and your own futures to add a rental or two that actually addresses team needs.

Waivers is a last resort situation where losing his cap hit without taking anything back is a better deal than taking on crap contracts that don't address team needs. Of course there's no need to consider that option until you actually need his cap space for other areas... Until then there's no problem just keeping him on the team, and keeping the team's 1-2 punch which were the biggest reason for the last President's win.

NFITO 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 02:15 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.