Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
Why are you comparing the trade market from 2006 to now? Of course values will be different in a completely different decade of hockey.
I wasn't trying to do that. In my previous reply I was just telling y2kanucks that whatever Luongo was traded for and not traded for in June 2006 shouldn't matter or make a difference when the Canucks can finally trade him in 2012 once the lockout is over.
That maybe true but when some Canucks fans are asking for Jake Gardiner they should know he's a non starter.
Agreed. Even if one thinks they will get a great price either way(i.e. Gardiner++ or Komisarek + Reimer), for the sake of constructive conversation the offers thould try to be kept towards the middle.
I wasn't trying to do that. In my previous reply I was just telling y2kanucks that whatever Luongo was traded for and not traded for in June 2006 shouldn't matter or make a difference when the Canucks can finally trade him in 2012 once the lockout is over.
Apologies..
but what exactly is your point on the quoted part then? just sounds like you are saying because the return in 2006 wasn't great it will be THAT but worse because of Luongo's contract status now.
It's a terrible point. You don't compare Luongo's value to the market in 2006.
It's just logic, A players value will only depreciate with age especially if the player is carrying a ridiculous retirement contract. Again this doesn't mean Luongo is worth scraps. But if you think you'll get player like Bjustad or Gardiner along with a 1st round pick then just be prepared to be disappointed
It's just logic, A players value will only depreciate with age especially if the player is carrying a ridiculous retirement contract. Again this doesn't mean Luongo is worth scraps. But if you think you'll get player like Bjustad or Gardiner along with a 1st round pick then just be prepared to be disappointed
Contrarily, pre-Canucks, Luongo was never able to prove he can WIN.
Surely he's shown that he's the real-deal now.
So in a sense, while I don't think his value has appreciated, it certainly hasn't depreciated as much as you suggest...
but what exactly is your point on the quoted part then? just sounds like you are saying because the return in 2006 wasn't great it will be THAT but worse because of Luongo's contract status now.
I previously said what the trade was between the Canucks & Panthers because it was mentioned how today Luongo is a top 5 Goalie and worth giving up a valuable asset. I then mentioned how the only valuable asset in June 2006 was Todd Bertuzzi and why I thought he was included in that trade. As for the contract Luongo has today it's not just me who thinks the return value will be low based on it's lenght. Other posters have said based on it the return might not be what Canucks fans are wanting. Plus even the Hockey Insiders like McKenzie, LeBrun or Dregger have said Luongo will not be worth a Top 6 Forward, high value prospect (Jake Gardiner) or a 1st round pick.
Last edited by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER: 10-24-2012 at 09:51 PM.
What happened or almost happened in June 2006 shouldn't have any impact on Luongo being traded in 2012. The fact is Luongo is now older and on a horrible contract, so I'm going to say again that's why Mike Gillis won't get the type of package he wants in return for him.
Then why did you even bring it up in the first place?
I also wouldn't say it's a horrible contract. In fact, there's a reason why the NHL is trying to penalize teams who signed players to these deals, because they're cap circumventing contracts. If they were horrible contracts then the league would just let teams continue to do this.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
I previously mentioned what the trade was between the Canucks & Panthers because it was mentioned how today Luongo is a top 5 Goalie and worth giving up a valuable asset. I then mentioned how the only valuable asset in June 2006 was Todd Bertuzzi and why I thought he was included in that trade.
So in other words, it only matters when it supports your argument.
Contrarily, pre-Canucks, Luongo was never able to prove he can WIN.
Surely he's shown that he's the real-deal now.
So in a sense, while I don't think his value has appreciated, it certainly hasn't depreciated as much as you suggest...
You should refer to my post earlier. I'll say it again; I still believe Luongo is worth a impact roster player along with some salary dump and perhaps a 2nd round pick. But I don't think any GM would trade their top prospect(s) and 1st round picks for Luongo.
I prefer the original proposal as well (Bozak/Colborne/Frattin/Ashton).
I don't see Kadri as a fit on this team at all. And no interest in Connolly either.
Let's just agree on Bozak, Colborne, Frattin and Ashton and call it a day!
Whatever other needs the Canucks have (like getting a prospect dman) they can do that with other trades. This is a good return to address current needs and add future value, while giving the team enough cap flexibility (and trade assets) to improve with other trades.
Either there are a lot of fans who are purposely trying to convince others that Luongo isn't as good as he is or there are a lot of nieve hockey fans out there. Quite a few will say Luongo going to the Leafs will likely get the Leafs into the playoffs but he only good for a year or two and his contract is terrible. What a bunch of crap. Luongo is playing some of his best hockey now and there is no reason he will be finished in a couple of years. Luongo's long contract is a godsend to the team he plays with because that team will assure themselves having a first string goalie for years and not have to compete with the other teams trying to out bid them had he be UFA status.
The Leafs are a better team now then the 2006-07 Canucks were then and Luongo single handedly took that Canuck team not just into the playoffs, but into multiple playoff rounds. He did it again in 2008-09 and since then has gotten better and better as well as helping the Canucks as a team believe in themselves.
Luongo running out of gas in a year or two? He is in better condition than most of the other Canuck players. Think five or six years at the earliest. That's five or six likely multiple playoff round years by the way. Personally I think the Canucks are fools even to consider trading away a goalie of Luongo's calibre, but I really laugh at Leaf fans who would be satisfied to see the Leafs finally squeek into the first round of the playoffs only to bow out early and yet say they feel Luongo isn't worth giving up a decent player for.
In truth the Canucks don't have any holes in the team to fill that they don't already have a player or prospect to potentially be able to fill that team weakness. Any roster ready player the Canucks could get from the Leafs is mainly only going to add backup depth at that position.
I agree Bozak may be one of the more useful Leaf players that the Canucks could use, but he would only be displacing either Malhotra or Lapierre of one of their centre spots and at the same time delaying Schroeder's chance at making the big club. Delaying his chance too much and Gaunce will be challanging Schroeder too.
I actually think Luongo should return a roster player, a backup roster player, a high prospect and a mid to late round fist pick.
If we did trade Luongo to the Leafs, I think he would improve that so much that their 2013 pick would be a mid to late round pick (likely no earlier than 17th and likely no later than 24th).
Of all the Leaf prospects I think Colborne, due to his size, fits the type of player Gillis would want for the Canucks. Gillis has stated he wants to add size and youth to the club.
Bozak I see as an insurance back up to Malhotra at centre. He might be slotted in on the wing for a while but I don't see Bozak displacing Malhotra until Malhotra proves he can't handle the third line centre anymore. Lapierre plays a different game so I don't see Bozak being a threat to replacing Lapierre except due to injury.
The roster player I see that Gillis would want as part of the return for Luongo may shock many because he is a player many Leaf fans would like to see gone and he carries a hefty salary cap hit. I see Komisarek, a hard hitting, stay at home defenseman very useful to the Canucks. He plays much like Mitchell did and does. Like Ballard he is a talented defenseman who is given a hard time by his own team's fans. For the most part undeservely. The Canucks weakest position is right defense. Though we have three quality RD's, we have no backup should any get injured. Komisarek is more skilled and experienced than Tanev so I see Tanev pushed into a backup role. Komisarek's style I believe would suit either Edler or Ballard leaving the Canucks with six defensemen with top four skill.
Thus Luongo for Komisarek, Bozak, Colborne & the Leaf's 2013 first round pick.
The Leafs gain a slight cap advantage. Komisarek's $4.5 mil and Bozak's $1.5 mil salaries is $0.7 mil higher than Luongo's cap hit, but the Canucks should be able to handle that. Colborne in the minors and the draft pick adds nothing to the Canucks cap hit.
It's just logic, A players value will only depreciate with age especially if the player is carrying a ridiculous retirement contract. Again this doesn't mean Luongo is worth scraps. But if you think you'll get player like Bjustad or Gardiner along with a 1st round pick then just be prepared to be disappointed
His value will certainly depreciate, I get that. Just saying you shouldn't refer to Luongo's return in 2006 and what he received when the market has changed so drastically. To me that isn't logic... I agree Luongo won't and shouldn't return Bjugstad or Gardiner.
I previously said what the trade was between the Canucks & Panthers because it was mentioned how today Luongo is a top 5 Goalie and worth giving up a valuable asset. I then mentioned how the only valuable asset in June 2006 was Todd Bertuzzi and why I thought he was included in that trade. As for the contract Luongo has today it's not just me who thinks the return value will be low based on it's lenght. Other posters have said based on it the return might not be what Canucks fans are wanting. Plus even the Hockey Insiders like McKenzie, LeBrun or Dregger have not said Luongo will be worth a Top 6 Forward, high value prospect (Jake Gardiner) or a 1st round pick.
I don't think Luongo will return a top 6 forward, or a Jake Gardiner either. That's not what i'm arguing.
I really don't see this logic in the bolded line of thought.
Previously (and still) you'd see a young goaltender begin to earn more and more faith in the coach, and eventually the starter or him would be moved. However hockey is in a day and age where there is no "winning" model. Look at St. Louis with Halak and Elliot, that isn't changing this season, again they'll roll whoever has a fire under their ass at that point in the season.
Fans can pretty much unanimously agree that Cory Schneider and Tukka Rask are #1 goalies, both have competed hard and busted their *** earn their starts and to force the coach to play the hot hand. So now Luongo finds himself in a similar situation where he may not be a consensus number one, but seize the moment and he very well could hit 55 GP again this season if Schneider struggles and Lu plays lights out.
Vancouver is a team that has come very close to winning the Stanley Cup, and has a shrinking window to continue to compete for it. They have two #1 goalies that are often cited for having a great relationship, both competitive and wanting a crack at a starting job. It's not a BAD problem to have. Yes Luongo has said that if they're looking to move him he will move on to a new team, but he's also a prideful guy and if the team doesn't move him, I guarantee he will show up night in and night out - playing for the team that he's been a major part of for years.
You're not wrong, however if this were the case, and Lou is happy competing for the #1 job, then there would be no talk of Lou being moved in a trade. He is in the prime of his career, for how long has yet to be determined, but I would be suprised if he would be okay sitting behind Schneider in some meaningful games, being the competitor that he is.
You're not wrong, however if this were the case, and Lou is happy competing for the #1 job, then there would be no talk of Lou being moved in a trade. He is in the prime of his career, for how long has yet to be determined, but I would be suprised if he would be okay sitting behind Schneider in some meaningful games, being the competitor that he is.
If we could trade him for a return that helps us now or sets us up in the future, we would move him absolutely. But if what's being offered does neither, then we'll do no such thing.
If we could trade him for a return that helps us now or sets us up in the future, we would move him absolutely. But if what's being offered does neither, then we'll do no such thing.
Again with this "we'll do no such thing" as if you have any say in the matter or control. If Lou was okay spliting duties with Schneider, and missing playoff games, there would be no talk of trading Lou. Lou seems classy, doubt he is the type of guy to stir the pot, but I doubt he would be happy not being the number one goalie, especially if he is a top 5 that some are claiming him to be. The reality is, seems as though one of the goalies will be moved.
Again with this "we'll do no such thing" as if you have any say in the matter or control.If Lou was okay spliting duties with Schneider, and missing playoff games, there would be no talk of trading Lou.Lou seems classy, doubt he is the type of guy to stir the pot, but I doubt he would be happy not being the number one goalie, especially if he is a top 5 that some are claiming him to be. The reality is, seems as though one of the goalies will be moved.
You still haven't explained why. If we can improve our skater group enough to merit moving him, we would. Every GM looks to ice the best possible team, and instead of having two goalies playing at an elite level it might be better resource allocation to have one elite goalie + elite player's return on the ice/in our future.
Again with this "we'll do no such thing" as if you have any say in the matter or control. If Lou was okay spliting duties with Schneider, and missing playoff games, there would be no talk of trading Lou. Lou seems classy, doubt he is the type of guy to stir the pot, but I doubt he would be happy not being the number one goalie, especially if he is a top 5 that some are claiming him to be. The reality is, seems as though one of the goalies will be moved.
No sane Canuck fan disagrees with this. I think our point is there is no rush to move him if the offers are trash.
No sane Canuck fan disagrees with this. I think our point is there is no rush to move him if the offers are trash.
Thats fair, but Cannucks fans may not have that choice. Thats not to suggest it has to happen that way, but to suggest having both goalies play, while a luxury, will be a long term fix and have Lou happy, is not accurate. Gillis may not have a choice but to move him. The good news, is that if there was a deal to be made with Toronto, Burke has said countless times. he doesnt believe is fleecing another GM. Make a deal that helps out both teams. Lou wont be happy long term, if he isnt the number 1, and rightfully so.
Right because watching him play back-up - and mope on the bench is really going to drive his value up.
No, but other teams watching their considerably worse goaltending situation as the season goes on might. Which also allows for the possibilities of new teams becoming involved if injuries occur or new starters like Lindback/Holtby/Bobrovsky falter.
