HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Luongo Thread - Waiting on the World to Change (Mod Warning in OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-27-2012, 03:36 PM
  #176
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
I never said 'goalies like Luongo are not a rare commodity.' I also went on to state why there is no 'long' list of top goalies being traded which of course you never responded to.

Your position is basically this: Provide me with a list of comparable goalies to Luongo. Oh, BTW, you can't use X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, for [unsubstantiated reasons].

You want a list of goalies traded in the last decade to see how the goalie market is weak?

Bobrovsky for a 2nd and some mid range draft picks.
Gustavvson for a 7th round draft pick.
Thomas Vokoun for a 7th round draft pick.
Varlamov for a 1st and 2nd.
Brian Elliot for Anderson.
Roloson for Wishart.
Ramo for Desjardins.
Halak for Eller and Schultz.
Toskala for McElhinney.
Giguere for Blake and Toskala.
Pogge for a 6th round pick.
Auld for a 6th round pick.
Chris Mason for a 4th round pick.
Huet for 2nd round pick.
Marcel Hossa and Montoya for Sjostrom and Gratton.
Halpern, Jokinen and Smith for Richards.
Fernandez for Klaus.
Leighton for a 7th round pick.
Toskala and Bell for some draft picks.
Lehtonen for a 4th round pick.
Conklin for a 5th round pick.
Biron for a 7th round pick.
Cloutier for a 2nd and conditional 3rd.
Denis for Modin.
Raycroft for Rask.
Anderson for a 6th.
Luongo and Krajicek for Bertuzzi, Auld and Allen.
Theodore for Aebischer.
Thibault for a 4th.

Yeah, some great returns there.
You can eliminate a lot of those because they either weren't really legitimate starting goalies or they weren't under contract. And of course you're missing some that go against your argument (first Vokoun trade) and misrepresenting others. Toskala wasn't traded for "some draft picks"; he was traded for the 13th overall, two 2nd round picks, and a 4th.

I'd say all of these produced fairly good returns, espeically since no salary was taken back in return for most of them. Not surprisingly, they represent pretty much all of the times a legitimate starting goalie was traded post lockout:

Varlamov -> 1st + a 2nd
Halak (RFA) -> Eller and Schultz
Toskala -> 1st, two 2nds, a 4th, and Bell
Vokoun -> 1st + two 2nds
Luongo -> Bertuzzi, Allen, and Auld
Roloson (pending UFA) -> 1st and a 3rd


The Lethonen trade is probably the only one on your list where a bona fide starter garnered a paltry return.

opendoor is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:42 PM
  #177
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,828
vCash: 500
I heard from Kevin Woodley and the Goalie Guild on twitter, that back when Lehtonen was traded he didn't have the best work ethic. Was considered a good goalie but a bad pro. He's figured it out recently, obviously.

Wisp is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:54 PM
  #178
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Lehtonen was also traded having only played 4 games in the AHL that year (injured), 46 games the year prior (NHL), and 48 games 2 years prior (NHL). He was getting injured more often than Salo and looked like he would never be able to get into any sort of rhythm. It's good that he figured it out in Dallas but they took a huge risk even with the few assets they did give up.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:15 PM
  #179
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
Roy demanded a trade out of town immediately, and did so mid-game no less.

Belfour turned down a contract extension, and ended up being a rental, and Chicago took what they could for him.

Khabibulin held out for an entire year for a contract, and still got Mike Johnson, Paul Mara, a 2nd and Zainulin, a player that could have easily been worth his draft position, but didn't come over to play for Phoenix (can you blame him?).

Giguere was a franchise, or at least top starter, later in his career, but there was no evidence that he would stick in the NHL full time, playing 22 games total in 3 seasons.

Where exactly are points of commonality here?
Once again, you seem to be misinterpreting my argument.

My argument is not Roy, Belfour, and Giguere got X, therefore Luongo will get X.

My argument has always been: the goalie market is low, therefore expecting Luongo to yield a return of substantial assets is delusional.

----------

It seems like you guys seem to change the parameters of the argument whenever you choose to do so. I was asked to give comparable skilled goalies that have been traded, I provided it. Then this was dismissed because of the 'cap' which wasn't even substantiated. I then provided a list of goalies traded since the lockout, this has been dismissed because they are 'not number one goalies' or other reasons.

One thing has remained consistent, which has always been my argument, is that getting substantial assets in return for goaltenders has been rare, whether they are skilled or not, or whether there is a cap or not.

Just because there is no carbon copy comparable (which is a ****ing ridiculous thing to even ask for) does not mean this negates the overarching trend of low trade markets for goalies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 14s incisor View Post
I thought you were referring to his 2002 trade, since I didn't think anyone in their right mind would use the return from a trade that happened in 1997 as a comparable to what one would expect in 2012. Khabibulin was also traded 11 years ago—nothing has changed at all in 11 years...
Is there really much of a difference between a trade from 2002 and 1997? Honestly, there is really no difference.

Quote:
This is great news for Brian Burke. Someone let him know he can use Joe Thornton's return as a comparable to what he has to offer up for a #1 centre, or better yet Gretzky's.
See above for the logical failure.

Quote:
On Bertuzzi: Yes, searching HF boards is a great way to gauge what Bertuzzi's value was to other NHL GM's when he was traded Wow. I expected better.

Bertuzzi proved he wasn't "damaged goods" with the season he had after the Moore incident. He had issues, and may have been a risk (as all trade acquisitions are), but he was still a proven producer, and far from "damaged goods" at the time of the trade.
Go search beat reporters and news articles then for all I care. To suggest there wasn't a huge proportion of people who regarded Bertuzzi as damaged goods before, during, or after the trade is completely fabricated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by schism View Post
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I'd like to know now before continuing to reply to you.
Then don't reply? I couldn't care less, its not like you are adding anything to the discussion and I don't have anyone else to reply to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Spare me. The only reason you are discarding these CBA developments is because they don't suit your argument. A well reasoned discussion would factor in past events with current ones.
Current events are something tangible. Negotiations that are presented by the media that do not have direct access to the information is not tangible.

To even suggest that including in future assumptions not based in fact into a model for study is completely against scholarly norms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I understand your argument, and have addressed it. But why do you refuse to address mine? The fact is that Luongo's contract has _already_ helped the team where it otherwise would not have.
Fair enough, whatever.

Quote:
Does the pleasure of negotiating the contract make the contract itself a negative? It's the efficiency of the deal itself that is in question here, not the opportunity to negotiate it.
The inability to negotiate a contract with you own philosophy on term and price is detrimental yes.

Quote:
They may not, I understand. You are talking about a subjective inference of the thoughts of other GMs. I'm talking about the numbers themselves. When you come down to it, the statistical efficiency is something that is a benefit to all rich teams that spend to the cap. The type of team TO is, just like VAN.
Well, I haven't seen Burke sign a single one of these contracts. Quite the opposite in fact, his two major extensions lately have been Grabs and JVR, who both received stable yearly amounts.

There is a split of philosophy among GMs regarding these types of contracts; some see the benefit, some do not. The presence of whether your team spends to the cap or not on the whole does not effect this. Montreal and Toronto are both examples of this philosophical split. But this is off-topic.

Quote:
This is a great point, and I think your best in the case you are making. However, isn't it risk + asset vs risk + cost? Every asset has a corresponding cost, what we are arguing here is _only_ the risk involved in the contract. That's it.

Now, let's apply this to VAN's mindset: you say they took on risk by signing him to such a deal. My answer to this is that every signing assumes risk. By comparison, VAN's risk may be greater due to the length of the deal - but that risk has built in "outs" so as to mitigate worst case situations. For instance, the 3 year trade window or the internal agreement to retire early or the NTC and no NMC. These factors mitigate risk in a way that reduce its impact on the team. So is this contract unduly "risky" based on that premise? I would say no.
I actually don't think the risk was very high for Vancouver, just to clarify. There is always risk with long-term contracts, but for reasons you stated and including the fact that the Canucks had first hand knowledge of Luongo's game, mentality and how he fit into the club are other reasons why the risk was not high for them.

However, this risk increases when you take the perspective of another GM. Another team has no personal experience with a player besides secondary sources; they don't know much about him. This makes it difficult to see a positive cost-benefit ratio when making a trade for a long-term contract, unless the assets it costs to trade for that player are low.

Quote:
Really, this potential deal is no different than other deals, except that the interpretation of the contract is mixed for fans. GMs though should be able to recognize its strength, just as Bettman has when trying to close the BDC loophole.
But it's strength really isn't that relevant to the other team. To acquire a top end goalie, you will have to already allocate X amount of cap space; the fact that Luongo's contract maybe shaves off X amount of dollars really has no bearing on their decision-making process. From an outsider's perspective, Luongo has X amount of dollars per year they need to pay him all the way through the whole decade. That is the bottom-line, and that is what makes this disparity in particular to Luongo so high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
You can eliminate a lot of those because they either weren't really legitimate starting goalies or they weren't under contract. And of course you're missing some that go against your argument (first Vokoun trade) and misrepresenting others. Toskala wasn't traded for "some draft picks"; he was traded for the 13th overall, two 2nd round picks, and a 4th.
The format of the website that I attained the information was atrocious, it was a painful process to get all those trades. It was not my intention to skew the results in any favour whatsoever.

Quote:
I'd say all of these produced fairly good returns, espeically since no salary was taken back in return for most of them. Not surprisingly, they represent pretty much all of the times a legitimate starting goalie was traded post lockout:

Varlamov -> 1st + a 2nd
Halak (RFA) -> Eller and Schultz
Toskala -> 1st, two 2nds, a 4th, and Bell
Vokoun -> 1st + two 2nds
Luongo -> Bertuzzi, Allen, and Auld
Roloson (pending UFA) -> 1st and a 3rd


The Lethonen trade is probably the only one on your list where a bona fide starter garnered a paltry return.
Now we come back to the reason I initially made my posts in the first place. Garnering some draft picks and maybe a prospect is not the return that is portrayed by the majority of posters I have seen in this thread. In particular, I have seen a number of proposals that include players like Gardiner, Kessel, JVR, 1st, and even combinations of these. These types of players or packages are substantial returns.

I have no problem stating that Luongo could yield multiple draft picks and a mid-range prospect. Or maybe one upper-tier prospect. O maybe even an average roster player. This is the going rate for goalies and is perfectly in line with what I have been presenting in this thread.

However, I have a hard time believing he will yield a serious roster player, or a combination of young proven prospects and draft picks unless there is some assets going the other way alongside Luongo.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:22 PM
  #180
14s incisor
Registered User
 
14s incisor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post

Is there really much of a difference between a trade from 2002 and 1997? Honestly, there is really no difference.

Yes, there is. A lot can happen in the trade market in 5 years. Both 1997 and 2002 are too far in the past to have any bearing on what to expect in a trade in 2012.

Like I said in my last post, should someone start using the Thornton and Gretzky trades to base what a #1 centre would cost now. Absolutely not.

14s incisor is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:24 PM
  #181
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,519
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
We could've had JVR for Luongo if we wanted him. Burke offered Luongo for Schenn, which we obviously could've flipped to Philly for JVR.

CCF23 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:27 PM
  #182
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14s incisor View Post
Yes, there is. A lot can happen in the trade market in 5 years. Both 1997 and 2002 are too far in the past to have any bearing on what to expect in a trade in 2012.

Like I said in my last post, should someone start using the Thornton and Gretzky trades to base what a #1 centre would cost now. Absolutely not.
Well, like I replied before; that would be a fallacious argument. It is not analogous whatsoever.

I mean I could post a list of the goalies traded in the last 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years; the results will be the same (I have checked), returns for goaltenders have been extremely low.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:32 PM
  #183
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
Oh man that Montreal trade for Gomez... yikes.
Desperate GM's do desperate things...

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:33 PM
  #184
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,405
vCash: 500
oops nvm

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:34 PM
  #185
SunshineRays
Registered User
 
SunshineRays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
You keep parroting this, except you have not even proven it to be true. Your only retort has been 'you know nothing about markets.'
Again. My retort is in the last multiple posts. How many ways can I say the same thing over again?

Quote:
You realize this is what is done in virtually any study conducted right?
So now you're conducting a study? This is interesting. You're rebuttals are interesting.


Quote:
I understand them perfectly fine. Once again, you are not even arguing the premises. You don't even seem to understand what surplus of labour is.

I never said 'goalies like Luongo are not a rare commodity.' I also went on to state why there is no 'long' list of top goalies being traded which of course you never responded to.

Your position is basically this: Provide me with a list of comparable goalies to Luongo. Oh, BTW, you can't use X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, for [unsubstantiated reasons].

You want a list of goalies traded in the last decade to see how the goalie market is weak?
Again. Refer to my previous posts why the goalies you mentioned are not comparable.

SunshineRays is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:36 PM
  #186
14s incisor
Registered User
 
14s incisor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Well, like I replied before; that would be a fallacious argument. It is not analogous whatsoever.

I mean I could post a list of the goalies traded in the last 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years; the results will be the same (I have checked), returns for goaltenders have been extremely low.
But there have been no goalies as good as Luongo traded, or even available, in the last 10 years. So none of your examples are analogous either.

Not all the returns for goalies have been that low either. Someone already gave a list of examples earlier (Varlamov, Toskala, etc). None of the goalies were even close to Luongo's level, and several garnered high picks and prospects.

14s incisor is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:39 PM
  #187
Gutchecktime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
Lupul, Gunnarsson, Frattin

Phaneuf, Kulemin, Colborne

Kessel

Gardiner, Kadri, Frattin

1st, Kulemin, Frattin, Bozak, Colborne (This is the absolute limit of "quantity")

These are the sorts of trades I'd want from Toronto. You're either giving up a good asset, an alright asset and a lesser young player, or a star player, or most frequently, far more then the actual value may hold because each individual piece isn't of significant interest to Vancouver.
None of these are at all realistic IMO.

Gutchecktime is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:46 PM
  #188
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Current events are something tangible. Negotiations that are presented by the media that do not have direct access to the information is not tangible.

To even suggest that including in future assumptions not based in fact into a model for study is completely against scholarly norms.
Quit pretending to take the high road. Nothing about your position has been "scholarly." The CBA is in a state of flux and you're pretending its not to suit your argument. That is intellectually irresponsible. You're choosing to be unreasonable because you don't want to be wrong.

The responsible "scholarly" position is to admit its too soon assume anything and its also too soon to discount anything.

To do otherwise is to keep pretending its the 2011 off-season. Nothing "scholarly" about that.


Last edited by Wisp: 10-27-2012 at 05:51 PM.
Wisp is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:46 PM
  #189
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,708
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Once again, you seem to be misinterpreting my argument.

My argument is not Roy, Belfour, and Giguere got X, therefore Luongo will get X.

My argument has always been: the goalie market is low, therefore expecting Luongo to yield a return of substantial assets is delusional.
And you've totally dodged my counter: That each and every one of your half assed examples don't cut it, as they all have something HUGE wrong with the situations for the seller. Like publicly declining an offer to resign, or with cameras on, confronting the president of a club to be moved, or not signing for over a year to prove a point, or not playing more then 40 games in 2 years. You are simply dodging any evidence that resists your predetermined conclusion.


Last edited by Cogburn: 10-27-2012 at 05:53 PM.
Cogburn is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:48 PM
  #190
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunshineRays View Post
Again. My retort is in the last multiple posts. How many ways can I say the same thing over again?



So now you're conducting a study? This is interesting. You're rebuttals are interesting.




Again. Refer to my previous posts why the goalies you mentioned are not comparable.
What was the point of this post exactly? Nothing in your previous points offered any sufficient rebuttal. That is why I continued replying...

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:54 PM
  #191
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
And you've totally dodged my counter: That each and every one of your half assed examples don't cut it, as they all have something HUGE wrong with the situations for the seller. Like publicly declining an offer to resign, or with cameras on, confronting the president of a club to be moved, or not signing for over a year to prove a point, or not playing more then 40 games in 2 years. You are simply dodging any evidence that resists your predetermined conclusion.
And there is nothing wrong with the situation for Vancouver? The fact that they have made this process painfully obvious and Luongo has a contract until he is 43 despite losing his starting role to a rookie at 33.

None of you, not one single person, have provided a SINGLE trade that has garnered significant roster players for a goaltender (unless you want to continue to hammer the previous Luongo trade). Yet, you seem to claim that this is perfectly in line with what Luongo may or may not receive.

The simple fact of the matter that 4 different people have tried to nitpick details about the 25 examples (and 4 comparable skill level examples) I provided without providing any evidence of their own makes this abundantly clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Quit pretending to take the high road. Nothing about your position has been "scholarly." We are in a state of flux and you're pretending we're not to suit your argument. That is intellectually irresponsible. You're choosing to be unreasonable because you don't want to be wrong.
I am petrified of being wrong on hfboards.

Please. The fact that you actually think taking assumptions based in no reality is a legitimate discourse is hilarious.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:58 PM
  #192
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
I am petrified of being wrong on hfboards.

Please. The fact that you actually think taking assumptions based in no reality is a legitimate discourse is hilarious.
Your argument isn't based on reality. The reality is there's no CBA right now and the new one will be different. Your "reality" doesn't exist anymore and won't exist ever again.

Thanks for playing.

Wisp is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 06:02 PM
  #193
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Your argument isn't based on reality. The reality is there's no CBA right now and the new one will be different. Your "reality" doesn't exist anymore and won't ever exist ever again.

Thanks for playing.
Game is not over yet.

Now you can go back through my posts and quote where I made assumptions based on anything that is subject to change.

I mean, this whole thread between you and I started because someone else made assumptions based on theoretical assumptions, not I.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 06:05 PM
  #194
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,828
vCash: 500
Furthermore, if you're going to structure your argument on the assumption the next CBA will be the same as the current one, you must also be willing to entertain the other possibilities and consider their likelihood.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle said that. Y'know, an actual scholar. Which buddahsmoka1 is not.


Last edited by Wisp: 10-27-2012 at 06:14 PM.
Wisp is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 06:08 PM
  #195
14s incisor
Registered User
 
14s incisor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
And there is nothing wrong with the situation for Vancouver? The fact that they have made this process painfully obvious and Luongo has a contract until he is 43 despite losing his starting role to a rookie at 33.

None of you, not one single person, have provided a SINGLE trade that has garnered significant roster players for a goaltender (unless you want to continue to hammer the previous Luongo trade). Yet, you seem to claim that this is perfectly in line with what Luongo may or may not receive.

The simple fact of the matter that 4 different people have tried to nitpick details about the 25 examples (and 4 comparable skill level examples) I provided without providing any evidence of their own makes this abundantly clear.



I am petrified of being wrong on hfboards.

Please. The fact that you actually think taking assumptions based in no reality is a legitimate discourse is hilarious.
Again, this is because there are no examples of a goalie of Luongo's calibre being available in the recent past.

Roy is the only one you've suggested who was comparable when he was traded, and it was under different circumstances, and it was 16 years ago, and has no bearing on what that calibre of gt would go for in today's market.

14s incisor is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 06:10 PM
  #196
SunshineRays
Registered User
 
SunshineRays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
What was the point of this post exactly? Nothing in your previous points offered any sufficient rebuttal. That is why I continued replying...
I feel like I'm feeding the board troll.

SunshineRays is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 06:11 PM
  #197
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,708
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Varlamov -> 1st + a 2nd
Halak (RFA) -> Eller and Schultz
Toskala -> 1st, two 2nds, a 4th, and Bell
Vokoun -> 1st + two 2nds
Luongo -> Bertuzzi, Allen, and Auld
Roloson (pending UFA) -> 1st and a 3rd


The Lethonen trade is probably the only one on your list where a bona fide starter garnered a paltry return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
And there is nothing wrong with the situation for Vancouver? The fact that they have made this process painfully obvious and Luongo has a contract until he is 43 despite losing his starting role to a rookie at 33.
The only problem we have is 2 goalies, one of them being 7 years younger and signed to a lower cap hit. Most of us see the contract as an asset more then a liability. Its in the best interest to move one, either one, but keeping both is perfectly viable. It has worked 3 years running after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
None of you, not one single person, have provided a SINGLE trade that has garnered significant roster players for a goaltender (unless you want to continue to hammer the previous Luongo trade). Yet, you seem to claim that this is perfectly in line with what Luongo may or may not receive.
Immediately above your post. Not significant roster improvements, but none are top 10 goalies either. Those are better examples then your 4 because they are more recent, and in most of them, the situations are a lot closer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
The simple fact of the matter that 4 different people have tried to nitpick details about the 25 examples (and 4 comparable skill level examples) I provided without providing any evidence of their own makes this abundantly clear.
I put a list together in one of the closed Luongo threads on the main boards, number 6 or 7. Dig it up, I've contributed, and you're closedmindedly telling us we're wrong just throwing random information at us. Point blank, the problem with EVERY EXAMPLE YOU LIST is that there is a clear cut "he must go for what we can get" mentality from the seller, and every other trade doesn't have a player of Luongo's abilities or track record going one way or another. That's like me posting that there is no market for wingers because of the Cammalleri and Blake trades, and listing only 4th line grinders and goons as supporting evidence.

Cogburn is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 06:12 PM
  #198
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Game is not over yet.

Now you can go back through my posts and quote where I made assumptions based on anything that is subject to change.

I mean, this whole thread between you and I started because someone else made assumptions based on theoretical assumptions, not I.
This thread between you and I started because I didn't like you were dismissing the arguments of others out of hand. Especially when your position was built on the same patch of quick sand as theirs.

Wisp is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 06:14 PM
  #199
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Fair enough, whatever.

Nice. Can I take it that you agree with me on this point?



Quote:
The inability to negotiate a contract with you own philosophy on term and price is detrimental yes.

By this same token, is _every_ potential trade asset devalued by this same detriment? If so, then this is not unique to Luongo. If not, then this particular point has no bearing on the situation at hand.



Quote:
Well, I haven't seen Burke sign a single one of these contracts. Quite the opposite in fact, his two major extensions lately have been Grabs and JVR, who both received stable yearly amounts.

There is a split of philosophy among GMs regarding these types of contracts; some see the benefit, some do not. The presence of whether your team spends to the cap or not on the whole does not effect this. Montreal and Toronto are both examples of this philosophical split. But this is off-topic.

Are the teams that fall on the side of seeing this contract as a benefit wrong in your opinion?


Burke hasn't signed a player to this type of a contract, yet by reports, he is interested in the player signed to such a deal. What does this say about his philosophy?


You said some teams see the benefits, as per their issuing of such deals, and other teams don't. Why then is Bettman choosing to close BDCs and effectively punish those teams that see a benefit in them?


Spending to the cap absolutely affects this. The teams that do, are looking for any edge to further supplement the rest of their roster, so as to maximize the value of the team overall. Lu's contract provides a team with that advantage.



Quote:
I actually don't think the risk was very high for Vancouver, just to clarify. There is always risk with long-term contracts, but for reasons you stated and including the fact that the Canucks had first hand knowledge of Luongo's game, mentality and how he fit into the club are other reasons why the risk was not high for them.

However, this risk increases when you take the perspective of another GM. Another team has no personal experience with a player besides secondary sources; they don't know much about him. This makes it difficult to see a positive cost-benefit ratio when making a trade for a long-term contract, unless the assets it costs to trade for that player are low.


To help the positive cost-benefit ratio:


In the general sense: Other GMs can estimate his attitude/work ethic/etc by tracking what he has already done. It's no different than acquiring another player on a long-term deal --> You have to do your homework. The fact that Lu's deal is longer than other long term deals just means that the due diligence has to be that much more important. The process doesn't change.


In the specific sense: Nonis + Luongo + Vancouver = Personal Experience.



Quote:
But it's strength really isn't that relevant to the other team. To acquire a top end goalie, you will have to already allocate X amount of cap space; the fact that Luongo's contract maybe shaves off X amount of dollars really has no bearing on their decision-making process. From an outsider's perspective, Luongo has X amount of dollars per year they need to pay him all the way through the whole decade. That is the bottom-line, and that is what makes this disparity in particular to Luongo so high.


X amount of cap space =/= Y amount of cap space (Luongo). These things are not equal. No GM is having to allocate the "standard" amount of cap space in this specific scenario. Meaning, if this was an average allocation of cap space across the board, Gillis-Gilman would have no reason to shape the contract the way that they had. They did, so it is not.



Are you referring to real dollars? If so, Roberto gets paid 6.714m for the next 6 years, when he turns 38. Prior to getting this deal, he was making 6.75m per year for 4 yrs. So not only has his actual salary gone down in the face of the inflation of other salaries (Bryz), it is lower than he was previously being paid as well. How could _any_ GM expect to get him at lower dollars than this?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 06:24 PM
  #200
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14s incisor View Post
Again, this is because there are no examples of a goalie of Luongo's calibre being available in the recent past.
I'd add, who is also great with staying, and very welcome on the team for as long as it takes to send him to a good home... No need to marry Luongo off to the only undesirable man currently available in the village (or group of undesirable men), for one goat (or whatever scraps of animals they are prepared to dump in return for his hand)... Luongo's a princess... He deserves better...

Over the years, how many examples are there of star goaltenders (1) being available, (2) not being forced to move, and (3) being good with staying put?

The trump card in all of this is that Luongo doesn't need to move... It's a unique situation, and one that I imagine is difficult for outsiders to understand... Of course, they will reply that Luongo is just saying that, Canucks can't afford that, etc... because it's how the world can continue making sense to them...

Luongo feels it's best for a new start, in a situation equal to or better than his Vancouver situation (which is difficult to find, IMO)... It's a team full of friends, in a city he really likes, who are competitive for the cup... Florida is the only better choice right now (for family reasons, albeit, Florida doesn't need a #1 right now either, and are probably farther away from a cup)... Other than Florida, Vancouver is still a good choice to play in... until a better than Vancouver or Florida situation presents itself (unless, Florida opens up and needs Luongo very much, ASAP... or Vancouver opens up and needs Luongo very much, ASAP - making Luongo no longer available)...

It's not only what price other teams are prepared to pay, to get Luongo... It's also what price other teams are prepared to pay, to convince Gillis it's time to trade Luongo... That's the reality of the market... Luongo doesn't need to be traded...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 10-27-2012 at 06:35 PM.
I in the Eye 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 05:38 AM.

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.