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.

The All Purpose Lu Thread (MOD WARNING IN OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2012, 08:14 AM
  #576
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderTwinsUnite View Post
Lupul.
Not Raymond....lol.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 08:17 AM
  #577
gabeliscious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,063
vCash: 500
could someone please explain to me a little about vancouvers cap situation.

people on here and gillis as well seem to keep repeating that if an agreement cant be made where something of significant value is offered for luongo then vancouver is content to keep both luongo and schneider.

luongo's cap hit is $5.3 million and schneider's is $4 million.

according to cap geek, the cap hit for next season is going to be $70 million. for arguments sake lets say that it is. (i dont think it will be higher, from the sounds of things it could possibly be lower)

luongo + schneider = $9.3 million

sedin x 2 = 12.2
kesler = 5.4
booth = 4.25
burrows = 4.5
hansen = 1.35
kassian = 0.87

bieksa = 4.6
garrison = 4.6
hamhuis = 4.5
ballard =4.2

with the above players signed it is a total of apx. $57.57 committed to the cap with gillis needing to sign 5 forwards and 2 defenseman. assuming that the cap hit is in fact $70 million it would give you apx. $12.5 million to sign the remaining 7 players.

if your lineup is something like;

sedin (6.1) sedin (6.1) burrows (4.5)
booth (4.25) kesler (5.4) xxxxxx
kassian (0.87) xxxxxxx hansen (1.35)
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

bieksa (4.6) hamhuis (4.6)
garrison (4.6) xxxxxxx
ballard (4.2) xxxxxxx

schneider (4)
luongo (5.3)

i cant imagine you guys would let edler walk away. i thought he was a very decent defenseman? if he was making $3.25 million on his expiring contract id think it would cost at least $4 million to keep him assuming he signs for that. you will obviously resign tanev as well. assuming his cap hit stays the same at $0.9 your at $7.6 million to sign 5 forwards. on the budget side it could cost $2.5 million for a 4th line leaving around $ 5 million for a second line winger and a 3rd line center. it obviously possible to make it work but things will be VERY tight under the cap.

i guess my question is how is luongo not considered a cap dump? its not like he would be the first quality player to get moved for poor value in order to redistribute cap space?

hypothetically, would vancouver not be better off trying to force a team to take both luongo and ballard and take a lesser return in exchange for the cap space.

gabeliscious is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 08:54 AM
  #578
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 14,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabeliscious View Post
could someone please explain to me a little about vancouvers cap situation.

people on here and gillis as well seem to keep repeating that if an agreement cant be made where something of significant value is offered for luongo then vancouver is content to keep both luongo and schneider.

luongo's cap hit is $5.3 million and schneider's is $4 million.

according to cap geek, the cap hit for next season is going to be $70 million. for arguments sake lets say that it is. (i dont think it will be higher, from the sounds of things it could possibly be lower)

luongo + schneider = $9.3 million

sedin x 2 = 12.2
kesler = 5.4
booth = 4.25
burrows = 4.5
hansen = 1.35
kassian = 0.87

bieksa = 4.6
garrison = 4.6
hamhuis = 4.5
ballard =4.2

with the above players signed it is a total of apx. $57.57 committed to the cap with gillis needing to sign 5 forwards and 2 defenseman. assuming that the cap hit is in fact $70 million it would give you apx. $12.5 million to sign the remaining 7 players.

if your lineup is something like;

sedin (6.1) sedin (6.1) burrows (4.5)
booth (4.25) kesler (5.4) xxxxxx
kassian (0.87) xxxxxxx hansen (1.35)
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

bieksa (4.6) hamhuis (4.6)
garrison (4.6) xxxxxxx
ballard (4.2) xxxxxxx

schneider (4)
luongo (5.3)

i cant imagine you guys would let edler walk away. i thought he was a very decent defenseman? if he was making $3.25 million on his expiring contract id think it would cost at least $4 million to keep him assuming he signs for that. you will obviously resign tanev as well. assuming his cap hit stays the same at $0.9 your at $7.6 million to sign 5 forwards. on the budget side it could cost $2.5 million for a 4th line leaving around $ 5 million for a second line winger and a 3rd line center. it obviously possible to make it work but things will be VERY tight under the cap.

i guess my question is how is luongo not considered a cap dump? its not like he would be the first quality player to get moved for poor value in order to redistribute cap space?

hypothetically, would vancouver not be better off trying to force a team to take both luongo and ballard and take a lesser return in exchange for the cap space.



Luongo is not a cap dump for a few reasons:


1. They can run with both goalies this year with 2.4m cap space under the current salary cap.

2. Next year, if and when the cap drops, the inflated contracts will be dealt first to get under. That's Ballard. Mixed with expiring contracts of Malhotra and Raymond.

3. On his own, Luongo is not a cap dump because many view his contract to be excellent, not an albatross. One of these people is Gillis.

4. Luongo's ability alone keeps him from becoming a cap dump. The calibre of player offsets him even having to share the crease.


There's a few reasons right there why he shouldn't be viewed as a dump, despite people making arguments otherwise.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:06 AM
  #579
WonderTwinsUnite
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Delta, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Not Raymond....lol.
Fine...

WonderTwinsUnite is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:23 AM
  #580
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabeliscious View Post
i guess my question is how is luongo not considered a cap dump? its not like he would be the first quality player to get moved for poor value in order to redistribute cap space?
Well, I would say that in order to be a cap dump a player would need to:

A) Be shopped due to imminent cap implications for his team
B) Not garner much interest around the league

While it's impossible to know exactly what the behind-the-scenes reality is at this point, many fans believe that Luongo is not currently a cap dump because Vancouver can fit him under the cap next year, and there's been interest reported from multiple teams. Really though it just comes down to confirmation bias arising from different perspectives.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:26 AM
  #581
The Podium
Formerly chrisx101
 
The Podium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,029
vCash: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
I posed this question a few threads back, but...

If the leafs had Luongo and Schneider, and the Canucks biggest weakness was goaltending,
- What package would you give up as a Canucks fan for Luongo?


Obviously a hypothetical, but just an interesting way to look at his perceived value.
Kassian or Hansen + late 1st is what id want as a Leaf fan if i was dealing Lou

The Podium is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:38 AM
  #582
doorman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Thunder Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
I posed this question a few threads back, but...

If the leafs had Luongo and Schneider, and the Canucks biggest weakness was goaltending,
- What package would you give up as a Canucks fan for Luongo?


Obviously a hypothetical, but just an interesting way to look at his perceived value.
Ok, I am gonna try to explain it this way. I have never debated Loungo's value as a player, or to the Leafs. The reason I have said I would obtain him at the right price for the Leafs is where we are as an organization. This will make some roll there eyes and that's fine. If he were the final piece I would be willing as an armchair GM to pay more. Though it would still be my job to attempt to aquire the said asset for less. Questin, If the rolls were reversed as to where said assets were do you still have your same core? As that would change how badly you may wanna aquire/pay for said asset. I guess what I am saying is there have been deals on here i said i could live with and some I don't like. This is because as an organization that is finally aquiring some promising youth, and has some good pieces. It can't all be traded again for a player that isn't the final piece, IMO. That doesn't make me right or wrong.

Also, if he were in Toronto already, said players would for the most part be devalued by other fan bases. Point and case Kessel and Phaneuf, on the other board I used to go to, as a leaf fan we were always told we couldn't aquire these players with our garbage. More so directed at Phaneuf then Kessel for picks, but then Phaneuf dawns to Leaf jersey and most turn around and say over rated, etc. So it depends on how we percieve value as well, right?

doorman is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:01 AM
  #583
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorman View Post
Ok, I am gonna try to explain it this way. I have never debated Loungo's value as a player, or to the Leafs. The reason I have said I would obtain him at the right price for the Leafs is where we are as an organization. This will make some roll there eyes and that's fine. If he were the final piece I would be willing as an armchair GM to pay more. Though it would still be my job to attempt to aquire the said asset for less. Questin, If the rolls were reversed as to where said assets were do you still have your same core? As that would change how badly you may wanna aquire/pay for said asset. I guess what I am saying is there have been deals on here i said i could live with and some I don't like. This is because as an organization that is finally aquiring some promising youth, and has some good pieces. It can't all be traded again for a player that isn't the final piece, IMO. That doesn't make me right or wrong.

Also, if he were in Toronto already, said players would for the most part be devalued by other fan bases. Point and case Kessel and Phaneuf, on the other board I used to go to, as a leaf fan we were always told we couldn't aquire these players with our garbage. More so directed at Phaneuf then Kessel for picks, but then Phaneuf dawns to Leaf jersey and most turn around and say over rated, etc. So it depends on how we percieve value as well, right?
I won't argue, but part of this "building the team to compete" theory must include goaltending. I'll ask you the same question i asked seanlinden (and this isn't a proposal), where do you honestly see Kadri and Colborne on this team?

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:03 AM
  #584
gabeliscious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Luongo is not a cap dump for a few reasons:


1. They can run with both goalies this year with 2.4m cap space under the current salary cap.

2. Next year, if and when the cap drops, the inflated contracts will be dealt first to get under. That's Ballard. Mixed with expiring contracts of Malhotra and Raymond.

3. On his own, Luongo is not a cap dump because many view his contract to be excellent, not an albatross. One of these people is Gillis.

4. Luongo's ability alone keeps him from becoming a cap dump. The calibre of player offsets him even having to share the crease.


There's a few reasons right there why he shouldn't be viewed as a dump, despite people making arguments otherwise.
i wasnt talking about the cap situation for this year, i was talking about next season. based on cap geek vancouver would have apx. $12.5 million to fill 5 forward spots and 2 defensive spots.

the only bad contract you really have is ballard. would gillis waive him/ send him to the ahl? what if the new cba prevents gms from burying their mistakes? it would cost something of value to find a team to take on his contract. i think most would agree his contract could be considered a cap dump.

i guess the reason why i think luongos contract is burdensome is because if he is your starting goalie then you have a $4 million backup. if he is your backup then your have a $5.3 million backup. either way you are paying a premium to fill your goaltending spots which will come at a cost at another position. i dont see how it wont? hypothetically you could have schneider at $4 million and lack at $0.75 and use luongos money to upgrade another position.

anytime money is spent on a player and the player isnt being used i dont see it as good value. no matter how you slice it you can only play one of luongo or schneider at a time. its not even about the term of his contract its the fact that on any given night you are going to have a minimum of $ 4 million worth of player sitting on the bench. that money can make the difference of signing a big name player and not.

i think if you look at it objectively, $5 million spent somewhere other then in net would make vancouver a more legitimate contender. other general managers know this, which gm in the nhl is going to pay a premium for luongo???

why would florida bring in a goalie when they arguably have the best goalie prospect in the world?

why would the jackets bring in luongo? their team is in ruins. the need to bottom out for a few years and draft some top end talent kind of like edmonton. by bringing in luongo it could be the difference of them getting a top 3 pick and a top 10 pick? they obviously are many years away from being decent. the same can be said about edmonton. they are a few years ahead of columubs but they need a lot more then luongo to make them contenders.

chicago and san jose could use luongo. he would probably make the biggest impact on either of these teams but why would vancouver significantly improve 2 of their biggest rivals?

if luongo is moved it makes sense to move him out of conference. if thats the case toronto is obviously the most logical spot based on their goaltending situation. which brings us back to square one, gillis wanting the moon, and burke offering nothing.

gabeliscious is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:22 AM
  #585
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabeliscious View Post
i wasnt talking about the cap situation for this year, i was talking about next season. based on cap geek vancouver would have apx. $12.5 million to fill 5 forward spots and 2 defensive spots.

the only bad contract you really have is ballard. would gillis waive him/ send him to the ahl? what if the new cba prevents gms from burying their mistakes? it would cost something of value to find a team to take on his contract. i think most would agree his contract could be considered a cap dump.

i guess the reason why i think luongos contract is burdensome is because if he is your starting goalie then you have a $4 million backup. if he is your backup then your have a $5.3 million backup. either way you are paying a premium to fill your goaltending spots which will come at a cost at another position. i dont see how it wont? hypothetically you could have schneider at $4 million and lack at $0.75 and use luongos money to upgrade another position.

anytime money is spent on a player and the player isnt being used i dont see it as good value. no matter how you slice it you can only play one of luongo or schneider at a time. its not even about the term of his contract its the fact that on any given night you are going to have a minimum of $ 4 million worth of player sitting on the bench. that money can make the difference of signing a big name player and not.

i think if you look at it objectively, $5 million spent somewhere other then in net would make vancouver a more legitimate contender. other general managers know this, which gm in the nhl is going to pay a premium for luongo???

why would florida bring in a goalie when they arguably have the best goalie prospect in the world?

why would the jackets bring in luongo? their team is in ruins. the need to bottom out for a few years and draft some top end talent kind of like edmonton. by bringing in luongo it could be the difference of them getting a top 3 pick and a top 10 pick? they obviously are many years away from being decent. the same can be said about edmonton. they are a few years ahead of columubs but they need a lot more then luongo to make them contenders.

chicago and san jose could use luongo. he would probably make the biggest impact on either of these teams but why would vancouver significantly improve 2 of their biggest rivals?

if luongo is moved it makes sense to move him out of conference. if thats the case toronto is obviously the most logical spot based on their goaltending situation. which brings us back to square one, gillis wanting the moon, and burke offering nothing.
Goal tending duo's:

Nashville 8.5 mil (Rinne/Mason)
Rangers 8.175 mil (Lundquist/Biron)
Boston 9.375 mil (Thomas/Rask/Khudobin)
New York Islanders 7.25 mil (Depietro/Nabokov)

This is just a few, 9.3 is high, but a Luongo/Schnieder duo kinda trumps thes...no?

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:28 AM
  #586
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 7,891
vCash: 500
interesting radio interview with Calgary Flames coach Hartley. He was talking about video and stats. The Flames measure save percentage of each goalie for the first save. This number does not include rebounds.

Luongo had the best save percentage in the league last year. If his team did a better job of clearing ther rebounds, he could have had the league leading save percentage and we might have included him in the Vezina talk.

The ironic thing about this is that he might end up in Toronto who has a defence seemingly unable to clear rebounds. He might not be a good fit for their current roster.

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:29 AM
  #587
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I think that the biggest problem with many of your posts is that you seem to forget Burke and the Leafs operate in results based business. You talk as though Burke has nothing to worry about and can continue to toil away with goaltenders who are not producing. I know that if my boss is telling me I am not performing well I find a way to get my butt in gear. Do you think that Burke is free to remain carefree and just tell his boss, oh well there is next years free agents.
The results of the Leafs business are consistently the best in the entire league, year after year...by a long shot.

eyeball11 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:30 AM
  #588
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
The results of the Leafs business are consistently the best in the entire league, year after year...by a long shot.
Yup, it's the results in the standings that are the problem.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:31 AM
  #589
doorman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Thunder Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I won't argue, but part of this "building the team to compete" theory must include goaltending. I'll ask you the same question i asked seanlinden (and this isn't a proposal), where do you honestly see Kadri and Colborne on this team?
Kadri I am not sure has a place any longer, I partially view that as Wilsons fault. If they can't decide to give him a tried and true shot at the NHl let alone where to play him, it looks bleak. I think he has a ghigh end skill set but needs a chance, if not here then somewhere. Colbourne I always viewd as our replacement for Grabo as #2 centre. He was drafted as a talented project and must be alotted time to develop and sometimes big men take longer. No mater what i don't think then can deal both, for sure not in the same deal as beyond them, there are no real forward prospects that can play centre.

doorman is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:37 AM
  #590
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorman View Post
Kadri I am not sure has a place any longer, I partially view that as Wilsons fault. If they can't decide to give him a tried and true shot at the NHl let alone where to play him, it looks bleak. I think he has a ghigh end skill set but needs a chance, if not here then somewhere. Colbourne I always viewd as our replacement for Grabo as #2 centre. He was drafted as a talented project and must be alotted time to develop and sometimes big men take longer. No mater what i don't think then can deal both, for sure not in the same deal as beyond them, there are no real forward prospects that can play centre.
Ok, i view Kadri the same way. I'm a little less optimistic than you are about Joe (to soft...doesn't seem to show alot of drive) so i actually would deal them both. But we will lean on your evaluation, if Van was interested in Kadri...what else would you add? I will put myself out there and say Kadri,Kuli and a proteted 1st. This is NOT detrimental to the Leafs as Kuli is easily replaced with JVR, the 1st will be at worst 11th and Kadri doesn't have a place here. It is also possible that if guys like Mac are producing well, a 1st can be aquired at the deadline.


Last edited by Liferleafer: 11-15-2012 at 10:44 AM.
Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:53 AM
  #591
doorman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Thunder Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Ok, i view Kadri the same way. I'm a little less optimistic than you are about Joe (to soft...doesn't seem to show alot of drive) so i actually would deal them both. But we will lean on your evaluation, if Van was interested in Kadri...what else would you add? I will put myself out there and say Kadri,Kuli and a proteted 1st. This is NOT detrimental to the Leafs as Kuli is easily replaced with JVR, the 1st will be at worst 11th and Kadri doesn't have a place here. It is also possible that if guys like Mac are producing well, a 1st can be aquired at the deadline.
I would prefer to not deal Kuli, but it isn't a deal breaker and I have agreed with you before on a protected first. I prefer to not deal Kuli not as to i think he is an untouchable, but i love his compete level. This is a guy who when his season drastically dropped production wise still worked his a$$ off every night and plays in the tough places. Do I see him as a perenial 30 goal guy? No, I feel he is a 20+ goal guy. I know there are those that will role there eyes at me cause i always refer to it as the right price, but when you have seen GM after GM mortgage the future I guess you get gun shy. I think from our previous discussions you can appreciate that.

doorman is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:55 AM
  #592
gabeliscious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Goal tending duo's:

Nashville 8.5 mil (Rinne/Mason)
Rangers 8.175 mil (Lundquist/Biron)
Boston 9.375 mil (Thomas/Rask/Khudobin)
New York Islanders 7.25 mil (Depietro/Nabokov)

This is just a few, 9.3 is high, but a Luongo/Schnieder duo kinda trumps thes...no?
after this season all of boston's goalies are ufa/rfa. obviously rask will be resigned and there will be a backup but i would be surprised if the sum of boston's goalies was <$6 million.

biron is a ufa after this season so if the rangers needed the cap space they could realistically not resign him and get someone cheaper. even if they do resign him and i dont see why they wouldnt, they are in better position cap wise having $5 million extra in cap space over vancouver with one less player to have to resign.

after this season nabakov is a ufa so they only have diepietros cap hit of $4.5 million. there is a reasonable chance they resign nabakov but the situation is slightly different in the sense that dipietro has been constantly injured over the past ~5 seasons and can not be relied on to be a starting goalie in the nhl.

mason will be a ufa on nashville after this season as well but assuming they resign him nashville still is in a better position cap wise then vancouver. they have almost twice the cap space as them to fill 2 defensive spots and 4 forwards.

furthermore, all of the examples you mentioned is basically a star, franchise type goalie, and then a moderately paid, veteran backup. i would say out of your examples the norm is for the star to play a minimum of 2/3 of the games and almost all of the playoffs. obviously the islanders and boston are not great examples because thomas' contract will be expired and dipietro is almost always injured and nabakov may or may not be resigned. based on that the "money" is being used on the ice whereas in vancouvers case it is a sort of 1a/1b situation where as no matter what the distribution of games is there will be a significant quantity of money being tied up and not playing.

the other important factor is that every one of the teams you cited have more cap space and less positions to fill. having a high priced backup or a 1b goalie situation is a luxury. if you are going to keep a high priced goalie on the bench it is going to come at a cost somewhere else. i think that cost will prevent vancouver from being a true contender more then getting a less then stellar return for luongo.

gabeliscious is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:59 AM
  #593
gabeliscious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Ok, i view Kadri the same way. I'm a little less optimistic than you are about Joe (to soft...doesn't seem to show alot of drive) so i actually would deal them both. But we will lean on your evaluation, if Van was interested in Kadri...what else would you add? I will put myself out there and say Kadri,Kuli and a proteted 1st. This is NOT detrimental to the Leafs as Kuli is easily replaced with JVR, the 1st will be at worst 11th and Kadri doesn't have a place here. It is also possible that if guys like Mac are producing well, a 1st can be aquired at the deadline.
i would think that kadri, kulemin and a protected 1st would be a no go for the leafs.

i think kulemin, franson, and a 2nd is about as much as i would offer. it would give them 2 players who can play right away and pick. kulemin could play on the second or third line and be an effective player and franson would be a good bottom pairing guy with a good shot on the second pp unit. the 1st is an absolute none starter for me and i would hope burke as well.

gabeliscious is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:03 AM
  #594
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorman View Post
I would prefer to not deal Kuli, but it isn't a deal breaker and I have agreed with you before on a protected first. I prefer to not deal Kuli not as to i think he is an untouchable, but i love his compete level. This is a guy who when his season drastically dropped production wise still worked his a$$ off every night and plays in the tough places. Do I see him as a perenial 30 goal guy? No, I feel he is a 20+ goal guy. I know there are those that will role there eyes at me cause i always refer to it as the right price, but when you have seen GM after GM mortgage the future I guess you get gun shy. I think from our previous discussions you can appreciate that.
I totally agree, but i wouldn't consider my proposal "mortgaging the future", i'd consider it an immediate upgrade both now and in the future. There is zero reason to believe that Luongo won't be a very good starter for another 4-5 years. That takes a pile of pressure off of our D and makes us relevant in the Eastern conference. I totally agree with your assesment of Kuli, love the guy, but if he brings us a legit starter that is way more important than his potential 20 goals. Why? Because a 20 goal winger is a dime a dozen (and as i said, i see JVR as an instant replacement). A true and proven starter is almost impossible to find...and not coincidentally, one of our BIGGEST NEEDS.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:05 AM
  #595
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Yup, it's the results in the standings that are the problem.
For who?

eyeball11 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:06 AM
  #596
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabeliscious View Post
i would think that kadri, kulemin and a protected 1st would be a no go for the leafs.

i think kulemin, franson, and a 2nd is about as much as i would offer. it would give them 2 players who can play right away and pick. kulemin could play on the second or third line and be an effective player and franson would be a good bottom pairing guy with a good shot on the second pp unit. the 1st is an absolute none starter for me and i would hope burke as well.
Lets talk about team needs....we traded Schenn, and you think Kadri holds more value to us than Franson?

Also, it was heavily rumoured (i know, only a rumour...but) that Burke offered Kuli,Komi and a 1st, so i guess Burke isn't thinking like you.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:07 AM
  #597
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
For who?
Oh i get it...we are talking strictly dollars...right? I guess playoff runs don't generate any money.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:18 AM
  #598
gabeliscious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Lets talk about team needs....we traded Schenn, and you think Kadri holds more value to us than Franson?

Also, it was heavily rumoured (i know, only a rumour...but) that Burke offered Kuli,Komi and a 1st, so i guess Burke isn't thinking like you.
leafs defense is something like

phaneuf-gunnarson
liles-komisarek
gardiner-holzer

then there is all of the defensive prospects. is franson a significant upgrade on holzer? im not sure that he is and i like the kid. i also dont think that he will resign in toronto. toronto has not treated him fairly imo and kind of bounced him around a bit. if he wanted to resign i would think it would have been addressed by now seeing as he is the only leaf who has not been resigned.

and yes, i think kadri has >>>>> more value to the leafs then franson. i think very single gm in the nhl would take kadri over franson as well.

youll have to excuse me for not taking a rumour as gospel. its difficult to understand a point when you are taking congecture as the basis of your argument. but for arguments sake lets assume burke did in fact offer kulemin, komisarek, and a 1st, the fact that komisarek is in the proposal is significant seeing as it would basically allow us to convert the money spent on a bottom pairing defenseman into a starting goalie. kulemin in my opinion is a replaceable piece. with kessel, lupul, and jvr there is only one top 6 spot available. i think the leafs could live without him. i also think that kulemin will be a problem to resign once his deal expires in another year. he is getting 2.8 million right now but if he puts up 40-50 points he is going to want over $4 million, maybe more if he tests free agency. at some point he is going to become expensive.

gabeliscious is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:22 AM
  #599
doorman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Thunder Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I totally agree, but i wouldn't consider my proposal "mortgaging the future", i'd consider it an immediate upgrade both now and in the future. There is zero reason to believe that Luongo won't be a very good starter for another 4-5 years. That takes a pile of pressure off of our D and makes us relevant in the Eastern conference. I totally agree with your assesment of Kuli, love the guy, but if he brings us a legit starter that is way more important than his potential 20 goals. Why? Because a 20 goal winger is a dime a dozen (and as i said, i see JVR as an instant replacement). A true and proven starter is almost impossible to find...and not coincidentally, one of our BIGGEST NEEDS.
When I made reference to "mortgaging the future" I was refering more to what i have read Van fans say they would like. I have no issues as said in past with your proposal, just prefer Kuli, and not cause he is a 20+ goal guy, more just that he is a hard worker and WANTS to be a Leaf. My other concern with Lou is I want a guy who WANTS to be here. I don't want a gut that has to be coaxed in the door. I want the guy who says, I can't play in To, F U i am gonna show you@!!!

doorman is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:34 AM
  #600
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabeliscious View Post
leafs defense is something like

phaneuf-gunnarson
liles-komisarek
gardiner-holzer

then there is all of the defensive prospects. is franson a significant upgrade on holzer? im not sure that he is and i like the kid. i also dont think that he will resign in toronto. toronto has not treated him fairly imo and kind of bounced him around a bit. if he wanted to resign i would think it would have been addressed by now seeing as he is the only leaf who has not been resigned.

and yes, i think kadri has >>>>> more value to the leafs then franson. i think very single gm in the nhl would take kadri over franson as well.

youll have to excuse me for not taking a rumour as gospel. its difficult to understand a point when you are taking congecture as the basis of your argument. but for arguments sake lets assume burke did in fact offer kulemin, komisarek, and a 1st, the fact that komisarek is in the proposal is significant seeing as it would basically allow us to convert the money spent on a bottom pairing defenseman into a starting goalie. kulemin in my opinion is a replaceable piece. with kessel, lupul, and jvr there is only one top 6 spot available. i think the leafs could live without him. i also think that kulemin will be a problem to resign once his deal expires in another year. he is getting 2.8 million right now but if he puts up 40-50 points he is going to want over $4 million, maybe more if he tests free agency. at some point he is going to become expensive.
You might think i'm being a dick...i'm not, that D is horrible. Komi was scratched a good portion last year and you want him 2nd pair? Holzer has nil for NHL experience and what happens if there is an injury? The only thing that helps your scenario is Paul Ranger.

I see Kadri at best, a 2nd liner, more of a 3rd liner....we have gobs of those. He is easily moveable...just my opinion.

Liferleafer 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 02:38 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.