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 thread continued...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 03:32 PM
  #551
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intense Rage View Post
I think Palindrom is a Canucks/Habs fan who from what I have gathered has argued against having a lot of money tied up in goaltending. He has also advocated trading Price for filling a need on the Habs roster and going with a cheap serviceable goaltender.

It's a unique position but you cannot say that it is wrong. If anything teams have proven (post lockout) that you can win without expensive goaltending.


It's wrong because he dismisses the other position. That is why it's fundamentally incorrect at its root. Teams have won with strong goaltending, and with inexpensive/weaker goaltending. He pushes one methodology while condemning the other = wrong. There's no balance in his "analysis".

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:33 PM
  #552
sniper81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: toronto
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
IF you had traded that pakcage for Luongo instead of Kessel the picks wouldn't have turned into #2 and #9 overall.

The only problem anyone had with the Kessel trade is that the Leafs were not in a position to be trading away 1sts because they didn't have a good goalie. If they made the exact same trade for Kessel today after having made the trade for a top goalie before, it wouldn't be a problem.

Look at the Varlamov trade...at the time of the trade, the Avs were ripped for trading away a 1st + 2nd for Varlamov because people thought they were going to finish bottom 3 (sound familiar Leaf fans?), the thing is they got a goalie who could play and as a result the deal doesn't look bad now. The gap between Luongo and Varlamov is a 1st round pick or more IMO and the Leafs are in a better position to succeed with Luongo than Colorado is with Varlamov.
What about the ages and contracts of Varlomov and Luongo, shouldn't that be a part of the value?

sniper81 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:33 PM
  #553
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intense Rage View Post
I think Palindrom is a Canucks/Habs fan who from what I have gathered has argued against having a lot of money tied up in goaltending. He has also advocated trading Price for filling a need on the Habs roster and going with a cheap serviceable goaltender.

It's a unique position but you cannot say that it is wrong. If anything teams have proven (post lockout) that you can win without expensive goaltending.
I disagree with most but respect your opinion... well all of them except that Palindrom is a Canucks fan.

Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:34 PM
  #554
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper81 View Post
What about the ages and contracts of Varlomov and Luongo, shouldn't that be a part of the value?
All things aside...i still think the Avs were nuts on that deal.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:39 PM
  #555
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper81 View Post
What about the ages and contracts of Varlomov and Luongo, shouldn't that be a part of the value?

Ages yes. Contracts, no... not if you view the contract as a cap-circumvention deal. Oh, and there's the little thing about Luongo's experience dwarfing that of Varlamov's... That could be worth something.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:39 PM
  #556
sniper81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: toronto
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
All things aside...i still think the Avs were nuts on that deal.
New g.m. Greg Sherman made that trade i believe, wasn't sure what he was thinking.

sniper81 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:41 PM
  #557
sniper81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: toronto
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Ages yes. Contracts, no... not if you view the contract as a cap-circumvention deal. Oh, and there's the little thing about Luongo's experience dwarfing that of Varlamov's... That could be worth something.
So his contract should be viewed as either great or horrible, what if i like the cap hit and hate the term?

sniper81 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:45 PM
  #558
doorman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Thunder Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
And that's the way it should be viewed, from TO's side. Not this "impacted by an albatross contract" false roadblock that keeps surfacing. As soon as more TO fans start to realize this POV, the agreements will soon follow.









His contract, doorman, is one of the best contracts in the league IMO. That's how apart we are in our valuations. His contract is so good to me that had there not been this stink about BDCs that Bettman is now pushing, I would want Gillis to continually sign his elite players to such a deal. That's how good it is to me. Built in outs and a handshake agreement is all the security I would need to feel comfortable with the length. Lu's contract has that, which is why I view it with such favour.



The only downside to Luongo as an asset is age, and I have expressed as such. Compared to say Nash, he should garner less due to age alone. So when you say we should expect less, I do, but how much less is the question. What is 6 years worth?
I guespending the next CBA we will see if these contracts are still good, though I don't see them being allowed. I admit I do not know all the out clauses, But I never said Albatross, I just said not perfect. And this i mean more from a trade standpoint, as some owners will balk at paying a guy nearly 7mil, even if the cap hit is 5.33. The reverse will eventuall take place, but just to sorta explain where I am coming from, when I say not perfect.

doorman is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:45 PM
  #559
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intense Rage View Post
I think Palindrom is a Canucks/Habs fan who from what I have gathered has argued against having a lot of money tied up in goaltending. He has also advocated trading Price for filling a need on the Habs roster and going with a cheap serviceable goaltender.

It's a unique position but you cannot say that it is wrong. If anything teams have proven (post lockout) that you can win without expensive goaltending.
2000 Devils=Brodeur
2001 Avs=Roy
2002 Wings=Hasek
2003 Devils=Brodeur
2004 Lightning=Khabibulin
2005------lockout-----
2006 Canes=Ward
2007 Ducks=Giguere
2008 Wings=Osgood?
2009 Pens=Fleury
2010 Hawks=Niemi
2011 Bruins=Thomas
2012 Kings=Quick

Off of this whole list, the only teams that didn't have bonified star goaltending would be
the Hawks and maybe the Wings although Osgood was pretty solid.


Last edited by Liferleafer: 11-30-2012 at 03:58 PM.
Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:47 PM
  #560
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper81 View Post
So his contract should be viewed as either great or horrible, what if i like the cap hit and hate the term?


Then you don't understand the contract. The entire point is to take unfair advantage now, while mitigating the loss later given the multiple outs built into the deal. Win-win, not win-loss. Neither side intends to honour it to its extent.


That's the realization the league is getting to, which is why they are outlawing them.


Think about it this way: If the length was the downside, the contract would be balanced overall. Short term gain for long term pain. However, when a team does not intend to suffer the "pain" part of it, they are essentially skirting the system to their benefit. Which is what this is. Which is why Bettman has got his knickers in a bunch about it.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:47 PM
  #561
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper81 View Post
New g.m. Greg Sherman made that trade i believe, wasn't sure what he was thinking.
Same thing with Burke probably, overvaluing the team and thinking they were better than they were.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:48 PM
  #562
doorman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Thunder Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
2000 Devils=Brodeur
2001 Avs=Roy
2002 Wings=Osgood
2003 Devils=Brodeur
2004 Lightning=Khabibulin
2005------lockout-----
2006 Canes=Ward
2007 Ducks=Giguere
2008 Wings=Osgood?
2009 Pens=Fleury
2010 Hawks=Niemi
2011 Bruins=Thomas
2012 Kings=Quick

Off of this whole list, the only teams that didn't have bonified star goaltending would be
the Hawks and maybe the Wings although Osgood was pretty solid.
I don't think Quick nor Ward were stars at the time of their cup wins, IMO.

doorman is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:49 PM
  #563
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorman View Post
I don't think Quick nor Ward were stars at the time of their cup wins, IMO.
Really Quick wasn't one?

Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:50 PM
  #564
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorman View Post
I don't think Quick nor Ward were stars at the time of their cup wins, IMO.
You think either team wins if they don't have Quick or Ward?

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:53 PM
  #565
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorman View Post
I guespending the next CBA we will see if these contracts are still good, though I don't see them being allowed. I admit I do not know all the out clauses, But I never said Albatross, I just said not perfect. And this i mean more from a trade standpoint, as some owners will balk at paying a guy nearly 7mil, even if the cap hit is 5.33. The reverse will eventuall take place, but just to sorta explain where I am coming from, when I say not perfect.


The argument you are trying to make is that Luongo is not worth 7m in real salary. It's different than the one attacking his contract structure. As in, how that 7m is manipulated in a very unique manner.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:55 PM
  #566
Jax Teller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
2000 Devils=Brodeur
2001 Avs=Roy
2002 Wings=Osgood
2003 Devils=Brodeur
2004 Lightning=Khabibulin
2005------lockout-----
2006 Canes=Ward
2007 Ducks=Giguere
2008 Wings=Osgood?
2009 Pens=Fleury
2010 Hawks=Niemi
2011 Bruins=Thomas
2012 Kings=Quick

Off of this whole list, the only teams that didn't have bonified star goaltending would be
the Hawks and maybe the Wings although Osgood was pretty solid.
2002 - Hasek
2008 - Osgood (Hasek back-up)

Jax Teller is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:57 PM
  #567
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnybaby View Post
2002 - Hasek
2008 - Osgood (Hasek back-up)
Thank you...i was going off memory and i couldn't remember the Wings. I'll edit it.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:02 PM
  #568
doorman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Thunder Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
You think either team wins if they don't have Quick or Ward?
I didn't say they wouldn't win and they played lights out. But, Ward was not a star before he won and Quick is close for sure now, I guess I like more then one or two good seasons before a player is a star, it is only my opinion, doesn't make you wrong, or me right.

doorman is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:03 PM
  #569
doorman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Thunder Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The argument you are trying to make is that Luongo is not worth 7m in real salary. It's different than the one attacking his contract structure. As in, how that 7m is manipulated in a very unique manner.
NO I said owners may not like his salary no matter the cap hit.

doorman is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:03 PM
  #570
sniper81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: toronto
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Then you don't understand the contract. The entire point is to take unfair advantage now, while mitigating the loss later given the multiple outs built into the deal. Win-win, not win-loss. Neither side intends to honour it to its extent.


That's the realization the league is getting to, which is why they are outlawing them.


Think about it this way: If the length was the downside, the contract would be balanced overall. Short term gain for long term pain. However, when a team does not intend to suffer the "pain" part of it, they are essentially skirting the system to their benefit. Which is what this is. Which is why Bettman has got his knickers in a bunch about it.
I get the contract pal, thank you for the update though.

sniper81 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:04 PM
  #571
Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
 
Back in 94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Yup, I do recall this one. There are two NFITO posts in particular I'm looking for and they should help set the record straight on palindrom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
It's just sad that of all posters here you would post something like this. A Habs fan that has admitted to being obsessed with Canuck goalies and jumps into every thread about Canuck goalies to keep telling us how awful their values are, while basically everything you've said to support your claims gets proven wrong over and over (ie. Schneider will definitely be traded due to Luongo's contract... Schneider will never re-sign a multiyear deal due to Luongo's contract... Lack won't sign a multiyear deal due to the goalie situation... etc...) Every time something actually happens, it just further proves you wrong.

You, a non-Canucks fan, jumps into every Canuck goalie thread, tells us what their values are, what they would do with their contracts (and then gets proven wrong when they sign contracts you think would never happen), and then continue to tell Canucks fans how you know what their values are, while we're all ignorant and have no clue about our own goalie situations.

And now you actually come here and insult the entire fan base saying that we're not invited into discussions about our own players??

What a joke!
This one?

Back in 94 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:35 PM
  #572
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper81 View Post
What about the ages and contracts of Varlomov and Luongo, shouldn't that be a part of the value?
Yes, but I am someone who puts more stock into years until UFA than age than most.

Varly when traded was threatening to bolt to the KHL and was unsigned...there is a very real possibility that Varly won't be in Colorado while Luongo is still playing well and under the same contract.

DJOpus is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:57 PM
  #573
sniper81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: toronto
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Yes, but I am someone who puts more stock into years until UFA than age than most.

Varly when traded was threatening to bolt to the KHL and was unsigned...there is a very real possibility that Varly won't be in Colorado while Luongo is still playing well and under the same contract.
So we should do the 2013 first 2014 first and second?

sniper81 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:07 PM
  #574
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
palindrom if hate has nothing to do with this then why are you ALWAYS in Canuck goalie threads? Me thinks it has something to do with ill will. You've always had an agenda & its obvious!
Well, Canadien fans call me a Price hater too!

palindrom is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:16 PM
  #575
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
2000 Devils=Brodeur
2001 Avs=Roy
2002 Wings=Hasek
2003 Devils=Brodeur
2004 Lightning=Khabibulin
2005------lockout-----
2006 Canes=Ward
2007 Ducks=Giguere
2008 Wings=Osgood?
2009 Pens=Fleury
2010 Hawks=Niemi
2011 Bruins=Thomas
2012 Kings=Quick

Off of this whole list, the only teams that didn't have bonified star goaltending would be
the Hawks and maybe the Wings although Osgood was pretty solid.
I think you missed my point! Its about the goalie cap hit and it was under the last CBA.

My Cheap goalies strategy is a post-lockout one (2005-2012). Its possible that a new CBA and a different goalie market (supply/demand) change everything. And i will be probably among the first to defends how valuable is an elite, even if high paid, goalie if it happen.

before the lockout when there was no cap hit, the $ a goalie was making didn't had an effect as important. And before 2000 the goalie market was totally different, there was a lot of difference between the elite and the average goalie.

So lets see the post lockout finalist starter cap hit when they won the cup.....

2006: Carolina - Ward (684 000$) / Edmonton - Roloson (1 672 000$)
2007: Anaheim - Giguere (3 990 000$) / Ottawa - Emery (925 000$)
2008: Detroit - Osgood (800 000$) / Pittsburg - Fleury (1 3000 000$)
2009: Pittsburg - Fleury (5 000 000$ / Detroit - Osgood (1 500 000$)
2010: Chicago - Niemi (826 875$) / Philadelphia - Leighton (600 000$)
2011: Thomas (5 000 000$) / Luongo (5 333 333$)
2012: Quick (1 800 000$) / Brodeur (5 200 000$)

9 finalist over 14 had a very cheap paid goalie under 2 000 000$

And even goalie like Thomas was not among the top 10 most paid goalie at the time they won the cup.

And this is only Stanley cup stats, regular season team success also show a negative correlation between the salary invested in goalies and a team success. (And yes Luongo cap hit wasn't that bad compared to some horrible goalie contract, it still not what a team should be looking for.)

Just ask yourselves: would Vancouver had more chance to win the cup in the past 3 years if they didnt had Luongo at all, and Schneider was their starter ? (meaning about a 5 333 333$ forward/defenseman taking the place of Luongo).

I am really curious to see how the new CBA will impact current players value. I will probably make a thread about it.


Last edited by palindrom: 11-30-2012 at 05:37 PM.
palindrom is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16 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.