HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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: the continuing saga ...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-04-2012, 09:18 AM
  #101
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
With the expected cost of Luongo being Bozak + 2nd, I could live with Bozak + Kadri.
Canucks probably add a 3rd, something like that.
Honestly, if the deal is Bozak and Kadri only...it is a landslide win for TO. Van won't be adding.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 09:19 AM
  #102
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
With the expected cost of Luongo being Bozak + 2nd, I could live with Bozak + Kadri.
Canucks probably add a 3rd, something like that.
lol more like Leafs add to Bozak and Kadri.

Sorry to break the news to ya but Luongo has more value than Bobrovski/Lindback/Varlamov even with his contract. Considering Varlamov was threatening the Caps that with going over to the KHL if they didn't meet his salary demands, I'm sure Luongo now has infinite more value than these 3 at the times they were traded

Bobrovsky (worst of the 3 returned a 2nd + 2 4ths) so your telling me the difference of value between Bob and Luongo is less than Bozak? Homerism at its best

While we're giving away elite talent for junk why don't we give u the Sedins and Kesler for Komisarek, Lombardi, Connolly and a 2nd?


Last edited by Ched Brosky: 12-04-2012 at 09:25 AM.
Ched Brosky is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 09:25 AM
  #103
ACC1224
Steelers 1 - 1
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 28,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Honestly, if the deal is Bozak and Kadri only...it is a landslide win for TO. Van won't be adding.
Could be. I'd just expect some kind of bone for letting them out from under that contract espiecially if Kadri is involved.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 09:28 AM
  #104
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
Could be. I'd just expect some kind of bone for letting them out from under that contract espiecially if Kadri is involved.
oh thank goodness the Leafs will save the Canucks from that horrible contract. You know the same contract teams have been giving out to every elite player that has had their contract expire the last couple years? The same type of contract the league is trying to get rid of and fined the Devils for?

I wonder why the league wants to put an end to these contracts and even fined NJ for one? I wonder why teams were rushing to get these contracts done this past off-season instead of avoiding them and waiting for a new CBA so players can't ask for them.

Ched Brosky is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 09:32 AM
  #105
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
Could be. I'd just expect some kind of bone for letting them out from under that contract espiecially if Kadri is involved.
I will lead with the "if" as i don't know what the new CBA brings....but IF they Grandfather his deal....that contract is a gold plated gift for TO. More salary than cap....and a pile of outs after year 5.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 09:39 AM
  #106
ACC1224
Steelers 1 - 1
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 28,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I will lead with the "if" as i don't know what the new CBA brings....but IF they Grandfather his deal....that contract is a gold plated gift for TO. More salary than cap....and a pile of outs after year 5.
Obviously the new CBA can change everything but there still has to be some cost for taking on the dollar commitment.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:02 AM
  #107
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I will lead with the "if" as i don't know what the new CBA brings....but IF they Grandfather his deal....that contract is a gold plated gift for TO. More salary than cap....and a pile of outs after year 5.
Three outs to be precise:

1 - He retires
2 - Send down to the AHL (which likely forces #1)
3 - Trade him to a below cap team (which likely forces #1)

I think he retires for sure after the last big salary year.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:04 AM
  #108
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
Obviously the new CBA can change everything but there still has to be some cost for taking on the dollar commitment.
There is. We do not get an equivalent talent in return (Kessel). That's the cost. So Kadri +++++ is a huge discount.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:05 AM
  #109
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
Three outs to be precise:

1 - He retires
2 - Send down to the AHL (which likely forces #1)
3 - Trade him to a below cap team (which likely forces #1)

I think he retires for sure after the last big salary year.
Well, he'd be 38 i believe and his salary would drop from 6.7...3.8...1.4 (off the top of my head...ballpark numbers). I think retirement would be immenent.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:06 AM
  #110
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
Obviously the new CBA can change everything but there still has to be some cost for taking on the dollar commitment.
The dollar commitment is nothing to a team like TO. For every year Luongo gets us to the playoffs...the revenue generated would pretty much cover his salary.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:07 AM
  #111
ACC1224
Steelers 1 - 1
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 28,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Well, he'd be 38 i believe and his salary would drop from 6.7...3.8...1.4 (off the top of my head...ballpark numbers). I think retirement would be immenent.
and if he doesn't retire?

The only thing that would be in the Leafs control is sending him to the Minors. Which I suppose is doable but hardly desirable.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:08 AM
  #112
ACC1224
Steelers 1 - 1
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 28,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
The dollar commitment is nothing to a team like TO. For every year Luongo gets us to the playoffs...the revenue generated would pretty much cover his salary.
Agreed. It's not taking on the commitment as much as relieving them of the commitment.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:20 AM
  #113
Sypher04
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
Three outs to be precise:

1 - He retires
2 - Send down to the AHL (which likely forces #1)
3 - Trade him to a below cap team (which likely forces #1)

I think he retires for sure after the last big salary year.
1.) And leaves 5+ years of pay on the table? Highly unlikely.
2.) Good chance the new CBA won't allow this option.
3.) Doesn't seem that simple to me. How does his NTC work?

Sypher04 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:26 AM
  #114
sully1410
Registered User
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Turner Valley, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,149
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
Agreed. It's not taking on the commitment as much as relieving them of the commitment.
The Vancouver Canucks wouldn't have signed him to that contract without the the intention of seeing it through. That's why the contract is designed the way it is, to prevent Luongo from sticking around past his best before date.

Your not doing them any favors, so the leafs won't be treated as such. Your getting an elite player at a cap friendly contract, with outs to prevent the team from being burdened by that cap hit. You can say that waiving him is not a good option, but the Rags did it to Redden. You do what's best for the team.

sully1410 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:26 AM
  #115
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
and if he doesn't retire?

The only thing that would be in the Leafs control is sending him to the Minors. Which I suppose is doable but hardly desirable.
Why....you think Jeff Finger or Aucoin or Zigomanis should all be up? It's part of hockey. Unless the new CBA SEVERELY penalizes TO for having his contract....i could care less. Luongo would give us bonified starting goaltending for 5 years.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:28 AM
  #116
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
Agreed. It's not taking on the commitment as much as relieving them of the commitment.
My good man, our need for a goaltender far outweighs their need to rid themselves of one. If the rumoured deal goes through, i will dance naked......and that ain't pretty, but i'd be that happy.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:31 AM
  #117
Beleafer4
Registered User
 
Beleafer4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,738
vCash: 500
Ill give you a breakdown on bozak
Strengths
Skating
Faceoffs
Reading the play (he likes to intercept passes and transition)
Hustle

Medium
Board Battles
Play away from the puck
Offense

Weaknesses
Confidence level
Kind of a wuss
Offensive inconsistency (which stems from confidence level). I.e if he happens to get 1 goal he is almost guaranteed to get a second goal, or at the very least an assist. He will get 7 shots on net and set up many plays. However, in another game he will whiff on 2 open nets.

Honestly if you give him two big wingers, you will probably like him. Cant say for sure because leafs have never had him as their 3C, but in his brief stints there, he impressed me. This again could have been because of confidence level (he feels like the best player and leader on the 3rd line rather than the worst on the first, idk). Anyway, hes certainly not a bad and could definitely mesh with you guys, but he would need big wingers. I stress this because it would greatly help his effectiveness imo.

Beleafer4 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:33 AM
  #118
Sypher04
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
The Vancouver Canucks wouldn't have signed him to that contract without the the intention of seeing it through. That's why the contract is designed the way it is, to prevent Luongo from sticking around past his best before date.

Your not doing them any favors, so the leafs won't be treated as such. Your getting an elite player at a cap friendly contract, with outs to prevent the team from being burdened by that cap hit. You can say that waiving him is not a good option, but the Rags did it to Redden. You do what's best for the team.
Not guarantee at this point that it'll be an option at all.

Sypher04 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:43 AM
  #119
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sypher04 View Post
Not guarantee at this point that it'll be an option at all.
I'll ask you this, the NHL already OK'd the deal, what do you think the legal ramifications are if they now penalize it?

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:50 AM
  #120
Sypher04
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I'll ask you this, the NHL already OK'd the deal, what do you think the legal ramifications are if they now penalize it?
For what it's worth, I was referring to the NHL taking away a club's ability to bury money in the minors.

To answer your question though, I think they could get away with it. NHL contracts are bound to the CBA and subject to change when the CBA changes. It's the same reason why they can legally rollback the dollar figures.

Anything that goes in the inevitable CBA is agreed on by both parties, thus no argument when the previous contract is altered.

Sypher04 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:57 AM
  #121
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sypher04 View Post
For what it's worth, I was referring to the NHL taking away a club's ability to bury money in the minors.

To answer your question though, I think they could get away with it. NHL contracts are bound to the CBA and subject to change when the CBA changes. It's the same reason why they can legally rollback the dollar figures.

Anything that goes in the inevitable CBA is agreed on by both parties, thus no argument when the previous contract is altered.
I've got to think that that would negatively affect to many teams to be agreed upon. I can see them doing it going forward, but can you imagine a team like Philly being on the hook for Carter and Richards? I have a feeling both the owners (or some of them) and the NHLPA (as it would negatively effect alot of careers) would have an issue with this.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:24 AM
  #122
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sypher04 View Post
For what it's worth, I was referring to the NHL taking away a club's ability to bury money in the minors.

To answer your question though, I think they could get away with it. NHL contracts are bound to the CBA and subject to change when the CBA changes. It's the same reason why they can legally rollback the dollar figures.

Anything that goes in the inevitable CBA is agreed on by both parties, thus no argument when the previous contract is altered.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the only thing discussed was having all 1 way contracts count against the cap? This would screw over half the league as most teams have over 30 players under 1 way contracts.

Even if they do that, do you really think Luongo will want to ride the bus for 3M and then 1M instead of taking the millions of dollars he's already made and go back to Florida to his wife? The guy would retire before he ever gets on a bus for the AHL especially if it was for 3M or less. Everyone knows about his pride, you think a man with that much pride would ever subject himself to riding the bus?

Ched Brosky is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:53 AM
  #123
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sypher04 View Post
1.) And leaves 5+ years of pay on the table? Highly unlikely.
2.) Good chance the new CBA won't allow this option.
3.) Doesn't seem that simple to me. How does his NTC work?
1.) This has been explained a million times in these threads but here we go again:

Age 39 2018-19 - 3.382
Age 40 2019-20 - 1.682
Age 41 2020-21 - 1.0
Age 42 2021-22 - 1.0

It was designed to have him retire after the 17-18 season (assuming no injuries or family situation make it happen sooner)

2.) The new CBA has not been signed so we don't know the answer to that yet

3.) NTC (player can supply five-team trade list following final game of 2013-14, valid through July 15, 2014; if player does not submit trade list at that time, team can request a five-team trade list following final game of 2017-18 season, valid through Sept. 1, 2018). If player submitted a trade list in 2014 and was not moved, team loses right to request trade list in 2018.

I wish this could be sticked in every opening post of every subsequent Luongo thread to save us the time of having to go look for it to catch people up.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 12:15 PM
  #124
Sypher04
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
1.) This has been explained a million times in these threads but here we go again:

Age 39 2018-19 - 3.382
Age 40 2019-20 - 1.682
Age 41 2020-21 - 1.0
Age 42 2021-22 - 1.0

It was designed to have him retire after the 17-18 season (assuming no injuries or family situation make it happen sooner)

2.) The new CBA has not been signed so we don't know the answer to that yet

3.) NTC (player can supply five-team trade list following final game of 2013-14, valid through July 15, 2014; if player does not submit trade list at that time, team can request a five-team trade list following final game of 2017-18 season, valid through Sept. 1, 2018). If player submitted a trade list in 2014 and was not moved, team loses right to request trade list in 2018.

I wish this could be sticked in every opening post of every subsequent Luongo thread to save us the time of having to go look for it to catch people up.
1.) You can make an assumption that he will retire and he won't be looking to get paid for those last 4 years, but it's not necessarily reality. We really have no idea as to what Roberto's intentions are for the end of his contract; we didn't sign it. In either case, I'd say the earliest he'd walk away from that contract is 40. The main issue is that we really have no idea what Luongo's performance will be like at 37/38/39 years old, yet we'll be stuck with his full cap hit. Some goalies do not age well.

2.) Agreed, this is a big wildcard IMO. Maybe more of a stumbling block than point 1)

3.) So, in short, trading him isn't very simple. As I thought. If he turns 37/38 and his play is noticeably declining, and he has no intention of retiring until he he turns 40, he'd be basically immoveable.

Sypher04 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 12:30 PM
  #125
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sypher04 View Post
1.) You can make an assumption that he will retire and he won't be looking to get paid for those last 4 years, but it's not necessarily reality. We really have no idea as to what Roberto's intentions are for the end of his contract; we didn't sign it. In either case, I'd say the earliest he'd walk away from that contract is 40. The main issue is that we really have no idea what Luongo's performance will be like at 37/38/39 years old, yet we'll be stuck with his full cap hit. Some goalies do not age well.

2.) Agreed, this is a big wildcard IMO. Maybe more of a stumbling block than point 1)

3.) So, in short, trading him isn't very simple. As I thought. If he turns 37/38 and his play is noticeably declining, and he has no intention of retiring until he he turns 40, he'd be basically immoveable.
1.) The real risk is the last year of his full price contract (age 37-38). Is he worth the money at that point? Who knows? Nobody seriously believes he is going to hang onto the last years of that deal. That is quite silly.
2.) We will wait and see
3.) Trading him is not as simple as others have let on. Basically the contract is structured so that he can force a move after next season or the team is notionally stuck with him until he retires or agrees to waive.

ginner classic 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 05:45 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.