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: the continuing saga ...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 12:57 PM
  #926
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,797
vCash: 5555
To be clear, decertifying only means no CBA, but contracts all have to be honoured, right?

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:58 PM
  #927
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Well, speaking from the standpoint of a fan of one of the richest teams, decertification wipes out the salary cap so.....that could be fun.

Yep, it would be.

I'm glued to my TV on deadline day and can only imagine what I would be like if they decertified and it turned into the Wild West.

colchar is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:02 PM
  #928
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fogelhund View Post
Do you really think that the owners would go Wild West on us, and spend infinite dollars, after all the time they've spent working on cost certainty?

If they decertify, I would bet that the Salary Caps and guidelines the NHL set in play would be much lower and more restrictive than they are offering now.

As Kypreos has said on Hockey Central at Noon, the owners have shown how far they will go to cut each other's throats when offering contracts to free agents and they would be much much worse if it was a free for all. He said guys like Illitch would be spending like mad to buy themselves the Cup. He also mentioned what Sather would be like without any league imposed restrictions.

Personally, I think that is a pretty accurate assessment. Sure there would be teams who would not spend squat but those with money and who are willing to spend it will likely go nuts.

colchar is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:03 PM
  #929
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
Thank you!. Vancouver fans seem to think that his contract is a positive attribute, when clearly it's not. It's nice to see another teams fans agreeing with "common" sense.
I think it's good for some teams and bad for others and that should be pretty obvious to you.

Whether its good or bad for your team often depends on how you view your team as well.

DJOpus is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:04 PM
  #930
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
To be clear, decertifying only means no CBA, but contracts all have to be honoured, right?
No, I think all contracts become null and void as they only exist within the parameters of a CBA (kind of makes you wonder how any contracts are valid now though since there is no CBA at the moment).

On Hockey Central they kept saying that it would only affect free agents and that all other contracts would be honoured. But for the last week or so they have been saying that it would be a free for all so I am guessing that they had their researchers look into it and that it was clarified to them that all contracts would be null and void.

colchar is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:04 PM
  #931
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
It has been explained though that Luongo does not have a NMC(and can therefore be buried in the minors), can be traded to a cap floor team for the later part of his contract as a veteran backup to bring them to the cap floor while only making a fraction of that in actual salary, and will most likely retire before then anyways.

There are numerous loopholes in the way Luongo's contract is structured so that it does not turn into an albatross. There's a reason why owners made these contracts in the first place.
All the onus is on the team picking him up. Can they find a suitor for his last few years? Do they have an owner able to bury him in the minors? Will that even stop the cap hit under whatever CBA is being played under at that time?

The reason GMs sign these deals is because it looks great for the near term and they know they likely won't be around to deal with the aftermath in a decade+. How many GMs last a decade+ at their position?

Spin it how you like, but Luongo's contract is not a plus. It's a pretty huge minus actually.

s7ark is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:04 PM
  #932
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
To be clear, decertifying only means no CBA, but contracts all have to be honoured, right?
Edit....wrong info.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:07 PM
  #933
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
No, I think all contracts become null and void as they only exist within the parameters of a CBA (kind of makes you wonder how any contracts are valid now though since there is no CBA at the moment).

On Hockey Central they kept saying that it would only affect free agents and that all other contracts would be honoured. But for the last week or so they have been saying that it would be a free for all so I am guessing that they had their researchers look into it and that it was clarified to them that all contracts would be null and void.
Not to go too far off topic, but I don't think this is true. Contracts are contracts. The CBA outlines the parameter under which the contracts can be signed. Once signed, they should still be valid.

The free for all they were talking about likely pertains to existing RFAs who would become UFAs, unsigned prospects, and all future players after their contract expires.

s7ark is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:13 PM
  #934
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,797
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
All the onus is on the team picking him up. Can they find a suitor for his last few years? Do they have an owner able to bury him in the minors? Will that even stop the cap hit under whatever CBA is being played under at that time?

The reason GMs sign these deals is because it looks great for the near term and they know they likely won't be around to deal with the aftermath in a decade+. How many GMs last a decade+ at their position?

Spin it how you like, but Luongo's contract is not a plus. It's a pretty huge minus actually.
There are numerous ways to get out of the contract length, and for every single one of those ways to be closed up is almost impossible. GMs are quite aware of this, and that any risk is minimal.

One could also say the Hemsky also has a lot of negatives though, such as a high cap hit for what he brings and being very injury prone. Very few players are ideal for a team's every need.

In fact, I think it's far more likely that Hemsky continues to underperform than Luongo staying longer than he's wanted. Risk goes both ways.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:18 PM
  #935
DougGilmour93
Registered User
 
DougGilmour93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,122
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=s7ark;56342259]All the onus is on the team picking him up. Can they find a suitor for his last few years? Do they have an owner able to bury him in the minors? Will that even stop the cap hit under whatever CBA is being played under at that time?

The reason GMs sign these deals is because it looks great for the near term and they know they likely won't be around to deal with the aftermath in a decade+. How many GMs last a decade+ at their position?

Spin it how you like, but Luongo's contract is not a plus. It's a pretty huge minus actually.[/
QUOTE]

You had me at "Hello" lol

People don't understand that as of recent, the owners and the players were trying to nail down a 5 year contract. Well we don't know what that means for Luongo's contract(especially since he has 10 yrs remaining). Now, what happens when "that" CBA expires in 5 years? They will have to go back to the table again. Then, what would that mean for Luongo's contract (as it will still be ongoing, for an additional 5 yrs)?


This is why no one is knocking down your door for Luongo's services. This is why no one is offering fair market value for a franchise goalie (well that and he is older at 33). It's just not realistic. I, personally see it playing out 2 ways.

1. Gillis gets bent over in a deal
2. Vancouver fans should get used to seeing Luongo around, as he will be retiring there.

Now there will be some fans that state, "we have no problem with Luongo, or his contract, or with him retiring with us" And to that I say, you're only fooling yourselves. I don't envy Vancouver fans position. I know I'm glad we don't have anyone locked up to a retirement contract.

And for the record, if I was GM, there is no way I'd go near Luongo and his contract. I understand the importance of goaltending and the urgency that fellow fans may feel. I also know Burke is under the gun to upgrade in that position. Might Burkie trade for Luongo, I doubt it as he's against cap circumventing contracts. But if he does feel pressure to make a splash and aquire Luongo, I have no problem with playing the role of "armchair GM" It's fun.

DougGilmour93 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:18 PM
  #936
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CellarDweller0 View Post
Let me preface this with the fact that I think a deal will get done and neither fanbase will be 100% happy with what they gave up. From the HFboards perspective I also think that most of the posts have been heavily biased and a handful have been realistic. That said:

1) Of course Gillis is going to try and ask for the world for Lou. I would expect nothing less in the beginning.

2) Gillis is quoted as saying he is willing to go with both goalies just like Burke is quoted as saying he's going with Scrivens and Reimer. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. There is a reason why these two potential trading partners in this deal came out publically saying this...it's called POSTURING.

Truth is only Gillis know's what the market is willing to pay for Lou. When the deal happens, the value will be known.
Except that in the case of #2, only one of these dual-goalie situations has proven to be a winning one.

Status quo is not bad for the Canucks. In fact i feel pretty strongly that the Canucks w Luongo have better chances than without, plus a mediocre ufa-to-be center and a non bluechip prospect.

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:21 PM
  #937
DougGilmour93
Registered User
 
DougGilmour93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
There are numerous ways to get out of the contract length, and for every single one of those ways to be closed up is almost impossible. GMs are quite aware of this, and that any risk is minimal.

One could also say the Hemsky also has a lot of negatives though, such as a high cap hit for what he brings and being very injury prone. Very few players are ideal for a team's every need.

In fact, I think it's far more likely that Hemsky continues to underperform than Luongo staying longer than he's wanted. Risk goes both ways.
Hemsky is only signed to a 2 year contract so the arguement just isn't there. Alot of teams would take a flyer on him as he's obviously talented. But the proof is in the pudding as you didn't see Edmonton offering Hemsky a retirement contract. I don't think any teams were willing to offer him any more than a 2 year deal, so he probably decided to stay put. Easiest solution.

DougGilmour93 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:25 PM
  #938
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,987
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=DougGilmour93;56342761]
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
All the onus is on the team picking him up. Can they find a suitor for his last few years? Do they have an owner able to bury him in the minors? Will that even stop the cap hit under whatever CBA is being played under at that time?

The reason GMs sign these deals is because it looks great for the near term and they know they likely won't be around to deal with the aftermath in a decade+. How many GMs last a decade+ at their position?

Spin it how you like, but Luongo's contract is not a plus. It's a pretty huge minus actually.[/
QUOTE]

You had me at "Hello" lol

People don't understand that as of recent, the owners and the players were trying to nail down a 5 year contract. Well we don't know what that means for Luongo's contract(especially since he has 10 yrs remaining). Now, what happens when "that" CBA expires in 5 years? They will have to go back to the table again. Then, what would that mean for Luongo's contract (as it will still be ongoing, for an additional 5 yrs)?


This is why no one is knocking down your door for Luongo's services. This is why no one is offering fair market value for a franchise goalie (well that and he is older at 33). It's just not realistic. I, personally see it playing out 2 ways.

1. Gillis gets bent over in a deal
2. Vancouver fans should get used to seeing Luongo around, as he will be retiring there.

Now there will be some fans that state, "we have no problem with Luongo, or his contract, or with him retiring with us" And to that I say, you're only fooling yourselves. I don't envy Vancouver fans position. I know I'm glad we don't have anyone locked up to a retirement contract.

And for the record, if I was GM, there is no way I'd go near Luongo and his contract. I understand the importance of goaltending and the urgency that fellow fans may feel. I also know Burke is under the gun to upgrade in that position. Might Burkie trade for Luongo, I doubt it as he's against cap circumventing contracts. But if he does feel pressure to make a splash and aquire Luongo, I have no problem with playing the role of "armchair GM" It's fun.
Interesting. Please tell me more about this as-yet non-existant cba.

Also, the fact that its non-existant is why ppl havent been knocking down Gillis' door, but dont let that ruin your narrative.

And if there's no way you'd go near Luongo's contract why have you been littering these threads with horrible proposals for months?

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:27 PM
  #939
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,797
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
Hemsky is only signed to a 2 year contract so the arguement just isn't there. Alot of teams would take a flyer on him as he's obviously talented. But the proof is in the pudding as you didn't see Edmonton offering Hemsky a retirement contract. I don't think any teams were willing to offer him any more than a 2 year deal, so he probably decided to stay put. Easiest solution.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Hemsky is overpayed in terms of what he brings to the table vs cap hit. I never said the length of his contract was bad. Simply that his cap hit negatively affects his value, same as his injury troubles. People act like Luongo's contract is so risky, when almost all the time assets being sent the other way have as much if not more risk involved.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:29 PM
  #940
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
There are numerous ways to get out of the contract length, and for every single one of those ways to be closed up is almost impossible. GMs are quite aware of this, and that any risk is minimal.

One could also say the Hemsky also has a lot of negatives though, such as a high cap hit for what he brings and being very injury prone. Very few players are ideal for a team's every need.

In fact, I think it's far more likely that Hemsky continues to underperform than Luongo staying longer than he's wanted. Risk goes both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
Hemsky is only signed to a 2 year contract so the arguement just isn't there. Alot of teams would take a flyer on him as he's obviously talented. But the proof is in the pudding as you didn't see Edmonton offering Hemsky a retirement contract. I don't think any teams were willing to offer him any more than a 2 year deal, so he probably decided to stay put. Easiest solution.
I'll just quote this poster as they summed up my thoughts nicely. Hemsky on a 2 year deal is a minimal risk. Luongo for another decade is a major one.

s7ark is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:31 PM
  #941
Numbers
Registered User
 
Numbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Well...i thank you for understanding, because i think that price is horribly large from a TO prospective. Serious question, with the cancelation of the season becoming a reality, what do you think that does to Luongo's value going forward?
How is that horribly large? You know that you would make a deal for Luongo with 3 out of 4 of those pieces going the other way. If the season is cancelled Bozak is UFA, so his value is out the window, so in a sense this package isn't as unbalanced as you lead on to, based on the agreements you have made in the past.

Numbers is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:31 PM
  #942
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
Not to go too far off topic, but I don't think this is true. Contracts are contracts. The CBA outlines the parameter under which the contracts can be signed. Once signed, they should still be valid.
That was what I thought too but now I don't think so. Contracts were signed right before this lockout that owners are saying they won't be honouring under the new CBA. If contracts were contracts then those should be honoured in full, regardless of CBA, and shouldn't be a point of contention right now should they?



Quote:
The free for all they were talking about likely pertains to existing RFAs who would become UFAs, unsigned prospects, and all future players after their contract expires.

That was exactly what they used to say but their on air comments have changed now which is what leads me to believe that they have had the situation clarified for them.

It turns out there is some info available but it doesn't necessarily make things any clearer for us. The story linked below (about the NBA) says the following:

"Finally, the league's lawsuit also makes an attempt to secure support for massive salary reform should the union dissolve. The NBA asked the court to declare that such a decertification would in turn void all existing player contracts because they're guided by the union's involvement in the old CBA.

Without a union and a collective bargaining relationship, the league argued, the terms and conditions of those previously negotiated contracts would not apply.
"

In that case the league was trying to get that ruling so it doesn't seem as if it automatically happens. But if the league itself, in that case the NBA, argued that you can bet the NHLPA would use that precedent in their legal argument that the contracts should be nullified.

Here is the direct link:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/68...locked-players

colchar is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:35 PM
  #943
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
That was what I thought too but now I don't think so. Contracts were signed right before this lockout that owners are saying they won't be honouring under the new CBA. If contracts were contracts then those should be honoured in full, regardless of CBA, and shouldn't be a point of contention right now should they?






That was exactly what they used to say but their on air comments have changed now which is what leads me to believe that they have had the situation clarified for them.

It turns out there is some info available but it doesn't necessarily make things any clearer for us. The story linked below (about the NBA) says the following:

"Finally, the league's lawsuit also makes an attempt to secure support for massive salary reform should the union dissolve. The NBA asked the court to declare that such a decertification would in turn void all existing player contracts because they're guided by the union's involvement in the old CBA.

Without a union and a collective bargaining relationship, the league argued, the terms and conditions of those previously negotiated contracts would not apply.
"

In that case the league was trying to get that ruling so it doesn't seem as if it automatically happens. But if the league itself, in that case the NBA, argued that you can bet the NHLPA would use that precedent in their legal argument that the contracts should be nullified.

Here is the direct link:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/68...locked-players
Ok so it sounds like it would be a court decision if the NHL decided to ask that all existing contracts be nullified. So no one really knows what would happen.

s7ark is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:40 PM
  #944
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
Ok so it sounds like it would be a court decision if the NHL decided to ask that all existing contracts be nullified. So no one really knows what would happen.

Yeah, it seems to be about as clear as mud and either side could ask that they be nullified.

colchar is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:53 PM
  #945
Spazmatic Dan
The Circle of Leaf
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuck This View Post
Don't you all think desertification would be kinda cool?? It would be like an NHL apocalypse. I think Vancouver would have no problem signing players. Rated the best city in North America to live in. Great hockey city and our owners are rich as ***** and huge fans and would most likely go over 100 million in salaries. On a serious note.

To Washington
Luongo and Tanev

To Vancouver
Green and Johansson.
I think it would be really exciting. Really weird and potentially disastrous for many teams, but very interesting. Selfishly from a Leafs perspective I don't see how it can get much worse so I'm all for it!

You'd probably see the majority of players re-sign where they are but still...exciting. Probably not good for the sport of hockey overall though.

Spazmatic Dan is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:56 PM
  #946
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
No, I think all contracts become null and void as they only exist within the parameters of a CBA (kind of makes you wonder how any contracts are valid now though since there is no CBA at the moment).

On Hockey Central they kept saying that it would only affect free agents and that all other contracts would be honoured. But for the last week or so they have been saying that it would be a free for all so I am guessing that they had their researchers look into it and that it was clarified to them that all contracts would be null and void.
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar;56343481[B
]Yeah, it seems to be about as clear as mud and either side could ask that they be nullified[/B].
Exactly, it is completely uncharter water. who knows what anything would be.

Personally I still think the league has a date in mind when they want to start up. I think this last round was a media ploy. they know they have been getting hammered, especially Gary. So remove him and Don, then when Don comes back in hammer him.

It also fits when you here the players just wanted a mediator or Don in the room. Then we hear what that one player said, and I look at who was in the room (4th line players + maybe two stars...).

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:05 PM
  #947
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
How is that horribly large? You know that you would make a deal for Luongo with 3 out of 4 of those pieces going the other way. If the season is cancelled Bozak is UFA, so his value is out the window, so in a sense this package isn't as unbalanced as you lead on to, based on the agreements you have made in the past.
I have always stated that i don't get how it's believed 4 pieces go for Luongo. I have agreed to some deals, those which included our 1st would be protected. I actually don't think i would do 3 of the 4. Because i don't think our 1st AND our best NHL ready prospect (Kadri) should need another young piece off of our roster added to it. So that leaves Bozak,Kadri and Frattin.....i would do Bozak,Kadri and another piece (2nd or B prospect) but not Frattin.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:12 PM
  #948
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,797
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I have always stated that i don't get how it's believed 4 pieces go for Luongo. I have agreed to some deals, those which included our 1st would be protected. I actually don't think i would do 3 of the 4. Because i don't think our 1st AND our best NHL ready prospect (Kadri) should need another young piece off of our roster added to it. So that leaves Bozak,Kadri and Frattin.....i would do Bozak,Kadri and another piece (2nd or B prospect) but not Frattin.
From my prospective I'd much prefer fewer pieces with more value than more with less.

Ex.

Lupul + 1st
over
Kulemin, Kadri, 1st
over
Bozak, Kadri, Frattin, 2nd

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:18 PM
  #949
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I have always stated that i don't get how it's believed 4 pieces go for Luongo. I have agreed to some deals, those which included our 1st would be protected. I actually don't think i would do 3 of the 4. Because i don't think our 1st AND our best NHL ready prospect (Kadri) should need another young piece off of our roster added to it. So that leaves Bozak,Kadri and Frattin.....i would do Bozak,Kadri and another piece (2nd or B prospect) but not Frattin.
Not sure if I would do it, but what about 1st Kadri Frattin?

Ok, just cause I am bored today, what would we need to add in fantasy land (not named Kesler or Sedin, or Schnieder), to land Kessel? Please also keep in mind I know this would never happen, just curious.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:21 PM
  #950
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
From my prospective I'd much prefer fewer pieces with more value than more with less.

Ex.

Lupul + 1st
over
Kulemin, Kadri, 1st
over
Bozak, Kadri, Frattin, 2nd
I posted this earlier...IF there is a 48 game season, i would prefer NOT trading for Luongo. This team has more issues than just goalies. In a shortened season we need to consider the amount of time it takes for guys to get into game shape....learn the new coaches system among other things. If there is a real probability that we miss the playoffs anyway, i'd rather run with Reimer, keep our assets and let the chips fall were they may. I'm not willing to gamble the 1st in a 48 game dash for cash style season.

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 11:01 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.