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.

More Luongo Talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2012, 02:41 PM
  #851
Liferleafer
RIP Pat
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
We'll know when it happens.

I don't know what Vancouver will do, I do know they are dealing from a position of weakness.

I don't know if Florida is interested or what they would offer.
The draft day rumour was that Burke offered Schenn and a small plus. If that rumour is true (and i believe it is), what makes you think they'd step down to Bozak (UFA next season) and a 2nd?

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:42 PM
  #852
ACC1224
Steelers 10-5
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Playoffs!
Posts: 29,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver_2010 View Post
I wouldn't mind for that to happen, we are currently contending for a cup, there is little to no interest to trade Luongo.

Luongo's value will dropped as time goes along, but by then we will be rebuilding so he can be a veteran presence in our team.
Wouldn't the space freed up by moving him have some value to a contender?

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:43 PM
  #853
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
We'll know when it happens.

I don't know what Vancouver will do, I do know they are dealing from a position of weakness.

I don't know if Florida is interested or what they would offer.

** Also I'm making assumptions based on Burke's view of any Leafs value. If Kadri for example isn't thought of very highly maybe he includes him instead of the pick.
The notion that Vancouver is dealing from a position of weakness is just absurd and flat out wrong. Vancouver doesn't need to clear cap space right now, and it's much better to have 2 starting goalies than 0. If teams don't offer what we want, we can just keep both goalies. It's not like we've been a losing team the past few years.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:45 PM
  #854
ACC1224
Steelers 10-5
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Playoffs!
Posts: 29,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
The draft day rumour was that Burke offered Schenn and a small plus. If that rumour is true (and i believe it is), what makes you think they'd step down to Bozak (UFA next season) and a 2nd?
I'm not one to put much stock in rumours so I don't believe that to be true. I can't imagine Burke trading for him without knowing what the CBA will do to the contract.

We don't know what Burke feels(felt) about Schenn nor how he see's Bozak.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:48 PM
  #855
Liferleafer
RIP Pat
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
I'm not one to put much stock in rumours so I don't believe that to be true. I can't imagine Burke trading for him without knowing what the CBA will do to the contract.

We don't know what Burke feels(felt) about Schenn nor how he see's Bozak.
Well, considering he traded Schenn, reupped Liles and hasn't yet with Bozak........

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:51 PM
  #856
Spazmatic Dan
Force Beyond Measure
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
The notion that Vancouver is dealing from a position of weakness is just absurd and flat out wrong. Vancouver doesn't need to clear cap space right now, and it's much better to have 2 starting goalies than 0. If teams don't offer what we want, we can just keep both goalies. It's not like we've been a losing team the past few years.
Good in theory, but I don't know if its practical. Gillis may just go that route, though.

And what did you expect? Schneider takes over for Luongo in the playoffs, Luongo talks about being traded. Of course vultures are going to circle and they should.

And yes I know Luongo has said he'll do whats best for the team and all that fun stuff but you still have to expect fans and even GMs of other teams to try to buy low.

Spazmatic Dan is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:51 PM
  #857
ACC1224
Steelers 10-5
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Playoffs!
Posts: 29,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Well, considering he traded Schenn, reupped Liles and hasn't yet with Bozak........
I agree. I think the shine wore off for Schenn here.

I don't know the deal with Bozak. Maybe the Canucks wish to do their own deal with him?

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:53 PM
  #858
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
Deferring it a year definitley takes away value from the pick. So there needs to be something else there. A 2nd this year maybe?

So MacArthur, Bozak, 2014 1st, 2013 2nd?
Maybe throw a prospect in there if thats not enough.
Not going to talk about value, cause that is very debatable in here, but two of them are UFA's..

What I did want to talk about is how it really addressed no need for Vancouver. Mac is not an upgrade on anything we currently have on the second line. I am not trying to take away from him, it is just a need, and he doesn't fill it. I would say the same of Bozak, but his name keeps popping up, so Gillis must feel differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arshonagon View Post
Personally I would be a fan of Bozak, Colborne, MacArthur, Carter. I don't know what kind of combo the Leafs would give up, but if it included a couple of those guys I wouldn't be too upset.
This is worse value IMO than the above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeastOfTheBunch View Post
It's not very different from the Bozak, Kadri, 2nd/3rd proposal (except the addition of Mac). Doable for me, considering we would end up replacing Mac with JVR in the top 6.
Except Mac fills litterally no need and is a UFA. He is not going to bump Higgins, Booth from the second line, nore Hansen from the third, debatable, but doubtful he replaces Raymond. Not to mention Kassian, Burrows, Sedin, or any other current player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spasmatic Dan View Post
Y2K believes Luongo to be a top 5 goalie in the league. Going off of that assumption, his prediction is not far off.
IMO he is top 5, I can understand the lowered value with his age, not contract, but age. I don't expect a kings Ransom, just good value, and part of that is pieces that work for us.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:07 PM
  #859
Spazmatic Dan
Force Beyond Measure
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
IMO he is top 5, I can understand the lowered value with his age, not contract, but age. I don't expect a kings Ransom, just good value, and part of that is pieces that work for us.
Well I was strictly talking about his projections for the Leafs draft pick with Luongo in net.

I agree with the age thing but I don't agree about the contract. IMO his contract is a negative and I'm not alone in that belief (at least among fans on this board). But that has been beaten to death in this thread so I will say we probably agree to disagree on that point.

To me there are 3 things affecting his value: 1) Situation (Schneider, trade "request", etc.) 2) Contract length (not cap hit - cap hit is decent) and 3) Age.

Of these, I have age as the least impact. 33 is not old. The only reason it becomes an issue is because of contract length. You would likely see only a fraction of decreased value based on age if his contract was shorter.

In short, I don't think people like our friend Y2K who expect top 5 goalie in his prime value are realistic. I think Vancouver will get value, but not as much as they would like because of the above points.

My 2 cents. Feel free to ignore.

Spazmatic Dan is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:09 PM
  #860
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
This is exactly what i have been preaching. The issue becomes, no matter what we offer, Van fans (for the most part) call it trash.
I believe his point, and mine too, is that Toronto fans devalue the Leafs' players. And (perhaps) this is justifiable considering their poor recent play. Considering this, Vancouver fans will certainly be disappointed in any return for Luongo (from Toronto) but when those players develop confidence in front of Schnieder (a #1 goalie) Canucks' fans will be pleasantly surprised how good those players truly are.

Alflives is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:15 PM
  #861
MakeTheIronSing
Registered User
 
MakeTheIronSing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,201
vCash: 500
Again, the thread has gone... again, to another different value for Luongo, now its a 1st rounder a 3rd line centreman, a AHL level winger, Clarke MacArthur and a 2nd.

There's zero consensus amongst Canucks fans of the value of this guy. And nobody has even mentioned a goalie in return for him. ???

Yesterday he needed to be moved for top 6 holes, then it was to supplement right wings, then it was to acquire 2 blue chip defenders, then it was 3 first rounders (which I'm still at a loss for words about), now its 1st rounder a 3rd line centreman, a AHL level winger, Clarke MacArthur and a 2nd.

If I didn't know any better, Canuck fans would make it seem there as hard up for talent as the Leafs are.

MakeTheIronSing is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:18 PM
  #862
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
I don't know what Vancouver will do, I do know they are dealing from a position of weakness.
Two goalies the team deems as 'franchise level' is a weakness?

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:19 PM
  #863
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spasmatic Dan View Post
Well I was strictly talking about his projections for the Leafs draft pick with Luongo in net.

I agree with the age thing but I don't agree about the contract. IMO his contract is a negative and I'm not alone in that belief (at least among fans on this board). But that has been beaten to death in this thread so I will say we probably agree to disagree on that point.

To me there are 3 things affecting his value: 1) Situation (Schneider, trade "request", etc.) 2) Contract length (not cap hit - cap hit is decent) and 3) Age.

Of these, I have age as the least impact. 33 is not old. The only reason it becomes an issue is because of contract length. You would likely see only a fraction of decreased value based on age if his contract was shorter.

In short, I don't think people like our friend Y2K who expect top 5 goalie in his prime value are realistic. I think Vancouver will get value, but not as much as they would like because of the above points.

My 2 cents. Feel free to ignore.
I won't touch the contract issue, as you didn't and I will agree to disagree. But I don't think his situation at this point is affecting his trade value. It may if we keep him for an extended period of time, but it is not right now. We can keep him, Cap wise he fits, and next season we can lose Ballard and probably still be fine. Lui seems ok with coming back to Vancouver.

So at this point I don't think situation is affecting his value. Again not to say it won't.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:30 PM
  #864
MakeTheIronSing
Registered User
 
MakeTheIronSing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Two goalies the team deems as 'franchise level' is a weakness?
I tried to ask this last night and all I got was that there is a greater weakness in the top six on the right wing and this is why the Canucks didn't win a stanley cup. I've been trying to find out why a team wouldnt want two great goaltenders the whole time.

To no avail.

MakeTheIronSing is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:36 PM
  #865
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spasmatic Dan View Post
Good in theory, but I don't know if its practical. Gillis may just go that route, though.

And what did you expect? Schneider takes over for Luongo in the playoffs, Luongo talks about being traded. Of course vultures are going to circle and they should.

And yes I know Luongo has said he'll do whats best for the team and all that fun stuff but you still have to expect fans and even GMs of other teams to try to buy low.
Oh I definitely don't disagree with people wanting to buy low, or fans hoping that their team will get him dirt cheap. I would be the same way.

Looking at reality though:

1) The Canucks have no immediate need for cap space. We are cap compliant right now, and as long as this doesn't change there is no immediate need to dump Luongo.

2) The Canucks have other players they can move if they find themselves a few million over the cap once a CBA is agreed on, before they are in a position where moving Luongo to free up cap space becomes a necessity.

3) Gillis's asking price is obviously high. Ignoring what's been reported by the media as I don't really think any of them know the full picture anyways, if Luongo was going to be dealt for cheap he would have been dealt already. Gillis is the type of patient GM who will hold out for the deal that he is happy with. We saw it with his pursuit of David Booth, we saw it with how he handled the Cody Hodgson situation, and we are seeing it with Luongo. That's not to say Canuck fans will be happy with the return, because quite frankly many of us weren't happy with the return for Hodgson. But Gillis will get the player he is targeting, whomever that may be.

4) The Canucks are not a bad team. We are not a losing team, and do not appear in any danger of missing the playoffs once a season happens. When a team wins, there's less urgency to make big trades like this. If this changes I could see Gillis pressing harder and maybe giving in a bit on some of his demands, but as of right now the pressure is relatively low.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:38 PM
  #866
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeTheIronSing View Post
I tried to ask this last night and all I got was that there is a greater weakness in the top six on the right wing and this is why the Canucks didn't win a stanley cup. I've been trying to find out why a team wouldnt want two great goaltenders the whole time.

To no avail.
What the hell are you talking about? You asked why the Canucks would move Luongo if he's so great. I gave you an answer, saying that we would like to address holes in our lineup, mainly the hole in our top 6 forwards. You for some reason assumed that meant we were looking for a stop-gap solution (no idea why you would come to that conclusion, but anyways).

Why is it so hard to accept that the Canucks have two great goalies, and it would be ideal to move one of them in exchange for a permanent solution to a hole in our lineup? All the while, if that solution isn't being offered to us, we would be very happy to retain his services until that deal comes up.

What aren't you understanding?

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:44 PM
  #867
Spazmatic Dan
Force Beyond Measure
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
I won't touch the contract issue, as you didn't and I will agree to disagree. But I don't think his situation at this point is affecting his trade value. It may if we keep him for an extended period of time, but it is not right now. We can keep him, Cap wise he fits, and next season we can lose Ballard and probably still be fine. Lui seems ok with coming back to Vancouver.

So at this point I don't think situation is affecting his value. Again not to say it won't.
I agree that the issue is not necessarily desperation to move him but rather that he was de-throned. It was a graceful fall from grace, but a fall nonetheless. It raises question marks for potential buyers and that's where you will see the effect methinks.

Going along with your point about keeping him for an extended period of time: If/when the cap falls, I think the need to move him increases and other teams will become hopeful for a decrease in price. This is why I think it would be in Vancouver's best interest to move him before this offseason but if CBA negotiations are not resolved by then that isn't an option.

I still think you'll get value, but I don't think it will be a situation you are immediately happy with. It will probably still be enough value that I won't be immediately happy with it either .

This is one reason I think both sides can't agree: because there probably is no happy medium. It seems far more likely to me that both sides will be upset rather than happy (applying to whatever team gets him, not just Toronto).

Spazmatic Dan is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:44 PM
  #868
The Saurus
Registered User
 
The Saurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: United Nations
Posts: 8,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
What the hell are you talking about? You asked why the Canucks would move Luongo if he's so great. I gave you an answer, saying that we would like to address holes in our lineup, mainly the hole in our top 6 forwards. You for some reason assumed that meant we were looking for a stop-gap solution (no idea why you would come to that conclusion, but anyways).

Why is it so hard to accept that the Canucks have two great goalies, and it would be ideal to move one of them in exchange for a permanent solution to a hole in our lineup? All the while, if that solution isn't being offered to us, we would be very happy to retain his services until that deal comes up.

What aren't you understanding?
The Canucks aren't going to get a top six forward, at least one that fits in the top six on a contender, in exchange for Roberto. Albatross contracts attached to mid-30s veterans do not garner such returns and I implore you to prove me wrong with an example in the cap era.

The Saurus is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:47 PM
  #869
Vancouver_2010
Go Canucks & Oilers
 
Vancouver_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
Wouldn't the space freed up by moving him have some value to a contender?
5.3 million dollars will be nothing in a couple of years.

Vancouver_2010 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:51 PM
  #870
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spasmatic Dan View Post
I agree that the issue is not necessarily desperation to move him but rather that he was de-throned. It was a graceful fall from grace, but a fall nonetheless. It raises question marks for potential buyers and that's where you will see the effect methinks.

Going along with your point about keeping him for an extended period of time: If/when the cap falls, I think the need to move him increases and other teams will become hopeful for a decrease in price. This is why I think it would be in Vancouver's best interest to move him before this offseason but if CBA negotiations are not resolved by then that isn't an option.

I still think you'll get value, but I don't think it will be a situation you are immediately happy with. It will probably still be enough value that I won't be immediately happy with it either .

This is one reason I think both sides can't agree: because there probably is no happy medium. It seems far more likely to me that both sides will be upset rather than happy (applying to whatever team gets him, not just Toronto).
Most of this I agree with, just a few tweeks.

In his fall from Grace, the goalie replacing him has the best stats over the last two seasons combined. So it is a bit dificult for me to say anything that would raise questions on Luongo there.

As for the Cap when it comes down, this is why I have been pushing futures, but having said that, I believe the Canucks are the only team to legally have been over the Cap the last 3-4 years or something like that. Gillman is a math wiz when it comes to this, so I will let him figure it out.

I have more than prepaired myself for less value, hell I don't really want Bozak, but am pretty sure he will be part of the package. not that he is bad, I just think Schreoder can fill that hole and we would be buying high on him.

I can be happy for many things, and am a glass half full type of person, so I guess we will have to see.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:52 PM
  #871
MakeTheIronSing
Registered User
 
MakeTheIronSing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
What the hell are you talking about? You asked why the Canucks would move Luongo if he's so great. I gave you an answer, saying that we would like to address holes in our lineup, mainly the hole in our top 6 forwards. You for some reason assumed that meant we were looking for a stop-gap solution (no idea why you would come to that conclusion, but anyways).

Why is it so hard to accept that the Canucks have two great goalies, and it would be ideal to move one of them in exchange for a permanent solution to a hole in our lineup? All the while, if that solution isn't being offered to us, we would be very happy to retain his services until that deal comes up.

What aren't you understanding?
Ok I remove my comment about "stop gap" and replace it (and already did several times) with 'hole fillers'. It still doesn't make sense to me because Luongo is worth more than that, but the Canucks wont get the ridiculous asking prices being mentioned in this thread.

The logic is not really there. I always thought teams wanted as much talent at defending/stopping the puck as possible. But this thread has told me the Canucks would rather not have the problem of having two good goaltenders (including 1 'elite' goaltender) but rather one good goaltender on the rise and a bunch of newly acquired pieces to fill up holes. I don't get it, but trust me, and I promise, I wont ask again because Im not going to understand them.

I also think the discrepency between "ideal to move one of them" is not really accurate because we all know that means "we want Luongo gone"

MakeTheIronSing is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:53 PM
  #872
Spazmatic Dan
Force Beyond Measure
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Oh I definitely don't disagree with people wanting to buy low, or fans hoping that their team will get him dirt cheap. I would be the same way.

Looking at reality though:

1) The Canucks have no immediate need for cap space. We are cap compliant right now, and as long as this doesn't change there is no immediate need to dump Luongo.

2) The Canucks have other players they can move if they find themselves a few million over the cap once a CBA is agreed on, before they are in a position where moving Luongo to free up cap space becomes a necessity.

3) Gillis's asking price is obviously high. Ignoring what's been reported by the media as I don't really think any of them know the full picture anyways, if Luongo was going to be dealt for cheap he would have been dealt already. Gillis is the type of patient GM who will hold out for the deal that he is happy with. We saw it with his pursuit of David Booth, we saw it with how he handled the Cody Hodgson situation, and we are seeing it with Luongo. That's not to say Canuck fans will be happy with the return, because quite frankly many of us weren't happy with the return for Hodgson. But Gillis will get the player he is targeting, whomever that may be.

4) The Canucks are not a bad team. We are not a losing team, and do not appear in any danger of missing the playoffs once a season happens. When a team wins, there's less urgency to make big trades like this. If this changes I could see Gillis pressing harder and maybe giving in a bit on some of his demands, but as of right now the pressure is relatively low.
Oh I agree the Canucks aren't desperate to move him for the reasons you mentioned, but it does make more sense to move from a position of redundancy (well, partial redundancy...not actual redundancy) instead of weakening the lineup in other places. Vancouver is still a good team, but one can argue the stronger the better. This is where you will see teams hoping for a low price from Gillis IMO.

Gillis is a patient man but the best option may be to move Luongo. Or Schneider...one of them anyway. I'm not just saying that from a selfish perspective - best move may be to move him to another team.

I will say while it is possible to run both goalies and certainly doesn't hurt the Nucks in net, it does seem a shame to not give either goalie full reign.

Spazmatic Dan is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:59 PM
  #873
sully1410
Registered User
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Turner Valley, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I wouldn't do the deal. With Luongo, that 2014 first rounder will be in the 18-24 range. A 2nd this year hardly interests me, and neither Bozak or MacArthur addresses any needs on our team. Pass.
How do you figure. Bozak is your 3C that can slot in when Kes is injured. MacArthur is the 2nd line winger to complete the second line. Outside of the fact that they are both UFA's, a point that I forgot, that's pretty sound. It's possible that Gillis can work a deal out with either of them before hand.

I think the first more projects to be 15-18 to be honest, lets not go crazy here, and that gives Vancouver 2 firsts in the next draft. Good trade material, or help that depleted prospect pool. Hell toronto's pick may not even hit that high. It could be tenth or 11th or w/e. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Don't get me wrong, I like Joffery Lupul. I really do. But for him to be the center piece of a deal like this makes me wary. He does have a history of injuries, and there is a chance that he produced as well as he did because he was playing with Kessel.

sully1410 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:00 PM
  #874
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeTheIronSing View Post
Ok I remove my comment about "stop gap" and replace it (and already did several times) with 'hole fillers'. It still doesn't make sense to me because Luongo is worth more than that, but the Canucks wont get the ridiculous asking prices being mentioned in this thread.

The logic is not really there. I always thought teams wanted as much talent at defending/stopping the puck as possible. But this thread has told me the Canucks would rather not have the problem of having two good goaltenders (including 1 'elite' goaltender) but rather one good goaltender on the rise and a bunch of newly acquired pieces to fill up holes. I don't get it, but trust me, and I promise, I wont ask again because Im not going to understand them.

I also think the discrepency between "ideal to move one of them" is not really accurate because we all know that means "we want Luongo gone"
What the hell are you talking about? The Leafs have a hole at number 1C...Sidney Crosby would fill that hole. Does that mean he isn't worth anything? Marian Hossa would fill our top 6 RW hole, does that mean he's not worth much? Corey Perry fills that hole, is Luongo worth more than Perry?

I do not understand where you get the idea that filling a hole automatically means we are looking for a player that isn't valuable at all.

And no, we do not want Luongo gone. I am perfectly happy with keeping him. In fact, I think he would still be our starting goalie if both Luongo and Schneider are at camp and Luongo hasn't been traded by that time.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:01 PM
  #875
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spasmatic Dan View Post
Oh I agree the Canucks aren't desperate to move him for the reasons you mentioned, but it does make more sense to move from a position of redundancy (well, partial redundancy...not actual redundancy) instead of weakening the lineup in other places. Vancouver is still a good team, but one can argue the stronger the better. This is where you will see teams hoping for a low price from Gillis IMO.

Gillis is a patient man but the best option may be to move Luongo. Or Schneider...one of them anyway. I'm not just saying that from a selfish perspective - best move may be to move him to another team.

I will say while it is possible to run both goalies and certainly doesn't hurt the Nucks in net, it does seem a shame to not give either goalie full reign.
If the Canucks can trade one of the goalies for an asset that addresses our major need then a deal will get done I'm sure. But that doesn't mean Gillis is going to just give Luongo away for Bozak and a 2nd like some have suggested.

y2kcanucks 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 08:03 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.