Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
Then Nucks are stuck in a even more difficult choice next summer
Keep Lu or trade younger Schneider
Not to mention there is also scenario that sees Luongo struggle and hurt his value (Or get hurt)
What if they both play great? Usually goalie stats are much better over limited number of starts. Risk worth taking based on the value offered on these boards. If value offered was better then ya maybe not worth risk. There is upside and downside potential either way, but really based on Luongo's consistency and how great Schneider has been with limited starts it sure looks like both will do well. Therefore upside potential out weighs the downside.
And where did I say it would not? This is all speculative fun. If we are to say, "well it's the GMs who shall figure this." What purpose is there for any of us posting? You are applying a straw man.
No, it's called reality. What posters here think and believe to be accurate as to a players worth, has no bearing on real life. What I have been discussing is the realities of a aquiring the Lou contract and how that can affect a team.
Then Nucks are stuck in a even more difficult choice next summer
Keep Lu or trade younger Schneider
Not to mention there is also scenario that sees Luongo struggle and hurt his value (Or get hurt)
And? Schneider is young, with plenty of time for a resurgence. Luongo would have significantly upped his value we could justify demands of Gardiner. What if Toronto finished 9-10th? How stupid would they look having passed on an upgrade in net and now do not even get a top five pick?
You have to account for the positive side of a what if game, just as much as the negative. As numbers illustrated, the former outweighs the latter for us.
Mirtle tweeted "Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years"
Does that mean Canucks or the new team will be on the hook for the full caphit for the life of the contract, no matter if Luongo retires or not.
If the new team assumes the cap hit, Luongo becomes untradeable. No team will mortgage their future to take on Luongo, who is a risk even without the recapture formula.
No, it's called reality. What posters here think and believe to be accurate as to a players worth, has no bearing on real life. What I have been discussing is the realities of a aquiring the Lou contract and how that can affect a team.
Again Straw. Man.
The definition of a straw man, is an argument that, while factually correct, does not actually refute the opposition nor continue the discussion. It's a fallacy that tries to masquerade as proving a point.
You are not wrong but in the same breath, every post in this thread is rendered meaningless. Fans screaming "Lu's not worth that!" are no different than Vancouver fans shouting back, "That's junk!" Why post here at all? Because we are attempting to play armchair GMs. What you have been doing is placing greater importance on your perceived reality, when you are in no better position than I to make any factual claim.
If the new team assumes the cap hit, Luongo becomes untradeable. No team will mortgage their future to take on Luongo, who is a risk even without the recapture formula.
Do you represent all teams? Or just Toronto? Or none? That's ok Vancouver can keep Luongo at least to deadline, maybe all year
If the new team assumes the cap hit, Luongo becomes untradeable. No team will mortgage their future to take on Luongo, who is a risk even without the recapture formula.
what the hell did we have all these threads for then?
why didnt you tell us this months ago?
Remember that Gillis asked for Gardiner, Bozak, 5 OVA and Frattin.
Howsen wound up with Dubinsky, Anisimov, Erixon and a 1st.
Thats probably the equivalent to
- Kulemin, Bozak, Kadri, Finn (or Ashton/Frattin/Biggs kinda prospect).
The definition of a straw man, is an argument that, while factually correct, does not actually refute the opposition nor continue the discussion. It's a fallacy that tries to masquerade as proving a point.
You are not wrong but in the same breath, every post in this thread is rendered meaningless. Fans screaming "Lu's not worth that!" are no different than Vancouver fans shouting back, "That's junk!" Why post here at all? Because we are attempting to play armchair GMs. What you have been doing is placing greater importance on your perceived reality, when you are in no better position than I to make any factual claim.
Looks like you are unsure of the definition of straw man, even after posting the definition. What is fact, is Lou's cap hit, length, term and risks involved. Should you chose that to be false, I challenge you to look up evidience, factual evidence, that shows exactly what has been discussed. Trade value is a fallacy, cap hit, age, term and risks are all real, whether you chose to ignore this or not.
Ok no problem you guys are ready to roll as is, so are Canucks
If only it were so simple.
Question for all non Nuck fans. Why is it whenever we opt to say we're content maintaining the status quo, someone has to rush it demanding, "NO YOU HAVE TO TRADE LUONGO." And then proceeds to offer crap they know we aren't going to like. Cue arguments.
You guys do not want to pay x? Great, we're content to roll the same roster. Win/win, yes?
Looks like you are unsure of the definition of straw man, even after posting the definition. What is fact, is Lou's cap hit, length, term and risks involved. Should you chose that to be false, I challenge you to look up evidience, factual evidence, that shows exactly what has been discussed. Trade value is a fallacy, cap hit, age, term and risks are all real, whether you chose to ignore this or not.
Oi... we have been over this. For the umpteenth time, we acknowledge there exist risk in acquiring Luongo. This is inherent of every trade in Sports. Each of the risks attributed are reasons we are not making demands of Gardiner+. That does not equate to a drop in value to were inclusions of Komisarek or Bozak as a centerpice gain any validity.
Despite your insistence and blatantly inability and/or refusal to read what I have written. Neither of us can verify our side until a trade has been made. That is why we are Armchair GMs, only speculating on the potential trade and value of the players in question.
The definition of a straw man, is an argument that, while factually correct, does not actually refute the opposition nor continue the discussion. It's a fallacy that tries to masquerade as proving a point.
A straw man is a fallacy in which the opponent's position is misrepresented and replaced with something that is superficially similar. Whether the misrepresentation is factual or not is irrelevant.
Oi... we have been over this. For the umpteenth time, we acknowledge there exist risk in acquiring Luongo. This is inherent of every trade in Sports. Each of the risks attributed are reasons we are not making demands of Gardiner+. That does not equate to a drop in value to were inclusions of Komisarek or Bozak as a centerpice gain any validity.
Despite your insistence and blatantly inability and/or refusal to read what I have written. Neither of us can verify our side until a trade has been made. That is why we are Armchair GMs, only speculating on the potential trade and value of the players in question.
Excellent, so you do realize now that it was not a straw man argument. Odd why you would post the definition and then contradict yourself later? Why not just keep him; makes things easier for everyone involved.
Franson spent time on the powerplay, in addition to playing the second pairing in Nashville. He would do neither on our roster. A twenty point defenseman with defensively lapses and consistencies is hardly a worthwhile commodity, especially when you acquired him for nothing and are now attempting to pawn him off for quality.
Versteeg played horrible in Toronto. No one would deny that. We are looking toward his recent resurgence as a better indication of his talent.
Meh, he was a 3rd pairing defenseman in Toronto and he still scored over 20 points and was at a 30 point pace, playing 2nd unit power play minutes. Nobody is trying to pawn him off for quality. Have Canuck fans not been saying a #7 RHD is currently a hole that they would like to fill?
Leaf fans are simply giving you what you want. Canuck fans claim your team is in need of a 3C(one that can cover the 2nd line until Kesler returns) yet Bozak/Connolly have no appeal to Canuck fans. Canucks fans claim your team is in need of a top-6 RW, but Clarke MacArthur isn't a good enough piece. You want a #7 RHD, but Franson isn't a fit in Vancouver. Leafs fans are actually giving Canuck fans what they want
With the Versteeg vs. MacArthur/Kulemin comparison. It really is what have you done for me lately. The Leafs had all 3 and felt Versteeg was the most expendable, that should count for something.
Do you represent all teams? Or just Toronto? Or none? That's ok Vancouver can keep Luongo at least to deadline, maybe all year
You think that if the acquiring team is responsible for his cap hit even after he retires he will be easily tradeable? Who would acquire a player they were guaranteed to have to use cap space on for several year after he retired other than the 2 or 3 cap floor teams like the Islanders.
Rick Nash was fed up and clearly wanted out, I don't see that to be the same case as Luongo. Luo has always said he would be fine to stay a Canuck.
I think the situation for the Canucks is even worse than it was for Rick Nash. First, Luongo is older, with a longer contract (is he going to start regressing soon? that's a risk). The Canucks also have Schneider starting, with over 9 million in cap space tied between the two of them. He has to go.. and we've only really heard of 2 destinations (Toronto / Florida). That's not good for trade value.
A straw man is a fallacy in which the opponent's position is misrepresented and replaced with something that is superficially similar. Whether the misrepresentation is factual or not is irrelevant.
Yes, and this applies to what he has been doing. He created a separate argument, ignoring the one I've actually made and attempts to apply it as a logical retort. He is defeating his own argument, not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard
Excellent, so you do realize now that it was not a straw man argument. Odd why you would post the definition and then contradict yourself later? Why not just keep him; makes things easier for everyone involved.
No, it is. You have yet to actually refute my original point from over a page ago. And believe me, we would be happy to. For some reason people keep telling us we have to move him.
