HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Luongo Thread: Nothing Else Matters

View Poll Results: Where will Luongo end up?
Toronto 1 8.33%
Florida 8 66.67%
Philly 1 8.33%
Washington 0 0%
Tampa Bay 0 0%
Columbus 0 0%
Chicago 0 0%
N.Y. Islanders 0 0%
Detroit 0 0%
Other 2 16.67%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-19-2013, 01:49 AM
  #26
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
Just throwing an idea on the wall to see if it sticks...

I'd tell every gm in the league the Canucks are willing to retain $2MM of the cap hit (and commensurate salary) or 38%.

Makes the contract a lot more palatable which should lead to interest from more teams and a better return. Might need a little patience because every GM right now thinks his team is great and they are set in goal...until of course, the sad reality sets in for half of them. Plus Luongo needs to play along of course.

In this deal though, its important that when he's washed up, the acquiring team send Luongo home instead of him retiring.

Cap hit retention might become a trend - who says we don't trade for a player in the future where the other team retains $2MM?

Outside99* is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 01:50 AM
  #27
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,272
vCash: 833
Tony Gallagher doesn't know anything about anything. Seriously. Probably just wanted to say "kaybosh" in his dumb way: "kaaiiyyyyyboshed a deal to the maaayple leafs"

Proto is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:08 AM
  #28
timw33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanGrossman View Post
We'll see what happens. I suspect Ballard will really come back into his own this year.
And if we does we should trade him at his highest value.

timw33 is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:09 AM
  #29
Virtanen2Horvat
BoHorvat53
 
Virtanen2Horvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,407
vCash: 589
Hmmm didn't expect that song to be in here but it did come to mind.

Virtanen2Horvat is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:20 AM
  #30
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,248
vCash: 500
Ok, what about including a third team (how original!):

From Vancouver: Luongo, Gaunce, 2013 first, Sauve

To Vancouver: Plekanec, Gionta (1/2 price)

From Team X: Prospect X, 2013 first X

To Team X: Luongo

From Montreal: Plekanec, Gionta (at half cap hit for the rest of his contract)

To Montreal: Vancouver's 2013 1st, Team X's 2013 1st, Gaunce, Prospect X, Sauve

Who is Team X? It could be you!

Cogburn is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:39 AM
  #31
vector209
Registered User
 
vector209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
To Chicago: Luongo, Edler, 2013 draft pick

To Vancouver: Kane, Hjalmarsson

vector209 is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:41 AM
  #32
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector209 View Post
To Chicago: Luongo, Edler, 2013 draft pick

To Vancouver: Kane, Hjalmarsson
We just resigned Edler, I don't see him moving. Plus, I'd say the "on ice value" is tilted towards the Blackhawks much more then us, but that's what it would take to happen.

I'm not of the mind Chicago will give us a good deal.

Cogburn is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:44 AM
  #33
vector209
Registered User
 
vector209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
Jeff Carter got signed and shipped off to Columbus. Edler resigning makes him a more valuable commodity, especially at his friendly new cap hit.

The on ice value is even in my eyes. Patrick Kane would give this team the offensive burst it desperately needs, especially for a team that lacks creative forwards outside the Sedins.

vector209 is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:45 AM
  #34
Balls Mahoney
SAVE US SVEN
 
Balls Mahoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: +44 1252 230 607
Country: United States
Posts: 13,048
vCash: 500
Man, aside from Victor Hedman there's virtually no one on the Lightning roster who looks interesting.

And I will riot if this team acquires Patrick Kane. Especially if we trade Edler. We don't need the headache that is Kane.

Balls Mahoney is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:47 AM
  #35
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seatoo View Post
I listen to 1040 pretty much everyday and I've never heard that unless it is in the context of something around "I could see him kiboshing a trade to Toronto and hope FLA offers GMMG a deal he can live with"
Pretty much every day? Well then, I must be wrong. I also listened to CFOX, can you tell me what song I really liked but can't remember the name? Something about:

what you dont know about them baby
when youre not around them baby
they be trynna holla , they be hidin
in the bushes by my home

craigcaulks* is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:49 AM
  #36
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector209 View Post
Jeff Carter got signed and shipped off to Columbus. Edler resigning makes him a more valuable commodity, especially at his friendly new cap hit.

The on ice value is even in my eyes. Patrick Kane would give this team the offensive burst it desperately needs, especially for a team that lacks creative forwards outside the Sedins.
I certainly don't think it doesn't this team any good to become a sign and trade club. WEe've gotten guys to sign at great deals, why ruin that kind of good will?

craigcaulks* is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:49 AM
  #37
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector209 View Post
Jeff Carter got signed and shipped off to Columbus. Edler resigning makes him a more valuable commodity, especially at his friendly new cap hit.

The on ice value is even in my eyes. Patrick Kane would give this team the offensive burst it desperately needs, especially for a team that lacks creative forwards outside the Sedins.
Oh no, I know it's happened, but Holmgren and Gillis are two very different managers. His value shot up, but it also shot up to us (at that cap hit) as well.

I think perhaps I used the OIV term wrong, but Chicago gets much better at two spots (a top pairing D and a top 5 goalie), including the only spot they really need an upgrade, for a top six winger, and we pump up one position with Kane, and weaken our net and defence (not even counting the fact I don't see Hjalmarsson beating Tanev out for a top 4 spot, but Edler > Hjalmarsson). I think Chicago improves much more then we do.

Cogburn is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:50 AM
  #38
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector209 View Post
Jeff Carter got signed and shipped off to Columbus. Edler resigning makes him a more valuable commodity, especially at his friendly new cap hit.

The on ice value is even in my eyes. Patrick Kane would give this team the offensive burst it desperately needs, especially for a team that lacks creative forwards outside the Sedins.
Didn't Souray get signed by MTL only to be traded?

AndyPipkin is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:50 AM
  #39
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Tony Gallagher doesn't know anything about anything. Seriously. Probably just wanted to say "kaybosh" in his dumb way: "kaaiiyyyyyboshed a deal to the maaayple leafs"
Tony embarrassed himself all morning. He seems to have gotten desperate. He isn't stupid, just stupid about hockey.

craigcaulks* is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:52 AM
  #40
Balls Mahoney
SAVE US SVEN
 
Balls Mahoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: +44 1252 230 607
Country: United States
Posts: 13,048
vCash: 500
Carter was signed and traded because he became a big distraction in the locker room and he and Mike Richards were having some big time personal problems. Edler has been a quiet team first guy who hasn't created any waves and who's steadily gotten better each year. The likelihood of him being traded in the near future in nearly non-existant.

Balls Mahoney is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:56 AM
  #41
vector209
Registered User
 
vector209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
I dunno, the proposal is something different from the usual Leafs/Panthers suggestions and actually adds a legitimately lethal offensive player who can help the Canucks win now as opposed to some prospect only projected to be serviceable in the future.

Of course I realize Edler is better than Hammer, but the way I see it, the Canucks are already strong in net and D and can afford to downgrade a little for a serious jump in offense. Trade from a position of strength to address a weakness.

vector209 is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 03:01 AM
  #42
vector209
Registered User
 
vector209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balls Mahoney View Post
Carter was signed and traded because he became a big distraction in the locker room and he and Mike Richards were having some big time personal problems. Edler has been a quiet team first guy who hasn't created any waves and who's steadily gotten better each year. The likelihood of him being traded in the near future in nearly non-existant.
Not disagreeing with you here, but sometimes, character (or a lack thereof) is overrated. The two guys you mentioned just championed the Kings to a Stanley Cup. Bet that left Philly feeling a little confused.

Too many Canuck fans get hung up on character. When I played football (obviously not pro, but same principles still apply) we had a lot of prima donna's and arrogant SOB's but they were talented and got the job done.

At the end of the day, the bottom line is: does player X's skillset outweigh his personality issues? In the case of Carter and Richards, it obviously did for the Kings.

Kane gets slammed for the dumbest things. He's a young dude who parties. That's it. It's not like there are on-ice issues with teammates and him affecting the locker room in that manner. Everything he gets criticized for is outside the realm of hockey, which I find irrelevant for judging him as a hockey player.

vector209 is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 03:03 AM
  #43
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector209 View Post
I dunno, the proposal is something different from the usual Leafs/Panthers suggestions and actually adds a legitimately lethal offensive player who can help the Canucks win now as opposed to some prospect only projected to be serviceable in the future.

Of course I realize Edler is better than Hammer, but the way I see it, the Canucks are already strong in net and D and can afford to downgrade a little for a serious jump in offense. Trade from a position of strength to address a weakness.
Hey, no, appreciate any originality you can get into it, its just Chicago is one of the only teams that has players I'd love, but that I wouldn't want to trade for. As I said in my original reply, it would take that kind of trade to pry out a star player from a rival team. I see it as Kane = Edler, and then Hjalmarsson < Luongo. I tried to include a short summary of my thought so as not to sound dismissive, which I honestly didn't want to come across as, but then again, if I wanted realism...well read my post just above your proposal I take "give up more then we get" much further then you did, we're just having fun playing with the roster, right?

Cogburn is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 03:05 AM
  #44
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector209 View Post
Not disagreeing with you here, but sometimes, character (or a lack thereof) is overrated. The two guys you mentioned just championed the Kings to a Stanley Cup. Bet that left Philly feeling a little confused.

Too many Canuck fans get hung up on character. When I played football (obviously not pro, but same principles still apply) we had a lot of prima donna's and arrogant SOB's but they were talented and got the job done.

At the end of the day, the bottom line is: does player X's skillset outweigh his personality issues? In the case of Carter and Richards, it obviously did for the Kings.

Kane gets slammed for the dumbest things. He's a young dude who parties. That's it. It's not like there are on-ice issues with teammates and him affecting the locker room in that manner. Everything he gets criticized for is outside the realm of hockey, which I find irrelevant for judging him as a hockey player.
"Kane punches out cabbie over fifteen cents" and "Kane drunk at a bar"...way over blown. If there is a character issue with Kane, I'd say his skill overshadows it by a good margin. Again, if.

Cogburn is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 03:23 AM
  #45
vector209
Registered User
 
vector209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
Hey, no, appreciate any originality you can get into it, its just Chicago is one of the only teams that has players I'd love, but that I wouldn't want to trade for. As I said in my original reply, it would take that kind of trade to pry out a star player from a rival team. I see it as Kane = Edler, and then Hjalmarsson < Luongo. I tried to include a short summary of my thought so as not to sound dismissive, which I honestly didn't want to come across as, but then again, if I wanted realism...well read my post just above your proposal I take "give up more then we get" much further then you did, we're just having fun playing with the roster, right?
Another way to look at it: Kane > Luongo, Edler > Hjalmarsson

I honestly see Kane as the best player of the four, so to me, it makes sense to accept a lesser quality defenseman back.

I had this conversation with a friend the other night and he found it intriguing too. The only question is: would the Hawks ever agree to something like this? If they do, then Mike Gillis would seriously have to consider making a bold trade like this.

I know it isn't a popular consensus in Van to give up a D the caliber of Edler but if at the end of this year, the team sees a similar result (ie. lack of playoff scoring doing them in), then at what point does management take a step back, evaluate the assets ahead of them and realize that the current get-up of the team just isn't cutting it? At what point does a guy like Gillis stop and think, "hey you know what? Maybe it's time for a serious paradigm shift because the current status quo just isn't cutting it"?

It's like taking a major that's considered reputable and is known for great job prospects despite you not being too successful at it and continue to post abysmal grades. In theory, you should tough it out and graduate but maybe, just maybe, doing something less prestigious might ultimately lead to more success.

Kane slots perfectly into that second line and I see him instantly addressing all the Canucks' offensive woes. Pair him with Kesler and you have another legit pairing that can take the load off the Sedins, especially during the playoffs.

vector209 is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 03:38 AM
  #46
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector209 View Post
Another way to look at it: Kane > Luongo, Edler > Hjalmarsson

I honestly see Kane as the best player of the four, so to me, it makes sense to accept a lesser quality defenseman back.

I had this conversation with a friend the other night and he found it intriguing too. The only question is: would the Hawks ever agree to something like this? If they do, then Mike Gillis would seriously have to consider making a bold trade like this.

I know it isn't a popular consensus in Van to give up a D the caliber of Edler but if at the end of this year, the team sees a similar result (ie. lack of playoff scoring doing them in), then at what point does management take a step back, evaluate the assets ahead of them and realize that the current get-up of the team just isn't cutting it? At what point does a guy like Gillis stop and think, "hey you know what? Maybe it's time for a serious paradigm shift because the current status quo just isn't cutting it"?

It's like taking a major that's considered reputable and is known for great job prospects despite you not being too successful at it and continue to post abysmal grades. In theory, you should tough it out and graduate but maybe, just maybe, doing something less prestigious might ultimately lead to more success.

Kane slots perfectly into that second line and I see him instantly addressing all the Canucks' offensive woes. Pair him with Kesler and you have another legit pairing that can take the load off the Sedins, especially during the playoffs.
You make a convincing argument, but with the cap dropping, unless Hjalmersson sets the world on fire, I see him in the same boat as Ballard here. I will be the first to admit that I'm undervaluing Hjammer in this trade, but I just don't think we can afford him if we take on Kane.

Kane is a stellar talent, no doubt, but you'd really have to pry him out of Chicago. I just don't feel we're in a position to do so. If we were talking Edler+Luongo, we'd probably be able to pry just about any forward (short of the Crosbys, Malkins and Stamkos' of the world) away from them, without the risk of egg on the face with creating a monster in Chicago.

As I said, you make a convincing argument, but I have a problem giving Chicago a trade they "win", even on paper, because of how terrifying that team would be with the trade, especially when we saw L.A. up close with strong defense, great goaltending, and multiple top line scoring threats with other guys dotting the lineup.

Offensively, I'd say we're better off then Chicago and L.A., or at least in the same breath, but between goaltending and defense, they'd both be much better preventing the goals against.

Cogburn is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 07:50 AM
  #47
CJV123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 474
vCash: 500
Did FLA really show interest in Luongo, or was this wishful thinking/delusions? FLA's goaltending situation isn't weak- their forward situation is. I get that Luongo would like to be paid $5 million/year to live in Miami- lots of athletes would. But that doesn't mean the interest is there from the team.

CJV123 is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 09:17 AM
  #48
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,463
vCash: 500
Edler is not being traded ... of all the Canucks I am glad he has a NTC. I am sure he gave up $1M/yr to ensure he stays here for 6 years.

Our D corps has to be the envy of the league now.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 09:21 AM
  #49
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,358
vCash: 500
I agree.

I think when people see our d corps in the light of day, ESPECIALLY the IMHO underrated acquisition of Garrison, that we look way better than last year going forward.

Jay Cee is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 09:22 AM
  #50
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balls Mahoney View Post
Man, aside from Victor Hedman there's virtually no one on the Lightning roster who looks interesting.

And I will riot if this team acquires Patrick Kane. Especially if we trade Edler. We don't need the headache that is Kane.
? Connolly, Conochar, Purcell?

LickTheEnvelope 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 02:19 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.