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.

*ALL* Luongo Talk (News/Speculation/Rumors/Proposals)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-27-2013, 03:07 PM
  #176
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
They are good for teams tight against the cap, like Vancouver always is. His contract was structured to fit into Vancouvers long term plans specifically. The new CBA found away to not only punish the team who signed the player, but also the team who has traded for him.


The league's punitive measures are a joke. Aside from the obvious loopholes, the hit spread over the term is akin to a mediocre depth player. It also isn't clear whether this penalty counts against cap calculations. If it does, then all rich teams have to do is bump up against the cap and start maximizing LTIR space. It actually helps teams reach the cap to enact LTIR better...



The contract is good for rich teams (your allusion) early in the contract, and better for budget teams later. Later on, it acts much like the Jovo contract does for FLA now. However, the downside for budget teams is right now, when Lu is getting paid more than his cap-hit. So there are pros and cons to different types of teams at different points of the contract. What GMs have to determine is if it's good overall for them, not just at certain points.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 03:21 PM
  #177
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
1. Part of the problem is that many people disagree with how long his contract will be considered a 'non-issue'. You suggest that is it 8 years. I understand. I feel like 4 years with many years of penalty. Others will say 2 years and another group will say none at all. Since there is no way to truly measure that one aspect of his value, you will get vastly varying opinions.

2. Just out of curiosity, what are the numbers of the cap-recapture rule for Vancouver if say they never traded him and kept him? Are we talking 4M cap penalty for 4 years? Is that non issue?
I think what gets ignored far too often in all of this is that it's not at all likely that all teams in the league will be playing anywhere close to the cap in 4-5 years. So what happens to Luongo's value then, to those teams that are already struggling to make the current cap floor - and are losing money every year having to play at that cap floor?

Do you think a team like the Isles, or Florida or Phoenix or Columbus, or ... well there are tons of teams in this situation - would have interest in acquiring a retired Luongo with a $5.3mill cap hit, that would be paying considerably less actual $$ for that cap hit?

The Cap is set to drop to $64.3mill next season. After that, seeing the trends we already have under the previous CBA, I think it's a foregone conclusion that the cap will steadily rise each year. What will be the cap 4-5 years from now? More importantly what will be the cap floor 4-5 years from now?

With almost half the league's teams already losing money, and with the floor expected to rise - how attractive does a dead cap space Luongo for less actual $$ than cap hit become for such teams?

Obviously for teams like the Leafs, Canucks and other big market teams (Detroit, New York, Chicago, etc), this is a non-issue, and only hurts Luongo's value in those years when he's retired and taking up cap space, as these teams play to the cap (or can play to the cap). But this is a minority group in the NHL now. The majority of teams are still struggling financially, and with a rising cap floor, Luongo's value to those teams, even when he's done and retired, will still be there.

Put yourself in the Isles shoes for example... they are a team that will never play to the cap, and lose money just hovering around the cap floor. How attractive is an asset like Luongo to them? They get another 4-5 years of solid goaltending and veteran help for that young team on the rise, and a goalie with a track record of mentoring young players and goalies, and when he's retired (or useless), he helped groom his predecessor (as he has in Vancouver), while being a cap luxury for them - a contract who will help them get to the floor for less actual $$ spent.

And the Isles aren't the only team in this situation.

Too much of this discussion around his long-term value has ignored this. People look at it from their own team POV and look at having to carry that cap hit long-term, but the value is there long-term for a lot of teams.... and even for one of these big market teams like the Leafs or Flyers, his short-term value is there, while being in a market with plenty of teams who can benefit from that long-term cap hit, making it very possible to move him again at that stage in his contract - especially when by that time his NTC also gets nulified in his contract, making him that much easier to move - not that this matters since if he's retired early he's not going to care where his rights are traded as he won't play there... that team will just benefit from paying less actual $$ to get to that cap floor.

NFITO is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 03:25 PM
  #178
tempest2i
Feral
 
tempest2i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cowtown
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
Visnovsky? Cap floor teams would love using low salary/high cap hit because it saves the owners real dollars. NYI/CBJ/PHO all have 2M+ in bonuses they use.

Considering Luongo's contract has a "penalty" of a portion of his cap hit after he retires it has even more appeal to a cap floor team. If that fails teams can elect to pay for 50% of his salary.

There are many outs to Luongo's contract, the worst of which happens 8 years from now. I doubt GMs are weary of his contract, just unwilling to pay Gillis' asking price.
Visnovsky is still playing D at a (relatively) high level. He doesn't really fit the mould of "salary dump".

I view the current situation; GMs being weary of Luongo, as GMs being weary of Luongo's contract. They are inseperable.

If I were doing a pro/con comparison, the only 'con' when assessing whether or not I want Luongo on my theoretical team is the tail end of the contract. There's too much financial risk there for my tastes.

tempest2i is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 03:26 PM
  #179
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
1. Part of the problem is that many people disagree with how long his contract will be considered a 'non-issue'. You suggest that is it 8 years. I understand. I feel like 4 years with many years of penalty. Others will say 2 years and another group will say none at all. Since there is no way to truly measure that one aspect of his value, you will get vastly varying opinions.

2. Just out of curiosity, what are the numbers of the cap-recapture rule for Vancouver if say they never traded him and kept him? Are we talking 4M cap penalty for 4 years? Is that non issue?
The formula is rather stupid. The total cap savings over the duration of the contract are spread over the remaining years of the contract at the time of retirement. The net effect is that, if he retires while under contract, the later he retires, the higher the per year penalty is.

However due to the $10M first year of his contract the Canucks have already accrued approximately $6.3M of the total $14.3M salary cap recapture amount - regardless of when or if he retires. So any team he is traded to, is only on the hook for the salary cap recapture accrued in the years in which they have him.

The actual amount of the penalty depends upon when he retires. The worst case for the Canucks is if he retires just before the last year of his contract. The Canucks $6.3 million in cap penalty will come due in that year. However what ever team his is traded to is only responsible for the years he is with them.

In the most likely case, where he retires after the 2018/19 season (when his salary drops to $1.6M/year) with 3 years remaining - the cap hit per year for the Canucks is about $2.0M and assuming he is traded this season, for the new team is about $2.1M for 3 years.

LeftCoast is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 03:34 PM
  #180
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
The formula is rather stupid. The total cap savings over the duration of the contract are spread over the remaining years of the contract at the time of retirement. The net effect is that, if he retires while under contract, the later he retires, the higher the per year penalty is.

However due to the $10M first year of his contract the Canucks have already accrued approximately $6.3M of the total $14.3M salary cap recapture amount - regardless of when or if he retires. So any team he is traded to, is only on the hook for the salary cap recapture accrued in the years in which they have him.

The actual amount of the penalty depends upon when he retires. The worst case for the Canucks is if he retires just before the last year of his contract. The Canucks $6.3 million in cap penalty will come due in that year. However what ever team his is traded to is only responsible for the years he is with them.

In the most likely case, where he retires after the 2018/19 season (when his salary drops to $1.6M/year) with 3 years remaining - the cap hit per year for the Canucks is about $2.0M and assuming he is traded this season, for the new team is about $2.1M for 3 years.
I wonder how a regular buy-out affects this.

Posted this numerous times, but if he's bought out instead of retiring at the end, lets say with 3 years remaining on his contract, then I believe this whole cap recapture premise is moot.

Someone on twitter should ask an agent or something.

PS. if someone finds something out about this option PM me, I highly doubt I'll remember which page of which thread to find the answer on.

Cheers.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:30 PM
  #181
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoLu7ioN View Post
At the point when he retires the NHL cap will likely be between 75-80M. I guarantee you there will be teams with internal budget constraints that will need to get to the cap floor, they will be more than wiling to take the contract (straight hit to cap without having to pay out actual cash) to help save their ownership cash. The team that acquires him in the coming weeks and has to take a cap hit penalty must also realize when the cap is at 75-80M a small cap hit penalty is diluted compared to today's salary cap - not a big deal at all.
This scenario to me suggests that the overall status of the league is struggling. If there is a vast market for acquiring dead cap space to just reach the cap floor what does that say about the financial woes of the NHL? And what do you think upon the new CBA will be done about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
The Cap is set to drop to $64.3mill next season. After that, seeing the trends we already have under the previous CBA, I think it's a foregone conclusion that the cap will steadily rise each year. What will be the cap 4-5 years from now? More importantly what will be the cap floor 4-5 years from now?
I totally get this side of the argument but the tree doesn't grow all the way up to the sky each and every year. Are we really going to see the cap at 80M is four years? 100M in eight years? Why is it being reduced from 70Mish to 63.4M? What does the increasing cap have to do with the stability of the NHL and it's teams?

The truth is we really don't know where the limit is at and sure there are going to be ways around the cap penalty that will occur do to Luongo's contract but assessing where exactly it stands is going to be difficult to tell. Probably the value of a a depth player or two? Maybe more or maybe less.

Anyway it is just one variable that effects Luongo's value. I still think you had it best with Vancouver trading him to the New York Islanders. That trade makes too much sense if Luongo wants to go there.


Last edited by marty111: 01-27-2013 at 04:35 PM.
marty111 is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:35 PM
  #182
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,231
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I only ask because if any deep pocketed team decides to buy out Luongo in two years time, it would be equivalent to having him on a two year contract.
Anyone? If a team simply wants a 2-year window with great goaltending, they can buy him out after 2 years, and then he can sign with Florida to finish his career.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:36 PM
  #183
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,955
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
Anders Lindback went for 2 2nd round picks.

Semyon Varlomov went for a 1st and a 2nd.

Luongo is certainly worth more than either of these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rune74 View Post
NO! Just say no to that logic.
flaw in logic is luongo's contract--he has all but confirmed he is done after the 17/18 or 18/19 season which is 5 or 6 years away

luongo is 34 in april

the other goalies are in their twenties and on good contracts

these are all factors in his value--whether canuck fans like it or now

I feal like getting flamed

one for one deal

Eberle for Luongo

If canuck fans think they will get say Eberle, petry something else and a first rounder for Luongo--you are sadly mistaken.

Only problem is Luongo playing in Edmonton--his wife wont like it

jumptheshark is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:39 PM
  #184
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,231
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
flaw in logic is luongo's contract--he has all but confirmed he is done after the 17/18 or 18/19 season which is 5 or 6 years away

luongo is 34 in april

the other goalies are in their twenties and on good contracts

these are all factors in his value--whether canuck fans like it or now

I feal like getting flamed

one for one deal

Eberle for Luongo

If canuck fans think they will get say Eberle, petry something else and a first rounder for Luongo--you are sadly mistaken.

Only problem is Luongo playing in Edmonton--his wife wont like it
Any Canucks fan in their right mind would do Luongo for Eberle 1-for-1.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:41 PM
  #185
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
This scenario to me suggests that the overall status of the league is struggling. If there is a vast market for acquiring dead cap space to just reach the cap floor what does that say about the financial woes of the NHL? And what do you think upon the new CBA will be done about it?



I totally get this side of the argument but the tree doesn't grow all the way up to the sky each and every year. Are we really going to see the cap at 80M is four years? 100M in eight years? Why is it being reduced from 70Mish to 63.4M? What does the increasing cap have to do with the stability of the NHL and it's teams?

The truth is we really don't know where to limit is at and sure there are going to be ways around the cap penalty that will occur do to Luongo's contract but assessing where exactly it stands is going to be difficult to tell. Probably the value of a a depth player or two? Maybe more or maybe less.

Anyway it is just one variable that effects Luongo's value. I still think you had it best with Vancouver trading him to the New York Islanders. That trade checks a lot of boxes off in the 'makes sense' category.
Trading to the islanders makes sense using blinders that help the canucks and luongo only.

The Islanders already have their own Luongo in Di Pietro. And dont forget the Yashin payments still on the books.

The problem with this islanders scenario is you are counting on Mike Milbury to still be GM and offer us up something when he really doesnt have to. Luongo is not a miracle worker. At 34 he cannot singlehandedly transform the islanders into playoff contenders so why do the islanders offer the canucks anything for the trade at all?

Luongo needs to go to a team with a solid lineup already that is looking for Solid goaltending to take them to the next step.

Tampa is the perfect fit for Luongo but Yzerman simply refused and went and got a second rate goalie instead. His decision. He has to live with it I suppose.

I would have traded Luongo for Connolly or even Ryan Malone and a first in 2014.

Wizeman* is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:42 PM
  #186
pahlsson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Any Canucks fan in their right mind would do Luongo for Eberle 1-for-1.
i wouldn't, elite veteran goalie for 70pt soft-ish player no thanks, edmonton would have to add a lot more to get a future HHOFer

pahlsson is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:43 PM
  #187
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,231
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by pahlsson View Post
i wouldn't, elite veteran goalie for 70pt soft-ish player no thanks, edmonton would have to add a lot more to get a future HHOFer
That doesn't contradict what I said.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:43 PM
  #188
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
flaw in logic is luongo's contract--he has all but confirmed he is done after the 17/18 or 18/19 season which is 5 or 6 years away

luongo is 34 in april

the other goalies are in their twenties and on good contracts

these are all factors in his value--whether canuck fans like it or now

I feal like getting flamed

one for one deal

Eberle for Luongo

If canuck fans think they will get say Eberle, petry something else and a first rounder for Luongo--you are sadly mistaken.

Only problem is Luongo playing in Edmonton--his wife wont like it
If you are honestly going to give us Eberle for Luongo we not only accept we ****** you for a week straight in continual gratitude.

Wizeman* is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:44 PM
  #189
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
flaw in logic is luongo's contract--he has all but confirmed he is done after the 17/18 or 18/19 season which is 5 or 6 years away
Making **** up never bolsters an argument. Luongo has never suggested he would retire during his contract.

Quote:
luongo is 34 in april

the other goalies are in their twenties and on good contracts
Goalies, in general, take longer to develop and if they are good and stay healthy, play longer than positional players. There numerous examples of goalies playing very well into their late 30's and early 40s.

Quote:
these are all factors in his value--whether canuck fans like it or now

I feal like getting flamed

one for one deal

Eberle for Luongo

If canuck fans think they will get say Eberle, petry something else and a first rounder for Luongo--you are sadly mistaken.

Only problem is Luongo playing in Edmonton--his wife wont like it
Again with the making *** up. No one suggested Eberle. Not flamed, just shredded.

It's reasonable to assume that an elite player in the prime of his career returns high value when traded. Luongo's contract is not an issue over the planning horizon of any current GM.

LeftCoast is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:46 PM
  #190
Skead
Registered User
 
Skead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Anyone? If a team simply wants a 2-year window with great goaltending, they can buy him out after 2 years, and then he can sign with Florida to finish his career.
Compliance buyouts are only effective for the beginning of this year and the off season coming up. After that it is regular buyouts. Meaning the team would take the total monies owed; reduce it to 2/3 and spread the remaining balance over double the contract years left...

eg. Boughtout in 2014-2015 End of Season

Year 2015 = -88,000K Buyout Cap Credit
Year 2016 = -88,000K Buyout Cap Credit
Year 2017 = -88,000K Buyout Cap Credit
Year 2018 = 3.2M Cap Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2019 = 5.0M Cap Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2020 = 5.6M Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2021 = 5.6M Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2022 = 5.6M Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2023 = 1.3M Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2024 = 1.3M Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2025 = 1.3M Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2026 = 1.3M Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2027 = 1.3M Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2028 = 1.3M Buyout Cap Penalty
Year 2029 = 1.3M Buyout Cap Penalty

Skead is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:47 PM
  #191
Nash
Registered User
 
Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,924
vCash: 500
Considering that the league did zero to address the implications of leaving a player on LTIR for the duration of their career, I don't consider any contract unmanageable. They had two perfect examples in Pronger and Savard to address the cap circumvention ability of leaving these players active rather than having them retire. This is particularly the case in a 35+ signed contract like Pronger, whose full cap hit would count regardless of retirement. Both these two have 5 years left on their contracts.

I guess we shouldn't be shocked that these two play for two clubs with owners in the old boys network. Nor should we be shocked that somehow traded back diving contracts prior to the lock out arent going to be punished (Carter, Richards).

Claiming Luongo's contract hurts his value, to me, is short sighted and not rooted in reality. Smart GMs will find a way around it.

Nash is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:49 PM
  #192
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,231
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skead View Post
Compliance buyouts are only effective for the beginning of this year and the off season coming up. After that it is regular buyouts. Meaning the team would take the total monies owed; reduce it to 2/3 and spread the remaining balance over double the contract years left...

eg. Boughtout in 2014-2015 End of Season

Year 2015 = -88,000K Buyout Credit
Year 2016 = -88,000K Buyout Credit
Year 2017 = -88,000K Buyout Credit
Year 2018 = 3.2M Buyout Penalty
Year 2019 = 5.0M Buyout Penalty
Year 2020 = 5.6M Buyout Penalty
Year 2021 = 5.6M Buyout Penalty
Year 2022 = 5.6M Buyout Penalty
Year 2023 = 1.3M Buyout Penalty
Year 2024 = 1.3M Buyout Penalty
Year 2025 = 1.3M Buyout Penalty
Year 2026 = 1.3M Buyout Penalty
Year 2027 = 1.3M Buyout Penalty
Year 2028 = 1.3M Buyout Penalty
Year 2029 = 1.3M Buyout Penalty
I'm pretty sure it's the following offseason as well.

Here:http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=650548

Quote:
In the new Collective Bargaining Agreement agreed to recently by the NHL and the NHLPA, clubs were permitted two "compliance" buyouts to take place during the 2013 and/or 2014 offseasons in order to ease the transition to a lower salary cap.
Which is essentially a two-year contract.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:49 PM
  #193
SDig14
Registered User
 
SDig14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,619
vCash: 500
I have no doubt Oilers at least kicked tires on Luongo, but I think once they heard the price the conversation was over relatively quickly.

SDig14 is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:54 PM
  #194
Skead
Registered User
 
Skead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I'm pretty sure it's the following offseason as well.

Here:http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=650548



Which is essentially a two-year contract.
Yeah that is funny wording; however it is to help teams get under the cap for the drop coming up next year starting, at 64.5M, it will never drop below that so it doesn't make sense to give teams an option to get below the cap a year past since it was in effect; when they had the option to do the previous year.

I'll try find clarity.

Edit:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=413602
Quote:
If a compliance buyout is used this week, a team will have only one left to use next summer.
The more articles I read the more it seems 1 this off season; 1 or 2 next off season.


Edit Hypothetical Question:

Could team a team Like the Canucks trade Keith Ballard for Tim Connolly, they both proceed to compliance buyout them, and the subsequently sign them for a more cap friendly hit after? Or would they pick up on that for cap circumvention


Last edited by Skead: 01-27-2013 at 05:02 PM.
Skead is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:01 PM
  #195
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,955
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
Making **** up never bolsters an argument. Luongo has never suggested he would retire during his contract.


Goalies, in general, take longer to develop and if they are good and stay healthy, play longer than positional players. There numerous examples of goalies playing very well into their late 30's and early 40s.



Again with the making *** up. No one suggested Eberle. Not flamed, just shredded.

It's reasonable to assume that an elite player in the prime of his career returns high value when traded. Luongo's contract is not an issue over the planning horizon of any current GM.
Luongo gave the interview with I think Russel--where he more or less admitted when his contract goes down to a certain level he is done

You can deny it all you you like--but Luongo is not going to play out his contract and the all teams involved will take a hit when he retires before his deal is up

you call it me making ******** up

the other 29 fan bases would suggest you are in denial in what is reality

Luongo is done in 5 to 6 years and not the ten YEARS he has left

how many 40+ starting goalies are there in the league right now

one?

he wont be playing out his contract and if you believe he is--put me on your ignore list please because you will be a lot happier in the long run. there are not many posters who believe Loungo will play beyond 40

Eberle will score 50 goals in a season sooner then later and both contracts are about the same


Last edited by piqued: 01-27-2013 at 09:48 PM. Reason: unnecessary
jumptheshark is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:07 PM
  #196
Skead
Registered User
 
Skead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
Luongo gave the interview with I think Russel--where he more or less admitted when his contract goes down to a certain level he is done

You can deny it all you you like--but Luongo is not going to play out his contract and the all teams involved will take a hit when he retires before his deal is up

you call it me making ******** up

the other 29 fan bases would suggest you are in denial in what is reality

Luongo is done in 5 to 6 years and not the ten YEARS he has left

how many 40+ starting goalies are there in the league right now

one?

he wont be playing out his contract and if you believe he is--put me on your ignore list please because you will be a lot happier in the long run. there are not many posters who believe Loungo will play beyond 40

Eberle will score 50 goals in a season sooner then later and both contracts are about the same
As much as I want to believe that; even as a Canucks fan I can understand there is no way to guarantee it. Let's say Luongo goes and bets all his money away playing Poker and gets into money problems.

Work a normal job or sit on a bench making 3+, 2+, 1+ million dollars a year and travel? Easy choice imo.


Last edited by piqued: 01-27-2013 at 09:49 PM. Reason: qep
Skead is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:20 PM
  #197
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,955
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skead View Post
As much as I want to believe that; even as a Canucks fan I can understand there is no way to guarantee it. Let's say Luongo goes and bets all his money away playing Poker and gets into money problems.

Work a normal job or sit on a bench making 3+, 2+, 1+ million dollars a year and travel? Easy choice imo.
sorry. When you look at how much he has made during his career and the fact he is a GOOD family man--there is a price for missing time with your children growing up

btw

oiler fans hate the deal

jumptheshark is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:22 PM
  #198
25Bieksa3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
Eberle for Luongo

If canuck fans think they will get say Eberle, petry something else and a first rounder for Luongo--you are sadly mistaken.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that, nor suggested anything close to that valuation coming back for Luongo. Heck, I think most Vancouver fans would assume we'd be adding to that deal.

I don't think Vancouver fans are as stupid/arrogant as you think, and are really just overrating the value of Toronto assets. There is a LOT of pieces on a lot of teams that Vancouver fans would take Luongo for in a heartbeat, just none of them are from TO

25Bieksa3 is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:23 PM
  #199
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,231
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
sorry. When you look at how much he has made during his career and the fact he is a GOOD family man--there is a price for missing time with your children growing up

btw

oiler fans hate the deal
No one expects Eberle alone for Luongo.

Hemsky/Gagner + MPS/(conditional) 1st

Is what I'd be looking for from Edmonton.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:24 PM
  #200
GO99
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GO99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,914
vCash: 355
I would torch Tambo's ass and he would have to be on cocaine and drugs to offer Eberle up as a 1 for 1 lol.

Luongo, who is probably not any good after a few years with an atrocious long contract, for young guy like Eberle? lol


Last edited by piqued: 01-27-2013 at 09:45 PM.
GO99 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 03:01 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.