HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Luongo Trade Value

View Poll Results: What is Luongo's Value?
High Value (e.g., Schenn & Kadri / etc.) 57 13.87%
Moderate Value (e.g., Franson & MacArthur / etc.) 211 51.34%
Low Value (e.g., Franson / 2nd rounder / etc.) 99 24.09%
Negative Value (e.g., Komisarek / etc.) 30 7.30%
Highly Negative Value (e.g., Komisarek & Lombardi) 14 3.41%
Voters: 411. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-19-2012, 02:31 PM
  #776
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALine View Post
As promising as Colborne looks, i have to believe that Vancouver would have NO interest in him. They are set down the middle, why do you think they just gave away Hodgson. It would take something like a skilledwinger or a LH defensemen. Most of these propasal don't take into account Van needs, rather than who we can dump on them, which is just silly and not realistic at all. Does anyone really think they will just take something they have no need for, plus a salary dump. I think VAN won't get very substantial offers for Lu, but will look to fill needs regardless. The gave Hodgson in an effort to fill a need of grit/toughness, they will do the same with Lu.

Macurthur+Franson
Kardi+Holzer,
something with moderate value, that still makes sense for VAN.
they got rid of Hodgson because they had issues with him and it stemmed from his back injury...

joepeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:33 PM
  #777
ALine
Registered User
 
ALine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
Who is Vancouver's 3rd line center? And with Kesler hurt again, who is their 2nd line center?
Sedin, Keslar, Malholtra?

So Keslar is just hurt forever and won't play again?Not likely. He will be good to go early next season. It would be very short sighted to give Luongo away to fix a need like that. I give Gillis more credit than that.

ALine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:33 PM
  #778
Chandrashekhar Limit
ORANJE 4 LYFE
 
Chandrashekhar Limit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waterloo, ON
Country: Bangladesh
Posts: 15,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DopitaToDemitra View Post
It's comments like these that makes leaf fans look bad and give them a bad rep on here
Nope, that's exactly what we're all thinking.

Canucks fans like you give your fan base a bad rep of being clueless about the trade market.

Chandrashekhar Limit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:35 PM
  #779
lefty2time*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,109
vCash: 500
FYI: Van fans like this and so do NYR fans.

To Vancouver: Dubinsky + Ashton + T.O Cap dump (any contract)
To NYR: Kulemin + Schenn
To T.O: Luongo, 4th

lefty2time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:42 PM
  #780
Chandrashekhar Limit
ORANJE 4 LYFE
 
Chandrashekhar Limit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waterloo, ON
Country: Bangladesh
Posts: 15,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DopitaToDemitra View Post
FYI: Van fans like this and so do NYR fans.

To Vancouver: Dubinsky + Ashton + T.O Cap dump (any contract)
To NYR: Kulemin + Schenn
To T.O: Luongo, 4th
Even worse. Ofcourse you all like this. Make out like bandits while the Leafs take it up the backside.

Neither of Kulemin/Schenn are available for Luongo.

Chandrashekhar Limit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:43 PM
  #781
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DopitaToDemitra View Post
FYI: Van fans like this and so do NYR fans.

To Vancouver: Dubinsky + Ashton + T.O Cap dump (any contract)
To NYR: Kulemin + Schenn
To T.O: Luongo, 4th
of course they do because Vancouver dumps 50 mil and 15 year contract for Dubinsky Ashton and dump

Rangers get Kulemin and Schenn for Dubinsky

and the Leafs have a 15 year contract till the guy is 75 years old for Schenn Kulemin Ashton and Dump

brutal

joepeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:44 PM
  #782
lefty2time*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandrashekhar Limit View Post
Even worse. Ofcourse you all like this. Make out like bandits while the Leafs take it up the backside.

Neither of Kulemin/Schenn are available for Luongo.
Hmmm i see.

Well, it'll be interesting to see what Lu is traded for if/when? it happens!

lefty2time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:44 PM
  #783
paulster2626
Registered User
 
paulster2626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DopitaToDemitra View Post
FYI: Van fans like this and so do NYR fans.

To Vancouver: Dubinsky + Ashton + T.O Cap dump (any contract)
To NYR: Kulemin + Schenn
To T.O: Luongo, 4th
Kulemin, Schenn, Ashton, and a cap dump (which would be what - max 2 years?) for Luongo?

WTF is a 4th? Get that filler crap outta here.

paulster2626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:44 PM
  #784
ChesapeakeRipper
Dr. Hannibal Lecter
 
ChesapeakeRipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Toronto (Scar City)
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,375
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DopitaToDemitra View Post
FYI: Van fans like this and so do NYR fans.

To Vancouver: Dubinsky + Ashton + T.O Cap dump (any contract)
To NYR: Kulemin + Schenn
To T.O: Luongo, 4th

wow, toronto is getting luongo for ashton, kulemin and schenn.

leafs are getting hosed. big time.

ChesapeakeRipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:45 PM
  #785
Chandrashekhar Limit
ORANJE 4 LYFE
 
Chandrashekhar Limit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waterloo, ON
Country: Bangladesh
Posts: 15,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulster2626 View Post
Kulemin, Schenn, Ashton, and a cap dump (which would be what - max 2 years?) for Luongo?

WTF is a 4th? Get that filler crap outta here.
That's my favourite part of the deal

Chandrashekhar Limit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:46 PM
  #786
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALine View Post
Sedin, Keslar, Malholtra?

So Keslar is just hurt forever and won't play again?Not likely. He will be good to go early next season. It would be very short sighted to give Luongo away to fix a need like that. I give Gillis more credit than that.
I didn't say any such thing. There aren't many Leaf fans who are bigger fans of Sedin/Kesler, but suggesting Hodgson was traded because they didn't need him and therefore don't need Colborne is wrong IMHO. Canucks were desperate for another center this year, and moving Hodgson didn't help matters for them. His replacement wasn't much.

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:46 PM
  #787
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DopitaToDemitra View Post
Hmmm i see.

Well, it'll be interesting to see what Lu is traded for if/when? it happens!
Unless Milbury give you the world as usual, be prepare to be underwhelmed..

MacArthur Komi or Franson Komi Lombardi Conolly a mix of 2 maybe 3 of those

joepeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:47 PM
  #788
ALine
Registered User
 
ALine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joepeps View Post
they got rid of Hodgson because they had issues with him and it stemmed from his back injury...
He had back problems, and there was come dissention about being it diagnosed properly by the medical staff of the Canucks. The problems started when they basically called him a big phony, and that he was faking the whole thing because he was sour he was cut. That quite a thing to insinuate about your young players. His back was fine, and he earned the 2nd line C role last year when Keslar couldn't start the season.

They didn't get rid of him because they were iffy about his back, they got rid of him becuase the management no longer wanted him becuuse he didn't have a role. This is my estimation based off the evidence out there, there is nothing conclusive becuase both Hodgson and Gillis have he requested a trade, and maintain this was a purely a hockey trade, using any area of organizational strenght to improve an area of weakness.

ALine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:49 PM
  #789
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALine View Post
He had back problems, and there was come dissention about being it diagnosed properly by the medical staff of the Canucks. The problems started when they basically called him a big phony, and that he was faking the whole thing because he was sour he was cut. That quite a thing to insinuate about your young players. His back was fine, and he earned the 2nd line C role last year when Keslar couldn't start the season.

They didn't get rid of him because they were iffy about his back, they got rid of him becuase the management no longer wanted him becuuse he didn't have a role. This is my estimation based off the evidence out there, there is nothing conclusive becuase both Hodgson and Gillis have he requested a trade, and maintain this was a purely a hockey trade, using any area of organizational strenght to improve an area of weakness.
Thats what I meant... I know his back was fine... He wanted to be traded because he felt vancouver handled the situation wrong and Vancouver wanted to get rid of him for the same reason...

It had nothing to do with his play or if they needed him... It was a personal problem

joepeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:55 PM
  #790
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALine View Post
there is nothing conclusive becuase both Hodgson and Gillis have he requested a trade, and maintain this was a purely a hockey trade, using any area of organizational strenght to improve an area of weakness.
Gillis on Hodgson

Quote:
Then, as Gillis explained at his press conference Tuesday, “We built [Hodgson] into something we could move.”

Few forget Hodgson’s scoring pace in the days leading up to the deadline. He had eight goals and five assists in 25 games, a rate consistent with many NHL second-liners, and made more impressive because he had just turned 22.

But few remember the situations Hodgson was placed in to help him succeed. Most notably, his defensive zone time was cut by 77 per cent.

“That was by design,” admitted Gillis, who made specific reference to the limited number of defensive zone faceoffs Hodgson was on the ice for in the days leading up to his trade. “We put Cody on the ice in every offensive situation we could.”

From late-December to the trade deadline, Hodgson was on the ice for nearly as many offensive faceoffs as Henrik Sedin. By taking away puck-moving responsibilities from the kid, he could focus on scoring, which played into the Canucks’ hands.

A pair of months later, the Canucks had successfully turned Hodgson into a tradeable asset — something he hadn’t been at the start of the season.
Quote:
Mike Gillis, who had been largely silent on the reasons why he traded the player he made his first draft pick as Vancouver Canucks general manager four years ago, labelled Hodgson a chronic complainer during his end-of-season post-mortem Tuesday at Rogers Arena.

"There clearly were issues that were ongoing," Gillis said of Hodgson. "I spent more time on Cody's issues than every other player combined on our team the last three years."

Gillis made the comments while defending the trade deadline day deal that sent Hodgson to the Buffalo Sabres for winger Zack Kassian and defenceman Marc-Andre Gragnani.

"We made a determination that he didn't want to be here, we built him into something we could move,

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 03:11 PM
  #791
ALine
Registered User
 
ALine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,124
vCash: 500
Ah, well, I'm certainly not as up-to-date on Canucks goings on as you. Thanks for that.

I still think that they would have no interest in a C. regardless of the publicly stated reasons for trading Hodgson. If these are the real reasons, this only lend credence to the fact that they don't need a center if they were just willing to give one away. They had a problem with Hodgson off-ice, they felt they could just remove him from the equation without hampering the organization at all, because they are deep with NHL centers.
If not, then its a way to justify the trade. The zone times could be justified in other ways then to try to bait a trade. Could it be that there are other, better defensive players on Vancouver that are more suited to a defensive zone start, could it be that he, as a more offensively inclined player, to be more suited to offensive zone starts? Theres to sides to this coin.

ALine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 06:33 PM
  #792
OlderTimer*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
Gillis on Hodgson
Funny...Burke hasn't had to do that with Kadri...All Kadri says is I'm going to try and work harder and improve my game!!!

OlderTimer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 08:05 PM
  #793
Beaninfritz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 233
vCash: 500
Already covered this in another thread I posted in. Lol, I chose the moderate package without knowing what it actually was. After a bit of thought I modified it a bit, but it's still pretty much the same in trade value

Franson/Gunnar
Mac
and either this year's 2nd/3rd
or next year's 1st/2nd

There are other player's I'd swap in there to be traded too (JML, Armstrong), but Vancouver's got to watch their cap. So that really makes players like Franson or Gunnar the best/only options for Vancouver as far as NHL D-men are concerned.

Having Luongo in the lineup would guarantee another 5 wins for the leafs IMO, which would justify giving up next season's 1st round pick for him. I honestly can't see the leafs in the basement again next season if Lu is our goalie. In fact, I don't even see them in the bottom 10 with Lu in net.

Beaninfritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 08:16 PM
  #794
TheSilencer
Registered User
 
TheSilencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DopitaToDemitra View Post
FYI: Van fans like this and so do NYR fans.

To Vancouver: Dubinsky + Ashton + T.O Cap dump (any contract)
To NYR: Kulemin + Schenn
To T.O: Luongo, 4th
May be because you guys make out like bandits while we get royally ****ed?

TheSilencer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 08:29 PM
  #795
CookieCrumbs*
Heads Up!
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 879
vCash: 500
I even agree. You guys get the short end of the stick with that deal no question. It'll be interesting how this whole "Luongo to Toronto" thing turns out. Watch Gillis keep him...

If you guys do get Luongo, you will make the Playoffs.

CookieCrumbs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 08:42 PM
  #796
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieCrumbs View Post
I even agree. You guys get the short end of the stick with that deal no question. It'll be interesting how this whole "Luongo to Toronto" thing turns out. Watch Gillis keep him...

If you guys do get Luongo, you will make the Playoffs.
no doubt we would... but say in 3-4 5 years he drops in production or Scrivens/Reimer pass him in play... then we are kinda screwed lol

Thats why we can't pay fair value as if he had a 3-5 year deal...

MacArthur Franson Komi type of deal

joepeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 10:18 PM
  #797
BayStBullies
Burn the Boats!
 
BayStBullies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: @BayStBullies
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieCrumbs View Post
I even agree. You guys get the short end of the stick with that deal no question. It'll be interesting how this whole "Luongo to Toronto" thing turns out. Watch Gillis keep him...

If you guys do get Luongo, you will make the Playoffs.
I'm not sure if Gillis will have much of a choice; if he is really looking for the type of ridiculous offers I have seen quite a few VanFans floating on these boards.

I do not think other GMs enjoy being screwed for the benefit of overpaying another team to acquire a player that has next to no trade market; with a gargantuan decade long contract; who is in their 30s...... and lost their lineup spot.

BayStBullies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 10:26 PM
  #798
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayStBullies View Post
I'm not sure if Gillis will have much of a choice; if he is really looking for the type of ridiculous offers I have seen quite a few VanFans floating on these boards.

I do not think other GMs enjoy being screwed for the benefit of overpaying another team to acquire a player that has next to no trade market; with a gargantuan decade long contract; who is in their 30s...... and lost their lineup spot.
The great debate now becomes who is under more pressure to trade...

Gillis, the man with two goalies and back to back president cups... or Burke, the man running out of goalie options and who (I believe) promised to address goal-tending and hasn't made the playoffs yet with his high media-intensive-market team.

I'm interested to see how this plays out. I honestly don't know as I have been contending the Canucks try to move Schneider to someone like CBJ instead of dealing Luongo. We'll see.

LickTheEnvelope is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 10:49 PM
  #799
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
The great debate now becomes who is under more pressure to trade...

Gillis, the man with two goalies and back to back president cups... or Burke, the man running out of goalie options and who (I believe) promised to address goal-tending and hasn't made the playoffs yet with his high media-intensive-market team.

I'm interested to see how this plays out. I honestly don't know as I have been contending the Canucks try to move Schneider to someone like CBJ instead of dealing Luongo. We'll see.
Burke's year end press conference transcript, where he talks about goaltendin and veteran leadership.

Quote:
Q: Do you have a chance to get a really good young goaltender who’s not quite proven, for example a (Jonathan) Bernier? Would you be willing to throw in a first round pick?

No.

Goaltending — are you looking for someone with more experience to give some depth?

We’ll sort that out, it’s a fair question.

I don’t feel that we got, Randy’s saying you have to do it his way, we have to take it up a notch.
Quote:
Do you have to bring in some veteran leadership?

I think we might have to, yes, I agree with Randy’s assessment, I think we need to support the young. I think we go the captain we were hoping to get, the job Dion did shutting down other forwards was largely unnoticed, he’s a ferocious competitor and a good leader.
Quote:
Goaltender – someone to compete with Reimer?

That question’s been answered. Everyone’s assuming that we didn’t try to address the goaltending issue at the trade deadline. We did.

James Reimer? Confidence?

I think he got run from the side (by Brian Gionta), eh got a concussion and it affected his play. It affected his play, and I think he’s the real deal, but…

Do you feel he needs some help?

Next question.

The Monster (goaltender Jonas Gustavsson)?

He saved our season when we were in it, as far as stepping up, I told him he’s the first person who needs to know what our intent is with the goaltending position.

Would he be best served somewhere else?

We’ll see, we’ll see.
Burke never committed to a veteran goaltender.

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 11:30 PM
  #800
ITM
Registered User
 
ITM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
Burke's year end press conference transcript, where he talks about goaltendin and veteran leadership.

+++

The Monster (goaltender Jonas Gustavsson)?

He saved our season when we were in it, as far as stepping up, I told him he’s the first person who needs to know what our intent is with the goaltending position.
He was fantastic for a stretch where the conditions were such that he had no pressure apart from his performance, where he was being completely relied upon. Reimer came back, Wilson began to platoon and things seemed to unravel.

I know the argument is, "If he's going to be a number one goalie in the NHL, he's got to bear up under pressure from internal competition..." but I just can't help but think, if he was given a veteran presence like a Hedberg, someone to mentor him about nuances in mental preparation in an NHL environment while not posing a direct threat to him, that Gustavsson would continue to perform as he did when he was "the man" for the period he was solely relied upon.

ITM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:35 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.