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

Luongo - If we count it in Ice Ages, it's only been a few days...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-13-2012, 02:45 PM
  #26
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Bjugstad was a direct entry to the NCAA out of HS, he cannot play the Schultz card, he doesn't have and will never have that right. Schultz had that right because he played another season in the BCHL, prior to entering the NCAA.

I also feel the new CBA will close this loophole...teams like Anaheim, Pheonix and Chicago will likely push for it.
Like any NCAA player, he can still become a UFA after graduating if he wants, so if he didn't want to sign with the team that owned his rights he could just wait and sign with anyone. Schneider admitted that he considered that route after the Canucks got Luongo but eventually his agent convinced him to leave the NCAA early and sign a pro contract. But that option is always there for NCAA players.

Given that it's not really a loophole per se (any drafted player can become a UFA 4 years after being drafted, NCAA or not), I don't expect it to be closed.

opendoor is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 02:50 PM
  #27
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco Fingerhat View Post
He probably doesn't want to start a bidding war. If Bowman had zero interest in Luongo, he would publicly state it.
I wonder if stating that having no interest in a player could be construed as tampering? I would think it best to say nothing at all regarding other players under contract to other teams.

Canucker is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 02:54 PM
  #28
Taco Fingerhat
Registered User
 
Taco Fingerhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I wonder if stating that having no interest in a player could be construed as tampering? I would think it best to say nothing at all regarding other players under contract to other teams.
Tallon and Burke have already made comments about their offers for Luongo though. So yeah, I'm not really sure what can and can't be said publicly.

Taco Fingerhat is online now  
Old
07-13-2012, 03:05 PM
  #29
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Like any NCAA player, he can still become a UFA after graduating if he wants, so if he didn't want to sign with the team that owned his rights he could just wait and sign with anyone. Schneider admitted that he considered that route after the Canucks got Luongo but eventually his agent convinced him to leave the NCAA early and sign a pro contract. But that option is always there for NCAA players.

Given that it's not really a loophole per se (any drafted player can become a UFA 4 years after being drafted, NCAA or not), I don't expect it to be closed.
Then you get a compensation pick though, right?

You'd get the 49th overall pick if he refused to sign....

I had assumed Y2K was referencing a Schultz type refusal, not a Patrick White type.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
07-13-2012, 03:16 PM
  #30
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Then you get a compensation pick though, right?

You'd get the 49th overall pick if he refused to sign....

I had assumed Y2K was referencing a Schultz type refusal, not a Patrick White type.
For 1st round selections you do get a compensatory pick, so if Bjugstad wouldn't sign with whichever team holds his rights they'd get a 2nd round pick after he hit UFA status.

opendoor is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 03:34 PM
  #31
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,315
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
For 1st round selections you do get a compensatory pick, so if Bjugstad wouldn't sign with whichever team holds his rights they'd get a 2nd round pick after he hit UFA status.
So we could be dealing Luongo for a 2nd round pick...or as someone else proposed: Luongo, Rodin, 1st round pick for a 2nd round pick. Sounds about right

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
07-13-2012, 03:53 PM
  #32
Kaphis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
I've seen this in other threads but I figured I should ask it here.

I am curious what constitutes as "tampering".

I thought that was only for pending UFAs?

In the case for trades, what would be tampering if it applies at all?

Kaphis is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 03:56 PM
  #33
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,315
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaphis View Post
I've seen this in other threads but I figured I should ask it here.

I am curious what constitutes as "tampering".

I thought that was only for pending UFAs?

In the case for trades, what would be tampering if it applies at all?
Discussing any player under contract to another team is technically tampering. This includes drafted but yet unsigned draft picks.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
07-13-2012, 04:11 PM
  #34
Eddy Punch Clock
Gold Jerry!!!
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Discussing any player under contract to another team is technically tampering. This includes drafted but yet unsigned draft picks.
But the owner of a team having diner with an ex-employee and revealing to him (prior to July 1st) that he is going to throw out an offer to a certain player the he couldn't refuse, and then having that ex-employee tell the media what the owner plans are isn't tampering.

Eddy Punch Clock is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 04:23 PM
  #35
Kaphis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Discussing any player under contract to another team is technically tampering. This includes drafted but yet unsigned draft picks.
Hmm interesting, did a bit more digging and the wording in the bylaw (Section 15.1a) states that

[Except as provided in Section 9A.5 no Member Club or any officer ...shall -directly or indirectly- tamper, negotiate with, make an offer to or discuss employment with any player, or his agent or representatives, with respect to whom another Member Club has either the professional rights or the right to negotiate for said professional right without prior written consent of that Member Club.]

and Section 9A.5 refers to Free Agent List with timelines and procedures regarding teams submitting the status of their pending Free Agents. And on July 1st, a NHLPA free agent list would be released to the teams. Here is the part that partains to tampering.

[... Except during a period that a player's name remains on the Free Agent List, no Member Club other than the Club with which he was last under contract may sign a contract or negotiate with such player, directly or indirectly, without prior written consent of the Member Club with which he was last under contract, or otherwise take action which would violate Section 15 of these By-Laws.]

I guess trades counts towards discussion of employment? but doesn't really fall under "sign a contract" or "negotiate". But I can see if a GM says "we really want this player" might be considered tampering especially if it leads to a player sitting out a season or something.

Kaphis is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 04:24 PM
  #36
Kaphis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy Punch Clock View Post
But the owner of a team having diner with an ex-employee and revealing to him (prior to July 1st) that he is going to throw out an offer to a certain player the he couldn't refuse, and then having that ex-employee tell the media what the owner plans are isn't tampering.
haha, is this referencing Minny and Parise?

Kaphis is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 04:29 PM
  #37
Beezeral
Registered User
 
Beezeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Me too.

I'd say 90% of my post count has occurred in the last 2 months.

I literally can't avoid HFboards....is there a meeting place for folks like us?


Bjugstad was a direct entry to the NCAA out of HS, he cannot play the Schultz card, he doesn't have and will never have that right. Schultz had that right because he played another season in the BCHL, prior to entering the NCAA.

I also feel the new CBA will close this loophole...teams like Anaheim, Pheonix and Chicago will likely push for it.
You are pretty much the ONLY person who thinks that the Panthers would have to send Bjugstad + for Luongo.


Also, where are these thoughts that Bjugstad would refuse to sign coming from?

Just because he went back to college does not mean he is planning on taking the Shultz route, (regardless of if he has that option or not). It was mutually agreed by the organization and Bjugstad that he would be best served by playing one more year of NCAA hockey

Beezeral is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 04:46 PM
  #38
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezeral View Post
You are pretty much the ONLY person who thinks that the Panthers would have to send Bjugstad + for Luongo.


Also, where are these thoughts that Bjugstad would refuse to sign coming from?

Just because he went back to college does not mean he is planning on taking the Shultz route, (regardless of if he has that option or not). It was mutually agreed by the organization and Bjugstad that he would be best served by playing one more year of NCAA hockey
Pretty much?

...I imagine Gillis is asking for more.

Sorry man, he's a prospect, a good one, but there's no guarantee he ever ends up having the same impact Luongo does.

NHL player + top prospect + 1st round pick, check my post history...that's what I've said all along, and nothing that has occurred since has swayed my position.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
07-13-2012, 06:27 PM
  #39
metric
Registered User
 
metric's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Hockey fans in Vancouver have been eating up the coverage of their star goalie, Roberto Luongo, as he plays in his first WSOP Main Event. He might not be their goalie for much longer though, if you read between the lines of a conversation Luongo had with another player at his table, Kamran Siddiqui.

“You played for my hometown team,” said Siddiqui, who is from Miami.

“Who’s that?” asked Luongo.

“The Florida Panthers,” answered Siddiqui.

“Oh yeah, I might be going back there,” said Luongo, while smiling.

“Yeah?” asked Siddiqui.

“Might be,” replied Luongo.
http://news.bluffmagazine.com/wsop-m...fashion-33679/

metric is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 06:32 PM
  #40
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezeral View Post
You are pretty much the ONLY person who thinks that the Panthers would have to send Bjugstad + for Luongo.


Also, where are these thoughts that Bjugstad would refuse to sign coming from?

Just because he went back to college does not mean he is planning on taking the Shultz route, (regardless of if he has that option or not). It was mutually agreed by the organization and Bjugstad that he would be best served by playing one more year of NCAA hockey
Count me with arsmaster, I think we should get more than just an upper level prospect for Luongo as well. A top end , proven goalie is always worth more than a prospect who isn't considered "can't miss". I don't think we're going to get much more than Bjugstad, but we should get more...like a 2nd rounder and Theodore...and possibly Upshall, with us sending back a prospect.

Yes, I'm sure the Panthers were really in agreement that staying in college was the best choice for him ...playing pro, against men is the best thing for him at this point in his hockey career unless he's looking to get to UFA status and cash in...staying in college does nothing for his development as a hockey player at this point.

Canucker is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 06:39 PM
  #41
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Pretty much?

...I imagine Gillis is asking for more.

Sorry man, he's a prospect, a good one, but there's no guarantee he ever ends up having the same impact Luongo does.

NHL player + top prospect + 1st round pick, check my post history...that's what I've said all along, and nothing that has occurred since has swayed my position.
I'm with you.

I don't think that Gillis' alleged ideal return needs to happen but if all we get back is Bjugstad then that could have real potential to be one of the worst deals in Canucks history.

The deal relies on one college hockey player who is not a slam dunk prospect who has not played a game in the NHL. If Bjugstad does not pan out then we gave away the best goalie we ever had for nothing.

Jay Cee is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 06:42 PM
  #42
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,315
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
From what I've heard (not an insider, just work with a guy who's close friends with Keaton Ellerby), Ellerby expects he will be traded. That's not to say he's definitely coming here and will be part of a Luongo deal, just that he personally feels that he will not be a Panther this season despite re-signing for 1 year.

I personally speculate that he could be part of a package for Luongo, but that's just my own speculation.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
07-13-2012, 06:50 PM
  #43
Beezeral
Registered User
 
Beezeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
From what I've heard (not an insider, just work with a guy who's close friends with Keaton Ellerby), Ellerby expects he will be traded. That's not to say he's definitely coming here and will be part of a Luongo deal, just that he personally feels that he will not be a Panther this season despite re-signing for 1 year.

I personally speculate that he could be part of a package for Luongo, but that's just my own speculation.
Makes sense. 8 D men. 7 spots. He has the most trade value of the guys who the panthers would consider moving

Beezeral is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 06:52 PM
  #44
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezeral View Post
Makes sense. 8 D men. 7 spots. He has the most trade value of the guys who the panthers would consider moving
Unfortunately for the Panthers, Ellerby isn't even close to being a prospect worthy of being traded for Luongo's jockstrap.

Canucker is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 06:56 PM
  #45
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I wonder if stating that having no interest in a player could be construed as tampering? I would think it best to say nothing at all regarding other players under contract to other teams.
Tampering accusations can only be made if Bowman attempted to talk to Luongo directly or publicly defamed him or the Canucks for trading him. Basically, anything that would damage us directly or indirectly depending on the circumstances. Him dismissing reporters is either hoping to avoid a bidding war or the media explosion that would inevitably follow. Luongo is one of this summer's big stories after all.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 06:59 PM
  #46
jammyrft
Registered User
 
jammyrft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Up North eh
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
From what I've heard (not an insider, just work with a guy who's close friends with Keaton Ellerby), Ellerby expects he will be traded. That's not to say he's definitely coming here and will be part of a Luongo deal, just that he personally feels that he will not be a Panther this season despite re-signing for 1 year.

I personally speculate that he could be part of a package for Luongo, but that's just my own speculation.
Where the hell would Ellerby slot in. I'd love to throw a lot at Fla for Bjudstad

jammyrft is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 07:00 PM
  #47
dps
Registered User
 
dps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Count me with arsmaster, I think we should get more than just an upper level prospect for Luongo as well. A top end , proven goalie is always worth more than a prospect who isn't considered "can't miss". I don't think we're going to get much more than Bjugstad, but we should get more...like a 2nd rounder and Theodore...and possibly Upshall, with us sending back a prospect.

Yes, I'm sure the Panthers were really in agreement that staying in college was the best choice for him ...playing pro, against men is the best thing for him at this point in his hockey career unless he's looking to get to UFA status and cash in...staying in college does nothing for his development as a hockey player at this point.
I'm with you. Offers like 'Luongo + 1st + Rodin for Bjugstad' make me want to puke. What a joke.

Why is it that some posters are willing to sell the farm for a guy like Nash who's pros/cons have been discussed at length here and at the same time give the rest of the farm away for a prospect? Am I missing something here?

Could someone please explain to me why there is such a massive value discrepancy between a guy like Nash and a guy like Lou. I'm simply baffled. Oh an try to do it without using the words 'age' or 'contract'.

dps is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 07:01 PM
  #48
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammyrft View Post
Where the hell would Ellerby slot in. I'd love to throw a lot at Fla for Bjudstad
3rd pair on the Wolves.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
07-13-2012, 07:08 PM
  #49
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Pretty much?

...I imagine Gillis is asking for more.

Sorry man, he's a prospect, a good one, but there's no guarantee he ever ends up having the same impact Luongo does.

NHL player + top prospect + 1st round pick, check my post history...that's what I've said all along, and nothing that has occurred since has swayed my position.
Sounds reasonable. Maybe MG has to compromise on one of those 3, but I'd be surprised if he doesn't get at the very least 2 of the above.

Chubros is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 07:10 PM
  #50
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dps View Post
I'm with you. Offers like 'Luongo + 1st + Rodin for Bjugstad' make me want to puke. What a joke.

Why is it that some posters are willing to sell the farm for a guy like Nash who's pros/cons have been discussed at length here and at the same time give the rest of the farm away for a prospect? Am I missing something here?

Could someone please explain to me why there is such a massive value discrepancy between a guy like Nash and a guy like Lou. I'm simply baffled. Oh an try to do it without using the words 'age' or 'contract'.
Simple, supply and demand. Goaltenders will never have comparable value to forwards or defensemen because few teams have a need. In addition, they are an easily obtained commodity because of the lackluster demand. While goaltenders of Luongo's caliber are not often available, teams are not going to pay a premium when the upgrade will not be enormous. In a flipped scenario, if we were in Chicago or Toronto's position, would you trade Hodgson for Luongo? Perhaps, worse is Florida, as they have their Schneider. Whether Markstrom becomes that good remains to be seen but why move assets of considerable value when you can simply wait and see if you have the pearl already?

That said, Nash will not command anywhere near what Columbus is demanding. Thus far, we have heard claims of Couture and McDonagh plus from San Jose and New York respectively, which are ludicrous. While Nash may be their franchise player, his contract is atrocious. I half expect Columbus will start the season with Nash because Howson refuses to budge.

Bourne Endeavor 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 01:48 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.