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.

Vancouver - Chicago (Lu, Edler, Kane, Hammer)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-18-2012, 12:06 PM
  #276
Jack Donaghy
Good God Lemon
 
Jack Donaghy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somerville MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crymson View Post
We shall see what becomes of the cap when the next CBA is hammered out. And if Schneider plays well and garners himself a bigger contract in four years, and should Luongo stick around, then Vancouver's goalie tandem is going to end up being very expensive.

Whatever the case, no team wants to pay a backup goaltender $5.3m per year. It's obviously preferable for the Canucks to move Luongo. That's why they've chosen to do so, and it's also why Luongo is listed in so many of these trade proposals. Mike Gillis is obviously not apathetic about the matter.
Four years is a long time from now. I really don't think they're in cap trouble.

Jack Donaghy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 03:19 PM
  #277
Skead
Registered User
 
Skead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
NTC (player can supply five-team trade list following final game of 2013-14, valid through July 15, 2014; if player does not submit trade list at that time, team can request a five-team trade list following final game of 2017-18 season, valid through Sept. 1, 2018). If player submitted a trade list in 2014 and was not moved, team loses right to request trade list in 2018.
So is this all moot now that he has requested a trade before his L-NTCs options have kicked in?

Skead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 04:00 PM
  #278
vespa99
Registered User
 
vespa99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I wouldn't do this trade.

Edler = Kane(admittedly assuming Edler resigns long-term wherever)
Luongo>> Hjaalmarsson
So lets say Edler wont re sign with Van.
And lets face it there seems to be a limited market for Lu and his giant contract. How does this deal look to you by next year with Edler gone for nothing and Lu as your backup?
These are the things Gm's have to weigh in any deal.

vespa99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 04:06 PM
  #279
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,223
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by vespa99 View Post
So lets say Edler wont re sign with Van.
And lets face it there seems to be a limited market for Lu and his giant contract. How does this deal look to you by next year with Edler gone for nothing and Lu as your backup?
These are the things Gm's have to weigh in any deal.
I'll risk it. I highly doubt Edler walks. I believe they are about to start contract negotiations soon as well.

Hjaalmarsson fills no need on our roster. Whatever Luongo's value is, it would be better served getting prospects/picks than a redundant asset.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 04:13 PM
  #280
vespa99
Registered User
 
vespa99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,425
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Vankiller Whale;53729943]I'll risk it. I highly doubt Edler walks. I believe they are about to start contract negotiations soon as well.

Hjaalmarsson fills no need on our roster. Whatever Luongo's value is, it would be better served getting prospects/picks than a redundant asset.[/QUOTE]

True enough on the Lu trade. There will come a point soon though that the only interest will be to get rid of his contract and remove him as a distraction. (If a good hockey deal can not be made) I am not saying he HAS been a distracion but I am pretty sure the team will not want him starting the season with the team.
As for taking the risk on Edler... those are the hard decisions a Gm makes every year. See how it worked out with Suter.
For my taste you never let a player go to ufa unless you are a SERIOUS cup contender.


Last edited by vespa99: 08-20-2012 at 04:14 PM. Reason: add
vespa99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 01:18 PM
  #281
Hi-wayman
Registered User
 
Hi-wayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crymson View Post
The likelihood of moving him for any notable return will decrease as he gets older.
No, the likelyhood of moving him for any notable return will increase as other teams, Chicago, Toronto & Columbus included, realise their need for a ligitimate number one goalie. In the mean time Luongo gives the Canucks insurance should Schneider struggle with number one goalie pressure. At the very worst the Canucks start the season with one of the strongest goalie tandom in the league. A combination that Mike Gillis stated he would prefer rather than trading either of the two.

The Canucks already will field a cup contender team with what they have now. Any team wants to improve, but trading Luongo for nothing less than a notible return does nothing to improve the Canucks as a team. Replacing a proven elite goalie like Luongo with with an inexperienced backup like Lack weakens the Canucks in goal. Unless the Canucks improve the team overall someplace else greater than the weakness Lack causes to the Canucks, Gillis will keep Luongo no matter what players or prospects are offered the Canucks.

Hi-wayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 02:34 PM
  #282
WJF
Registered User
 
WJF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 3,510
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I wouldn't do this trade.

Edler = Kane(admittedly assuming Edler resigns long-term wherever)
Luongo>> Hjaalmarsson
Let me guess, you're a Vancouver fan?

The OP reaks for Chicago - and I'm not a fan of either team.

Why do Canucks fans overvalue their players so much? Is it the President's trophies? Does that suddenly inflate every player on the team by several notches?

WJF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 02:51 PM
  #283
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,223
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJF View Post
Let me guess, you're a Vancouver fan?

The OP reaks for Chicago - and I'm not a fan of either team.

Why do Canucks fans overvalue their players so much? Is it the President's trophies? Does that suddenly inflate every player on the team by several notches?
Why shouldn't a physical number #1 defenseman not be worth as much as a soft, playmaking winger?

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 03:13 PM
  #284
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJF View Post
Let me guess, you're a Vancouver fan?

The OP reaks for Chicago - and I'm not a fan of either team.

Why do Canucks fans overvalue their players so much? Is it the President's trophies? Does that suddenly inflate every player on the team by several notches?
Im sorry are we the ONLY ones that do that?

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 04:04 PM
  #285
mavstar
I hate Nucks' fans
 
mavstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 379
vCash: 500
I'd do it. Kane for Edler is fair value and Luongo for Hjalmarsson isn't terrible. That said... we fans have a totally warped perspective on what Luongo is TRULY worth because of all these months of speculation.

Isn't Chicago our biggest rival though? If this went through, I could totally see a motivated Luongo absolutely destroying the Canucks come playoff time.

mavstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 04:08 PM
  #286
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,322
vCash: 10592
What the christ...this thing is STILL going on?

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 04:30 PM
  #287
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
What the christ...this thing is STILL going on?
I'm as surprised as you are, and I'm the OP.

Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 05:10 PM
  #288
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,179
vCash: 500
Lol. Kane for Edler is not fair value. Sorry, Nucks fans.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 05:27 PM
  #289
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Lol. Kane for Edler is not fair value. Sorry, Nucks fans.
Neither is Luongo for Hjalmarsson. Its a 4-player trade.

Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 05:38 PM
  #290
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Swearengen View Post
Neither is Luongo for Hjalmarsson. Its a 4-player trade.
Oh, the OP's deal is pretty bad too. My post was directed to the few Vancouver fans who said Edler = Kane in value on this page.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 05:41 PM
  #291
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Oh, the OP's deal is pretty bad too. My post was directed to the few Vancouver fans who said Edler = Kane in value on this page.
OP here - I disagree.

Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 05:52 PM
  #292
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Swearengen View Post
OP here - I disagree.
Luongo's bloated contract and a #2 defenseman signed through only next year in exchange for a solid #4 guy and a top-3 RW in the game?

No thank you from Chicago.

And I'm one of the few who actually defends Luongo, too.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 06:07 PM
  #293
YouCantYandleThis*
Moustache Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Luongo's bloated contract and a #2 defenseman signed through only next year in exchange for a solid #4 guy and a top-3 RW in the game?

No thank you from Chicago.

And I'm one of the few who actually defends Luongo, too.
Yeah but Luongo's bloated contract comes with a top 5-10 goaltender in the game (depending on who you talk to).

I agree that in principle the trade doesn't work for Chicago. I think that's just mostly from a standpoint of perceived value though, and not having a DIRE need for another top pairing defensemen.

The Canucks' package may not have as high a perceived value as the Hawks, but in reality it's pretty pretty damn close. Luongo's greater value than Hjalmarsson makes up some ground on how much more value Kane has than Edler.

YouCantYandleThis* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 06:25 PM
  #294
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YouCantYandleThis View Post
Yeah but Luongo's bloated contract comes with a top 5-10 goaltender in the game (depending on who you talk to).

I agree that in principle the trade doesn't work for Chicago. I think that's just mostly from a standpoint of perceived value though, and not having a DIRE need for another top pairing defensemen.

The Canucks' package may not have as high a perceived value as the Hawks, but in reality it's pretty pretty damn close. Luongo's greater value than Hjalmarsson makes up some ground on how much more value Kane has than Edler.
The value isn't the worst in the world by any means (although I still do think it's slanted in Vancouver's favor, especially when you consider they don't need Luongo and his wanting out is publicly known).

Edler does a good bit to help a defensive group that is missing a #3 defenseman (yes, I am aware he is first-pairing caliber), and Luongo fills in the roster hole in net for Chicago.
Sounds great, when you don't look at what the Hawks are giving up.
For one, they trade away the guy who ideally would play with Edler. Now, of course Edler is much better than Hjalmarsson is. But the hole on the second pairing remains in existence. It just flips from #3 D back to #4D. The Hawks have a glut of bottom-pairing guys. If they trade Hjalmarsson - their third-best defenseman - for Edler, the hole on the second pairing is still there.
It's an improvement, but not by as much as you think. Fix one problem only to create a different one.

And, of course, I haven't mentioned Kane yet. Chicago is giving up the best and most dynamic player in the deal... a big-game performer who is one of the most clutch players in the NHL. A player whose overall game has improved every year he's been in the league. People look at Kane's past season and see that he scored a career-low in points, but it doesn't really tell the whole story. Remember Chicago's mysteriously awful PP this past year? Terrible despite having so much talent? Right there is the reason Kane's point totals lagged. Nobody on the Hawks could get it going on the man advantage last year... and Kane, who is a great PP player, naturally had his stats suffer as a result. No, the powerplay's problems were not his fault. The major issue Chicago had was simply setting up the powerplay itself in the zone. A lot of this stems off of the coaching staff's almost shocking incompetence and disturbing inability to adjust anything at all.

But I'm rambling, so I'll get to the point. Kane was essentially right at his career high in ES points last season. What he lacked were the PP points, for the reasons mentioned above... and I should reiterate once again that it wasn't his fault. He was also playing through a wrist injury most of last season, which hampered his shooting.

He's too good to trade. That's just all there is to it.
Luongo, with the contract until he's 200 years old and his well-known issues with pressure, along with Edler... hey, it's two good players, albeit one with his trade value somewhat severely diminished due to his trade request. But it's not worth it from the Chicago POV. With an aging RW in Hossa, the Hawks need to hold on to Kane. Fill the holes at G and #3D only to create a long-term problem at #1 RW and an immediate gap at #4D... meh. Don't sign me up. The Hawks may be getting two solid, solid players, but it just isn't worth it.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 06:28 PM
  #295
YouCantYandleThis*
Moustache Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
The value isn't the worst in the world by any means (although I still do think it's slanted in Vancouver's favor, especially when you consider they don't need Luongo and his wanting out is publicly known).

Edler does a good bit to help a defensive group that is missing a #3 defenseman (yes, I am aware he is first-pairing caliber), and Luongo fills in the roster hole in net for Chicago.
Sounds great, when you don't look at what the Hawks are giving up.
For one, they trade away the guy who ideally would play with Edler. Now, of course Edler is much better than Hjalmarsson is. But the hole on the second pairing remains in existence. It just flips from #3 D back to #4D. The Hawks have a glut of bottom-pairing guys. If they trade Hjalmarsson - their third-best defenseman - for Edler, the hole on the second pairing is still there.
It's an improvement, but not by as much as you think. Fix one problem only to create a different one.

And, of course, I haven't mentioned Kane yet. Chicago is giving up the best and most dynamic player in the deal... a big-game performer who is one of the most clutch players in the NHL. A player whose overall game has improved every year he's been in the league. People look at Kane's past season and see that he scored a career-low in points, but it doesn't really tell the whole story. Remember Chicago's mysteriously awful PP this past year? Terrible despite having so much talent? Right there is the reason Kane's point totals lagged. Nobody on the Hawks could get it going on the man advantage last year... and Kane, who is a great PP player, naturally had his stats suffer as a result. No, the powerplay's problems were not his fault. The major issue Chicago had was simply setting up the powerplay itself in the zone. A lot of this stems off of the coaching staff's almost shocking incompetence.

But I'm rambling, so I'll get to the point. Kane was essentially right at his career high in ES points last season. What he lacked were the PP points, for the reasons mentioned above... and I should reiterate once again that it wasn't his fault. He was also playing through a wrist injury most of last season, which hampered his shooting.

He's too good to trade. That's just all there is to it.
Luongo, with the contract until he's 200 years old and his well-known issues with pressure, along with Edler... hey, it's two good players, albeit one with his trade value somewhat severely diminished due to his trade request. But it's not worth it from the Chicago POV. With an aging RW in Hossa, the Hawks need to hold on to Kane. Fill the holes at G and #3D only to create a long-term problem at #1 RW and an immediate gap at #4D... meh. Don't sign me up. The Hawks may be getting two solid, solid players, but it just isn't worth it.
I really only needed to read the first sentence but I agree with your post. Kane certainly has an x-factor that makes him damn near untradeable, and it definitely skews the proposal in favor of Vancouver.

YouCantYandleThis* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 06:30 PM
  #296
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YouCantYandleThis View Post
I really only needed to read the first sentence but I agree with your post. Kane certainly has an x-factor that makes him damn near untradeable, and it definitely skews the proposal in favor of Vancouver.
Hence the reason Hawk fans throw their arms up in the air whenever they see "Proposal: Kane to ___"

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 06:49 PM
  #297
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,749
vCash: 500
If both were signed to the same deal, I'd take Edler over Kane. Given their contracts its gotta be Kane assuming the guy will try hard enough to turn things around.

Edler finished 5th in d-men scoring and brings more to the table than just offense and has been tranding upwards every year.

Kane finished 35th in scoring amoung forwards and has trended downwards since he signed his big contract. From above PPG (88 in 82), to PPG (76 in 76), and to 66 points in 82 games. Kane has also been accused of choking a girl and partying this summer so I doubt the trend is going to reverse. Basically he seems like a guy who got a contract that pays him enough to survive without ever working again ($31.5M over 5 years) and seems to be just mailing it in. His stats mirror Alexi Yashin pretty well: 88 in 82, huge contract, 75 in 78, 65 in 81, 34 in 47, 50 in 58, 66 in 82, 50 in 58 then he was bought out and went to the KHL.

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 07:09 PM
  #298
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,223
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Oh, the OP's deal is pretty bad too. My post was directed to the few Vancouver fans who said Edler = Kane in value on this page.
The only reason why it's not is because of Edler's contract status. Seeing as he most probably re-sign wih the Canucks(regardless of whether or not he will with Chicago) we give up more value than we gain, and to a Conference rival no less.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 08:50 PM
  #299
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
The only reason why it's not is because of Edler's contract status. Seeing as he most probably re-sign wih the Canucks(regardless of whether or not he will with Chicago) we give up more value than we gain, and to a Conference rival no less.
So, what if this was the new deal?



Kane
Hjalmarsson



Edler (signed to a 5 year, 5.15-5.85 million dollar contract beginning 2013)
Luongo

Al Swearengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 09:10 PM
  #300
Al Swearengen
Smug Nation National
 
Al Swearengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
If both were signed to the same deal, I'd take Edler over Kane. Given their contracts its gotta be Kane assuming the guy will try hard enough to turn things around.

Edler finished 5th in d-men scoring and brings more to the table than just offense and has been tranding upwards every year.

Kane finished 35th in scoring amoung forwards and has trended downwards since he signed his big contract. From above PPG (88 in 82), to PPG (76 in 76), and to 66 points in 82 games. Kane has also been accused of choking a girl and partying this summer so I doubt the trend is going to reverse. Basically he seems like a guy who got a contract that pays him enough to survive without ever working again ($31.5M over 5 years) and seems to be just mailing it in. His stats mirror Alexi Yashin pretty well: 88 in 82, huge contract, 75 in 78, 65 in 81, 34 in 47, 50 in 58, 66 in 82, 50 in 58 then he was bought out and went to the KHL.
I looked it up, intending to disagree with you based on him having 52 points in 51 playoff games. Then I saw 1 goal in the last 13 games (2011 and 2012) and thought that maybe you were on to something. Then I remembered that his team wasn't that good last year, and that 13 games is a small sample size, plus he does have 10 points in 13, which is pretty good... so I still disagree with you. Kane might be a totally lousy guy, but I think the jury is still out on whether or not he'll come around as he matures. I certainly don't think he's mailing it in though. He managed to get 66 points last year even though he spent 26.7% of his time with Stalberg, 20% of his time with Brunette, and 11% of his time with Carcillo.

Al Swearengen 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 08:27 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.