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.

Article on Luongo practices this morning and greatly favors return to Panthers

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-04-2012, 10:11 PM
  #76
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximan89 View Post
Luongo's such a little girl. Guy makes ten's of million's of dollars, botches it in the playoffs repeatedly, then essentially demands a trade openly and now starts naming off his idea of a good destination. Such a whiner its ridiculous.

Im sorry but when you make that kind of money and sign one of those retardly long deals and then don't live up to it. You shut up and face the consiquences like a man. Guys a soap opera.
Good christ.
Did you even read or watch the interview?
He trains in So Fla every summer.
The interviewer cornered him and asked him the same Qs he always gets, including would you like to play here? He says sure, Fla would be great, but there are other teams he'd consider too.
That's pretty much it. But by all means take the opportunity to spin the hater angles...

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 10:16 PM
  #77
Petes2424
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modo View Post
Pretty unfair to the Panthers organization for Luongo to keep spouting off like this. Not to mention his current employers in Vancouver.

If Florida wants nothing to do with his contract (makes sense), and are more than happy with what they have in net, what happens then? Is Luongo just going to be a complete malcontent in Vancouver and whine every day about how he wants to leave?

He's doing himself no favours at all by openly declaring where he wants to go.
Im with you and honestly, if Im the Panthers, I dont want his contract. They had good play in the net last year and what happens if Markstrom really breaks out? Then they're stuck with that contract.

I say the Panthers pass.

Petes2424 is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 10:21 PM
  #78
Pyrophorus
Registered User
 
Pyrophorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eastern GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,196
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Pyrophorus Send a message via Yahoo to Pyrophorus Send a message via Skype™ to Pyrophorus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muminek View Post
What about Markstrom?
The reason he doesn't fit there.

I understand his reasons, and they're all valid, but he doesn't fit the
Panthers needs...they've been filled.

Pyrophorus is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 10:23 PM
  #79
Pyrophorus
Registered User
 
Pyrophorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eastern GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,196
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Pyrophorus Send a message via Yahoo to Pyrophorus Send a message via Skype™ to Pyrophorus
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsujimoto74 View Post
Could be helped greatly by being eased into the league behind a vet starter who can lessen the pressure on him and mentor him, IMO. Though it would eventually stink for Florida when they end up with a $5mil back-up, like the Nucks right now.
Isn't that what Theodore or Clemmenson can do?

Pyrophorus is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 10:26 PM
  #80
-DeMo-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,292
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to -DeMo-
so a guy being interviewed from a local paper said he would love to go to that city? yea that never happens.

-DeMo- is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 10:27 PM
  #81
Pyrophorus
Registered User
 
Pyrophorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eastern GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,196
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Pyrophorus Send a message via Yahoo to Pyrophorus Send a message via Skype™ to Pyrophorus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
This is what derails the discussion and gives Canuck fans a bad name around here. That deal doesn't make sense for the Jackets, they're giving up way too much youth.
Johansen OR Atkinson, and thats about it.

Pyrophorus is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 10:41 PM
  #82
IranCondraAffair
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,167
vCash: 500
It's a good fit.

IranCondraAffair is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 10:50 PM
  #83
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrophorus View Post
The reason he doesn't fit there.

I understand his reasons, and they're all valid, but he doesn't fit the
Panthers needs...they've been filled.
Edit: misunderstood your post.

nhlfan9191 is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 11:44 PM
  #84
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,445
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA not a chance in hell. Not one chance in hell. You're asking for what amounts to the same or more back than we what we got for Rick Nash. Absolutely will not happen.



This is at least worthy of discussion. I'm not particularly fond of the idea, but it's not completely crazy.



A lot of our quality pieces are going into that deal. It's g-dawful.



Carter was malingering and pouting the whole time he was here. Discussing his performance re: Columbus is like discussing how Eric Lindros did in Quebec City.


We've pretty much "trimmed the fat", as it were. The Nash trade finally got us some offensive depth, but it also put us in a position where we're dependent on having more "decent" and "servicable" type forwards than average just to be able to keep up. So while some might think we have "extras", we frankly could really use MORE - we don't have a "top scoring line", and so everyone else needs to be able to take up the slack. (This is not an unprecedented system in the NHL; Nashville operates the same way.)

Consequently, the only thing we actually legitimately have a surplus of is quality blueline prospects and late 1sts in 2013. (We just rebuilt the blueline on the roster; we're not about to disassemble it before taking it out for a ride and seeing what it can do.)

So, if Vancouver wants to talk to us, the only assets we can reasonably offer are, frankly, non-roster assets (unless you consider Steve Mason to be a roster asset ). If Vancouver doesn't consider that to be enough (which is understandable), then there's really no deal to be made.

EDIT: For the record, my plan is to hope he goes to Florida and then try to poach Theodore.
How about for LA and NY's firsts? They will likely be very late picks anyways, and your prospect depth is very good. Any blue chippers you get will likely be with your own pick, so the other 1sts can be expendable. We could use the 1sts either for a deadline deal for Perry, or simply use them to stock our own cupboards.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 11:58 PM
  #85
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,286
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modo View Post
I mean who does that? How often does a star player just up and say "I wish I was playing for <insert team here>"
I haven't really gotten that impression from what he's been saying. Sounds to me like he's giving a classic PC answer, same as French Canadian players do when asked if they want to play for Montreal, or guys who get asked if they want to play for their hometown team someday.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:03 AM
  #86
Samzilla
Registered User
 
Samzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,311
vCash: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
This is what derails the discussion and gives Canuck fans a bad name around here. That deal doesn't make sense for the Jackets, they're giving up way too much youth.
If that's too much youth to give away then I suppose we could settle for taking only Johansen in return. No but really Johansen should be a Canuck.

Samzilla is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:10 AM
  #87
pb1300
BLEED RED
 
pb1300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aiyio, Greece
Country: Greece
Posts: 10,665
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to pb1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
He's a prospect at least 3 years away from being a full-time starter, and he's had some knee issues.
Markstrom will split time with Theodore next season, if we re-sign Theodore, and he will be our #1 the season after next, at the latest. Staying the course with our current tandem, and Markstrom over the next couple of years, is the way to go. Our best times isnt now, its coming in the next few seasons, when Bjugstad, Howden, Huberdeau, Petrovic, Markstrom, etc. are contributors to this team. By that time Luongo is going to be a 35/36 year old goaltender, which doesnt really fit into this youth movement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Modo View Post
If Florida wants nothing to do with his contract (makes sense), and are more than happy with what they have in net, what happens then? Is Luongo just going to be a complete malcontent in Vancouver and whine every day about how he wants to leave?
"[The Panthers] makes sense for myself, for my career and my family,'' added Luongo, who has 10 years at $5.33 million per remaining on his deal. "This is a preferred location for obvious reasons, but I'm not shutting the door on other possibilities.''

It is his preferred destination, but he isnt saying that Florida is the only place he will go. So Im sure he would consider other destinations of Gillis had a deal on the table.


Last edited by pb1300: 09-05-2012 at 12:16 AM.
pb1300 is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:20 AM
  #88
RECsGuy*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockinghockey View Post
If I was FLD I wouldn't even take him for nothing, with his cap hit and length and having Markstrom coming up they will be in the same situation as VAN is now.
That's assuming Markstrom turns out as good as Schneider. When you also consider that Florida has only 1 other goalie prospect in their organization, Sam Brittain, who also struggled with injuries this past season, I'd say Florida isn't all that stable in net going forward.

RECsGuy* is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:27 AM
  #89
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,445
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb1300 View Post
Markstrom will split time with Theodore next season, if we re-sign Theodore, and he will be our #1 the season after next, at the latest. Staying the course with our current tandem, and Markstrom over the next couple of years, is the way to go. Our best times isnt now, its coming in the next few seasons, when Bjugstad, Howden, Huberdeau, Petrovic, Markstrom, etc. are contributors to this team. By that time Luongo is going to be a 35/36 year old goaltender, which doesnt really fit into this youth movement.
So for the first year(this season) he will be in the AHL. The season after he will be eased into the NHL with Theodore starting most games, and in the third year he becomes your number one. I believe that is what I said, and that is assuming all goes well.

Also, seeing as Thomas won the cup at 38 and Brodeur took his team to the SCF at 40, Luongo at 35 is not as bad as you make it out to be.(although admittedly not ideal)

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:37 AM
  #90
Man Bear Pig
Registered User
 
Man Bear Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 8,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
thanks for clarifying that -- good to have insider info like that.

primadonna line is way off-base. It's just us keyboard jockeys that have made this into a bigger issue than it is, not Luongo.

I thought this guy had an interesting take --

Jeff Angus ‏@anguscertified
Luongo did Mike Gillis a huge favor today regarding exploring other possibilities than FLA.

clearly in reference to this addendum to his comment that Fla would be nice to return to:

"That being said. There's obvious other options as well. This is a preferred location for obvious reasons but I'm not shutting the door on other possibilities if it comes up.''
Haha whatever makes Canucks fans feel better about the possible return. Everyone knows the list of teams will be limited, not because he's not a good goalie, the contract stinks, like it or not. Doesn't really matter, Nucks fans have a hard time grasping that it isn't a desirable contract.

Man Bear Pig is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:41 AM
  #91
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,445
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Bear Pig View Post
Haha whatever makes Canucks fans feel better about the possible return. Everyone knows the list of teams will be limited, not because he's not a good goalie, the contract stinks, like it or not. Doesn't really matter, Nucks fans have a hard time grasping that it isn't a desirable contract.
Well, would a team that spends to the cap(not Florida) prefer to have Luongo at 6.5 mil for 6 years or 5.3 for 10 years, but with the option of burying his contract in the minors whenever they want(assuming for some reason he won't retire)?

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:50 AM
  #92
Pantherfan12
Registered User
 
Pantherfan12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sunrise,Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 1,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
So for the first year(this season) he will be in the AHL. The season after he will be eased into the NHL with Theodore starting most games, and in the third year he becomes your number one. I believe that is what I said, and that is assuming all goes well.

Also, seeing as Thomas won the cup at 38 and Brodeur took his team to the SCF at 40, Luongo at 35 is not as bad as you make it out to be.(although admittedly not ideal)
Theodore's contract expires THIS season! He talks about retiring a Panther and it will most likely be after this season, so splitting next season with Markstrom is doubtful.
Clemmensen was signed for another two seasons,so chances are *if* Theo retires, and Luongo doesn't end up becoming a Panther once again, we're looking at a Clemm/Markstrom tandem.
Also, regardless of whether or not Markstrom has played 50 games in the AHL, and had two minor knee surgeries, he was still really good in net for the Panthers this past season. If we have a season, and he goes into training camp and EARNS a roster spot on the Panthers, then that changes the whole dynamics of the team now doesn't it. People are counting Markstrom out, as though he's washed up and has turned into Dipetro 2.0 when he hasn't.

Fact is, no one knows what's going to happen except Tallon. We may see a new CBA, followed by Clemm+ being traded for Luongo and then Markstrom beating out Theo for the backup roll right now. We may see Markstrom start and finish in the AHL, earning awards, and Luongo and Theo split the season. No one knows.

Pantherfan12 is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:51 AM
  #93
Man Bear Pig
Registered User
 
Man Bear Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 8,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Well, would a team that spends to the cap(not Florida) prefer to have Luongo at 6.5 mil for 6 years or 5.3 for 10 years, but with the option of burying his contract in the minors whenever they want(assuming for some reason he won't retire)?
IMO, I'll take the higher cap over less years(in theory). Obviously every case is different. The issue is not only contract, but age. You never know if a guy, especially a goalie, is gonna crap the bed. What if he's a .900SV% goalie within two years? you're stuck with a Gomez-esque deal. Worst case scenario but still a possible reality.

If I'm the Panthers, I'm probably not in any position to take on a contract like that. I want Luongo in Toronto, I'll be the first to admit it, not that I think it will happen, but for Florida, I doubt ownership wants the length involved given the ownership could crap out at any moment given the unstable negotiations in the CBA along with poor attendance. I think there's more risk then reward regardless of the mutual interest.

Man Bear Pig is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:23 AM
  #94
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmeh View Post
Will the Panthers really gamble on Luongo with Markström getting ready? I sure hope not.

If you sign such a long contract, you should have to live with it. IMO
Isn't this a bit of an HF comment? Isn't it more of a gamble to go with the prospect... than the proven started?

YogiCanucks is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:59 AM
  #95
Samzilla
Registered User
 
Samzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,311
vCash: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
Isn't this a bit of an HF comment? Isn't it more of a gamble to go with the prospect... than the proven started?
It's the allure of the unknown (where you can still believe every prospect will meet or exceed their ceiling).


Samzilla is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 06:28 AM
  #96
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,754
vCash: 500
Let me lead in with this, the context of my last post was important:
-My last post was in response to a comment that CBJ had nothing the Canucks would want. You need to see it in that context.
-I also stated that this is what I would want from CBJ, not what CBJ should be willing to give us.
-I actually think having Luongo as insurance for Schneider makes sense. At worst, he's a solid backup who gives the team a chance to win every night and helps ease Schneider's workload in his first season as a starter. At best, he wins the starting job back and plays lights-out (see Tim Thomas 2010-11).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA not a chance in hell. Not one chance in hell. You're asking for what amounts to the same or more back than we what we got for Rick Nash. Absolutely will not happen.
The general consensus is that you got screwed in the Nash deal...why would I want my team to get screwed?

Luongo helps you win more than Nash does. It's a simple matter of a franchise goalie being more important than a 59-70 point winger.

The Canucks were a non-playoff team when Luongo arrived, they did not make any major outside acquisitions that are still on the roster since he got here save for Dan Hamhuis (unless you count Booth and Ballard both of whom haven't met expectations to this point - Demitra, Sundin, and Ehrhoff have come and gone).

When Luongo got here, the team sucked. He dragged them into the playoffs. He basically took a team that had no shot at winning and gave them a shot. For CBJ fans, he was Steve Mason in his Calder year except even better. This is a good environment for development. Guys could make mistakes and rely on their goalie to hold them into games (its easier to make a mistake when your goalie makes saves than when you feel like you have to play mistake free all the time).

Having a chance to win is a huge part of development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
This is at least worthy of discussion. I'm not particularly fond of the idea, but it's not completely crazy.
Moore + a late 1st doesn't do jack squat for the Canucks. Luongo as a backup probably starts 35 games and likely wins 5-10 more games than Eddie Lack or similar. That could be the difference between being a top 3 seed and being in a fight to make the playoffs (the NW looks better after this offseason).

Comparing Luongo to Lundqvist is considered crazy but statistically they are similar and Luongo is in a worse environment to put up similar stats given the style of game his team utilizes. A Chicago fan proposed P. Kane + Morin + 1st + Crawford for Lundqvist + McIlrath and NYR fans told him to consider adding Toews (basically the thread got stopped in 15 posts because all NYR fans universally panned it)...

Going into 2010-11, after Tim Thomas lost his starting job, Boston fans were willing to take a late 1st for Tim Thomas because on HFBoards Tukka Rask was "the Future" and much better. They couldn't get it from other teams' fans while their GM held on to Thomas because they didn't get an offer they wanted. Seems like they probably made the right call.

Canucks fans have been beat down over value on Luongo and basically what was a high value asset has sunk dramatically for no reason other than impatiance and the prospect of sitting on the bench behind a guy who has been top 3 in save% for two years in a row (in a limited role). I'm of the opinion that if he's not being valued as a franchise goalie in trades, then keep him. He has value on the team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
A lot of our quality pieces are going into that deal. It's g-dawful.
When you compare two late 1sts, a guy who is coming off a 34 point season at $4.2M, and a prospect likely rated in the 30-50 range overall to a franchise goalie, they are what they are...decent pieces. These would all be phenominal pieces if we were talking about trading for a lesser asset, it's all relative.

Like I said, I'd rather see CBJs 1st in the deal than all of LAK 1st + NYR 1st + Dubinsky. Again, this is all for relative value, not that I think CBJ would trade their 1st this year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Carter was malingering and pouting the whole time he was here. Discussing his performance re: Columbus is like discussing how Eric Lindros did in Quebec City.
Really? I consider Carter's performance similar to Nash's 59, 66, and 67 point performances in the last 3 seasons. Nash was a drifter who didn't even pretend to play defense. Umberger is probably better than a 40 point forward. Vermette got worn down after a few years in CBJ before being moved.

The atmosphere in CBJ is bad because you can't win with what you have in goal. The saying that "Goaltending is 75% of a team unless you don't have a good one, then its 100%." rings true. You had a solid looking everything to start the year last year but your goalie didn't give you a chance to win, so your team sucked and the players gave up. Now your going to run with Bob who Philly traded despite a questionable starting goalie situation of their own. It's just not good. I know your fans had a strike last year demanding change...did you really get it?

The difference having a guy like Luongo behind you makes for a team is huge. A young d-man doesn't need every mistake they make to end up in the back of their net, they need a goalie who can bail them out sometimes. Imagine going to work and getting beat on every day vs going to work and having as many good days as bad...it makes a huge difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
We've pretty much "trimmed the fat", as it were. The Nash trade finally got us some offensive depth, but it also put us in a position where we're dependent on having more "decent" and "servicable" type forwards than average just to be able to keep up. So while some might think we have "extras", we frankly could really use MORE - we don't have a "top scoring line", and so everyone else needs to be able to take up the slack. (This is not an unprecedented system in the NHL; Nashville operates the same way.)

Consequently, the only thing we actually legitimately have a surplus of is quality blueline prospects and late 1sts in 2013. (We just rebuilt the blueline on the roster; we're not about to disassemble it before taking it out for a ride and seeing what it can do.)

So, if Vancouver wants to talk to us, the only assets we can reasonably offer are, frankly, non-roster assets (unless you consider Steve Mason to be a roster asset ). If Vancouver doesn't consider that to be enough (which is understandable), then there's really no deal to be made.

EDIT: For the record, my plan is to hope he goes to Florida and then try to poach Theodore.
"Trimming the fat" wasn't the issue. Other than goaltending, your roster was fine going into last season. Change your goalie from Sanford and Mason to Luongo for 82 games (just for the sake of argument) and your team lets in 55 less goals (assuming Luongo puts up a 0.925 save%). Removing empty netters and apathy and this improves even more. That difference alone would get you into 9th in the West in goal difference...you'd be in the hunt for the playoffs, and this is just with a better goalie.

You said it yourself, CBJ has an excess of dman prospects and late 1sts...they need a solid goalie and probably a top scorer. Johansen might be your future top scorer with enough other depth to support him. You don't have a goalie of that ilk. Also, you said that Nashville makes it work. They do, but they also have a golie that can put up a 0.925 save%. This is probably the most underrated thing on this board. For example, StL actually scored 30 less goals in 2010-11 but their goaltending and defense was amazing so they moved up to 2nd in the West (from 11th) and all of a sudden their is a reason for optimism (just like in Vancouver 5 years ago when Luongo arrived).

As a Canucks fan, I don't trade Luongo for two late 1sts, or a late 1sts + a good prospect. Those assets just don't help the team as much as Luongo does, even in a backup role. Put 4 of those type assets together and you got it because we'd be able to trade those 4 assets for something that will help us at the deadline. Alternatively, put two very good assets together (Johansen + CBJ 1st or Bjustad + FLA 1st) then we are talking (this is the rumored Gillias asking price). I just assume its more pallatable to give up 4 "good" assets than 2 "excellent" assets.

I think we both know having a guy like Luongo on CBJ would make a world of difference for now and the next five years at least. How much of a difference will two late 1sts and a prospect who right now looks to be a #5 defenseman on the team (i.e. the worse of Moore or Erixon will likely be your #5 dman...even in 3 years) make? Even I only want those assets to move them for scoring when teams start falling out of the playoff race.

If you don't want Luongo for that price. That's okay. I'm not trying to convince you to take him. The reality is, I personally wouldn't want to trade him for less (and I don't really care what other Canucks fans think - I believe they underestimate the possbility that Schneider may not be able to start a whole bunch of games at a 0.930 save% level, not many goalies can do that but I hope he can).


Last edited by DJOpus: 09-05-2012 at 06:36 AM.
DJOpus is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 08:23 AM
  #97
Nanabijou
Playoffs back at Nat
 
Nanabijou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Moore + a late 1st doesn't do jack squat for the Canucks. Luongo as a backup probably starts 35 games and likely wins 5-10 more games than Eddie Lack or similar. That could be the difference between being a top 3 seed and being in a fight to make the playoffs (the NW looks better after this offseason).

SNIP

Like I said, I'd rather see CBJs 1st in the deal than all of LAK 1st + NYR 1st + Dubinsky. Again, this is all for relative value, not that I think CBJ would trade their 1st this year.


SNIP

As a Canucks fan, I don't trade Luongo for two late 1sts, or a late 1sts + a good prospect. Those assets just don't help the team as much as Luongo does, even in a backup role. Put 4 of those type assets together and you got it because we'd be able to trade those 4 assets for something that will help us at the deadline. Alternatively, put two very good assets together (Johansen + CBJ 1st or Bjustad + FLA 1st) then we are talking (this is the rumored Gillias asking price). I just assume its more pallatable to give up 4 "good" assets than 2 "excellent" assets.
I'm trying hard to exhibit restraint in response to bolded sentences...

You're obviously firm in your convictions and there is nothing I can say that will change that. I have been interested in the possibility of Luongo on the Jackets, but I'm probably in the minority. You would hate what I'm offering for Luongo though based on what you think he will go for, so I'm not even going to propose it here (I'll give you a hint though - it includes Mason in the deal - as I think any deal for Luongo will include an undesirable contract headed back).

All that said, I just can't fathom any of the trades you think are reasonable could possibly now occur, and I just don't understand the point of view that a Luongo trade is going to net the Canucks significant assets. I'm not trying to start a flame war - I just don't see how anyone can think otherwise at this stage of the game. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to pass on kudos to Gillis.

It's not about whether Luongo helps the Canucks now more than the player or asset they get in return. The benefit to the Canucks is getting that contract off the books and clearing out the media circus that is going to constantly be in play as long as Luongo is there as the backup.

Nanabijou is online now  
Old
09-05-2012, 08:31 AM
  #98
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,385
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrophorus View Post
Johansen OR Atkinson
There is literally nobody associated with the Vancouver Canucks that could get us to give either of those guys up. They're our only two current chances at legit offensive stars within the next year, and Vancouver doesn't have anyone guaranteed enough or young enough for it to even be considered - Schneider aside, all their decent youngsters are defensemen, and we have more quality young defensemen than arguably any other team in the NHL save Pittsburgh. Meanwhile, the only other "skill" forward prospects we have are boom-or-bust types - most notably Tynan and Audy-Marchessault.

Discussing Johansen and Atkinson frankly is an instant dealbreaker unless we're talking about legit first line forwards coming back to Columbus. As this is something of an absurdity for whomever would be acquiring the kids, it's really not worth even mentioning their names.

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards

Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Viqsi is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 08:31 AM
  #99
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanabijou View Post
I'm trying hard to exhibit restraint in response to bolded sentences...

You're obviously firm in your convictions and there is nothing I can say that will change that. I have been interested in the possibility of Luongo on the Jackets, but I'm probably in the minority. You would hate what I'm offering for Luongo though based on what you think he will go for, so I'm not even going to propose it here (I'll give you a hint though - it includes Mason in the deal - as I think any deal for Luongo will include an undesirable contract headed back).

All that said, I just can't fathom any of the trades you think are reasonable could possibly now occur, and I just don't understand the point of view that a Luongo trade is going to net the Canucks significant assets. I'm not trying to start a flame war - I just don't see how anyone can think otherwise at this stage of the game. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to pass on kudos to Gillis.

It's not about whether Luongo helps the Canucks now more than the player or asset they get in return. The benefit to the Canucks is getting that contract off the books and clearing out the media circus that is going to constantly be in play as long as Luongo is there as the backup.
You know you are basically saying, "Trade us your franchise goalie who is still a top 3-10 goalie in the league for scraps." We will give you next to nothing back and make you take a bad contract (so you don't even really get that much cap space) but you will get to clear his contract.

Umm...no thanks.

If we find a way to use Luongo's cap space, then we can start talking about trading him somewhere for a 2nd. Otherwise, there's no reason to trade him unless it's for something that will help our team.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, do you believe Luongo would be your best player if you got him?

DJOpus is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 08:33 AM
  #100
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,385
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
How about for LA and NY's firsts? They will likely be very late picks anyways, and your prospect depth is very good. Any blue chippers you get will likely be with your own pick, so the other 1sts can be expendable. We could use the 1sts either for a deadline deal for Perry, or simply use them to stock our own cupboards.
Potentially feasible but still a tad disagreeable. There are plenty of us who like Luongo but are very ambivalent about his contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samzilla View Post
If that's too much youth to give away then I suppose we could settle for taking only Johansen in return. No but really Johansen should be a Canuck.
I'm having flashbacks to the Gilbert Brule days, only this time there's nobody like Kesler that we can point to and say "we'll take him, otherwise leave us alone."

Viqsi 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 11:09 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.