HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

All Purpose Luongo Trade Discussion (New news) MOD WARNING IN OP

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 01:14 PM
  #776
DPyro
Registered User
 
DPyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,313
vCash: 500
All this Luongo talk is BS when the fact of the matter is the owners are not allowed to negotiate trades during the lockout. These rumours are just made up so that the media gets hits to their websites and they know Toronto will always eat it up.

DPyro is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:14 PM
  #777
bobbyflex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeastOfTheBunch View Post
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/...st-not-yet-cox

FWIW

EDIT: Looks like LiferLeafer already mentioned the rumour..
Bozak, Gardiner, Frattin + 1st

Gillis is out to lunch

bobbyflex is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:16 PM
  #778
Vankiller Whale
And so it begins
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyflex View Post
Bozak, Gardiner, Frattin + 1st

Gillis is out to lunch
And people ask, "If Luongo was worth (insert reasonable offer here), why hasn't he been traded yet?"


Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:18 PM
  #779
danfromwaterloo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 51
vCash: 500
From that Cox article, which I have heard in many other sources:

But as the Star reported exclusively last month — a report that was dismissed by pro-union media — the majority of owners and the Bettman administration are intent on punishing teams that insisted on doing quasi-legal backsiding contracts like Luongo’s. It was no surprise, then, the owners’ proposal of earlier this week included a provision that for contracts longer than five years, every year of the contract would count against the cap even if the player didn’t play.

If this happens, Luongo's value gets even lower...much lower.

danfromwaterloo is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:18 PM
  #780
TheLeastOfTheBunch
Registered User
 
TheLeastOfTheBunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyflex View Post
Bozak, Gardiner, Frattin + 1st

Gillis is out to lunch
Yeah, not surprising that he's gone down to a deal around Bozak..

TheLeastOfTheBunch is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:22 PM
  #781
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danfromwaterloo View Post
From that Cox article, which I have heard in many other sources:

But as the Star reported exclusively last month — a report that was dismissed by pro-union media — the majority of owners and the Bettman administration are intent on punishing teams that insisted on doing quasi-legal backsiding contracts like Luongo’s. It was no surprise, then, the owners’ proposal of earlier this week included a provision that for contracts longer than five years, every year of the contract would count against the cap even if the player didn’t play.

If this happens, Luongo's value gets even lower...much lower.
Guess you weren't paying attention. That provision called for the cap hit to return to original team, in Luongo's case Vancouver, if he were to retire with years remaining. Essentially removing any risks that come with Luongo's contract for a team that were to acquire him. So no, that wouldn't lower his value, quite the opposite.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:25 PM
  #782
mriswith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I blame the Toronto media. They've brainwashed people into thinking Luongo has negative value and will go to Toronto for almost nothing. It's when the Oilers fans were far more reasonable as a whole that it put things in petspective for me.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danfromwaterloo View Post
From that Cox article, which I have heard in many other sources:

But as the Star reported exclusively last month — a report that was dismissed by pro-union media — the majority of owners and the Bettman administration are intent on punishing teams that insisted on doing quasi-legal backsiding contracts like Luongo’s. It was no surprise, then, the owners’ proposal of earlier this week included a provision that for contracts longer than five years, every year of the contract would count against the cap even if the player didn’t play.

If this happens, Luongo's value gets even lower...much lower.
Once again you make a post that demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about and have not done your research. Vancouver is on the hook for the cap if he retires, not Toronto. Which means his value stays the same or goes up if this was previously a concern.

mriswith is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:26 PM
  #783
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danfromwaterloo View Post
If Luongo was as good as you were saying, then it would make no sense to trade him. So, keep him. Even with him, we're nowhere close to a Stanley Cup contending team, so you might as well let him cool on your bench with his huge-ass salary.
That's great logic. Just because Luongo is a great goalie, you ignore the fact that you have another great goalie coming up in the system?

And yes, the Canucks will keep him until they can get a good trade. There's no rush to move him. They have the cap flexibility. They have enough other contracts they can move to drop their cap number. And Luongo's already said he's got no problems with coming back. Who knows, maybe he comes back, earns the #1 position again and Schneider is the one who's on the block then? It's not like such a scenario hasn't happened elsewhere - like Boston - where interestingly enough most non-Bruins fans trashed on Thomas' value as well, just like we're seeing here with Luongo, only to see him come back, earn his #1 spot, put up the best goalie numbers we've seen in history, all on his way to a Cup win, again with the best playoff performance in history. Prior to that season though he was on the trade block, with Rask coming up, and the rest of the HF collective here trashing on his value as if he was done and had nothing worthwhile to give another team.

The most frustrating/idiotic/insane/downright stupid comments that have come from this whole Luongo discussion though is the last sentence of your post. It's like talking to a kid who wants something that he can't get - "fine, keep him and let his cap hit hurt you sitting on the bench" ... it's like talking a 10 yr old when you hear comments like that. You do realize that just because the Canucks decide not to trade him before the season starts doesn't mean they can't trade him a year later? You do also realize that - just like we saw with the Thomas/Rask situation - Luongo can come back and regain that top spot? You do realize that this same goalie combo has led to back to back President's trophies as well?

Just because the Canucks aren't in a rush to bend over and let any team that wants Luongo to get him for peanuts, doesn't mean that they can't hold on to him and trade him later... hell it doesn't even mean that they won't keep him and move Schneider later. The Canucks do have those options.

What really gets me though is how fans here will trash on his value, tell us just how little he's worth, and then still want him on their team?? If you think he's got such a bad cap hit, terrible contract, is at best an average goalie, who doesn't play at the top of his game often, like the other top goalies in the league apparently do, why would you even want him for free? On one hand people trash his value like he's the plague... and yet they only do that to get him at a ridiculously low price. Why have any interest at all in a goalie who's play and contract you hate so much?

NFITO is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:28 PM
  #784
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danfromwaterloo View Post
From that Cox article, which I have heard in many other sources:

But as the Star reported exclusively last month — a report that was dismissed by pro-union media — the majority of owners and the Bettman administration are intent on punishing teams that insisted on doing quasi-legal backsiding contracts like Luongo’s. It was no surprise, then, the owners’ proposal of earlier this week included a provision that for contracts longer than five years, every year of the contract would count against the cap even if the player didn’t play.

If this happens, Luongo's value gets even lower...much lower.
Man, you should quit digging an even deeper hole or at least do some basic research.

vanwest is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:29 PM
  #785
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeastOfTheBunch View Post
Yeah, not surprising that he's gone down to a deal around Bozak..
Dream on.
A deal around Bozak will get you Mason Raymond.

vanwest is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:31 PM
  #786
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
TOGuy14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,426
vCash: 500
Luongo's contract is flat out bad.

If they want to get anything from the Leafs they need to take back some garbage too. If they take one of Connolly or Lombardi I'd be willing to add Franson + Steckel + Cond 4th 2014 (becomes a 5th if Vancouver wins the Stanley Cup. Becomes a 3rd if Luongo wins the Vezina)

TOGuy14 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:33 PM
  #787
danfromwaterloo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 51
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
That's great logic. Just because Luongo is a great goalie, you ignore the fact that you have another great goalie coming up in the system?

And yes, the Canucks will keep him until they can get a good trade. There's no rush to move him. They have the cap flexibility. They have enough other contracts they can move to drop their cap number. And Luongo's already said he's got no problems with coming back. Who knows, maybe he comes back, earns the #1 position again and Schneider is the one who's on the block then? It's not like such a scenario hasn't happened elsewhere - like Boston - where interestingly enough most non-Bruins fans trashed on Thomas' value as well, just like we're seeing here with Luongo, only to see him come back, earn his #1 spot, put up the best goalie numbers we've seen in history, all on his way to a Cup win, again with the best playoff performance in history. Prior to that season though he was on the trade block, with Rask coming up, and the rest of the HF collective here trashing on his value as if he was done and had nothing worthwhile to give another team.

The most frustrating/idiotic/insane/downright stupid comments that have come from this whole Luongo discussion though is the last sentence of your post. It's like talking to a kid who wants something that he can't get - "fine, keep him and let his cap hit hurt you sitting on the bench" ... it's like talking a 10 yr old when you hear comments like that. You do realize that just because the Canucks decide not to trade him before the season starts doesn't mean they can't trade him a year later? You do also realize that - just like we saw with the Thomas/Rask situation - Luongo can come back and regain that top spot? You do realize that this same goalie combo has led to back to back President's trophies as well?

Just because the Canucks aren't in a rush to bend over and let any team that wants Luongo to get him for peanuts, doesn't mean that they can't hold on to him and trade him later... hell it doesn't even mean that they won't keep him and move Schneider later. The Canucks do have those options.

What really gets me though is how fans here will trash on his value, tell us just how little he's worth, and then still want him on their team?? If you think he's got such a bad cap hit, terrible contract, is at best an average goalie, who doesn't play at the top of his game often, like the other top goalies in the league apparently do, why would you even want him for free? On one hand people trash his value like he's the plague... and yet they only do that to get him at a ridiculously low price. Why have any interest at all in a goalie who's play and contract you hate so much?
Based on his contract, I would only want to see Luongo on the Leafs if we could get some respite from his contract. I think he's a good goalie, but if the Leafs didn't get him, I would not complain. I'm not convinced getting him would be good for the team long-term.

Toronto has the power here to name the price they're comfortable with, and they should stick with it. Burke has shown that he has a great ability to properly value players he trades for, so I think I'll trust his decision.

danfromwaterloo is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:33 PM
  #788
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Luongo's contract is flat out bad.

If they want to get anything from the Leafs they need to take back some garbage too. If they take one of Connolly or Lombardi I'd be willing to add Franson + Steckel + Cond 4th (becomes a 5th if Vancouver wins the Stanley Cup. Becomes a 3rd if Luongo wins the Vezina)
Yes. A terrible contract. Who would want a great goalie that is locked up long term at a reasonable cap hit especially when you already have the Scrivens/Reimer dynamic duo in net.

vanwest is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:34 PM
  #789
danfromwaterloo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 51
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Luongo's contract is flat out bad.

If they want to get anything from the Leafs they need to take back some garbage too. If they take one of Connolly or Lombardi I'd be willing to add Franson + Steckel + Cond 4th 2014 (becomes a 5th if Vancouver wins the Stanley Cup. Becomes a 3rd if Luongo wins the Vezina)
What? You'd trade Franson?

That guy is gold. Hold on to him. Swap Franson for Komisarek.

danfromwaterloo is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:35 PM
  #790
Vankiller Whale
And so it begins
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Luongo's contract is flat out bad.

If they want to get anything from the Leafs they need to take back some garbage too. If they take one of Connolly or Lombardi I'd be willing to add Franson + Steckel + Cond 4th 2014 (becomes a 5th if Vancouver wins the Stanley Cup. Becomes a 3rd if Luongo wins the Vezina)
Wait, doesn't Franson + Steckel + 4th count as garbage too?

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:35 PM
  #791
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Luongo's contract is flat out bad.

If they want to get anything from the Leafs they need to take back some garbage too. If they take one of Connolly or Lombardi I'd be willing to add Franson + Steckel + Cond 4th 2014 (becomes a 5th if Vancouver wins the Stanley Cup. Becomes a 3rd if Luongo wins the Vezina)
again, why have any interest in Luongo then? His contract is bad... we get it, you hate his contract!! Do then move on and target another goalie.

What you're offering in return hurts the Canucks more than just keeping the combo that led to their back to back President's. We don't need Connolly or Lombardi... we don't need Franson or Steckel ... it's all just garbage. If that's what you think lands you Luongo, then move on... you obviously don't think about him enough to want him on your team.

From the Canucks POV, we're better off just waiving him and letting him go to Columbus for nothing, then taking on garbage we don't need that only hurts our cap situation further taking on bad contracts that don't even fit the team.

This discussion would be much better with fans that actually were interested in Luongo on their team... when you get crap offers like you're suggesting, it just shows you have no interest in Luongo and will only take him if you can throw bad contracts the other way. The Canucks have no reason to make such a trade.

NFITO is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:35 PM
  #792
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danfromwaterloo View Post
Based on his contract, I would only want to see Luongo on the Leafs if we could get some respite from his contract. I think he's a good goalie, but if the Leafs didn't get him, I would not complain. I'm not convinced getting him would be good for the team long-term.

Toronto has the power here to name the price they're comfortable with, and they should stick with it. Burke has shown that he has a great ability to properly value players he trades for, so I think I'll trust his decision.
Ealier you had no clue what his contract actually is.
Burke has made some good trades, some poor trades and some even trades. I've said all along that this will be a fair trade where both teams get fair value.

As for Toronto having the power here, I'm puzzled by how a team with no good goalies has the power over a team with two good goalies. Interesting logic.

vanwest is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:39 PM
  #793
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,831
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I blame the Toronto media. They've brainwashed people into thinking Luongo has negative value and will go to Toronto for almost nothing. It's when the Oilers fans were far more reasonable as a whole that it put things in petspective for me.
Its kind of amazing how easy it was to work a decent deal with Oilers fans. Something around Hemsky + MPS seemed to work for most people.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:03 PM
  #794
Beezeral
Registered User
 
Beezeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,156
vCash: 500
Am I missing something but how do the Canucks plan on keeping luongo and Schneider beyond this season?

Beezeral is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:06 PM
  #795
danfromwaterloo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 51
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Ealier you had no clue what his contract actually is.
Burke has made some good trades, some poor trades and some even trades. I've said all along that this will be a fair trade where both teams get fair value.

As for Toronto having the power here, I'm puzzled by how a team with no good goalies has the power over a team with two good goalies. Interesting logic.
Toronto has the power because Vancouver is actively shopping Luongo. He's made it clear he'll veto trades to teams he doesn't want to go to, and he appears to only want to go to Florida (family reasons) or Toronto. Toronto has a need, yes, but it's certainly not as pressing as Vancouver fans want us to believe. I believe the tandem of Reimer and Scrivens will be no worse (and probably better) than last years tandem, which we made do with.

Is Toronto better with Luongo, at a loss of Bozak, Gardiner, Frattin and a 1st, or are we better WITH those guys, and Reimer?

Vancouver fans say we are, Toronto fans believe we're not. I think Gardiner will be a top-pairing defenseman. Frattin has 2nd line potential. Bozak is servicable as a third line player, and that first will likely be between 5 and 15 next year, which could be akin to MPS, Hodgson, or Koistytsn.

danfromwaterloo is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:07 PM
  #796
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezeral View Post
Am I missing something but how do the Canucks plan on keeping luongo and Schneider beyond this season?
Who says they are keeping them beyond this season?
Next year is a long ways away though. Personally I think Luongo gets traded as soon as the ink is dry on a new CBA but I could also see Gillis hanging onto him and waiting for the inevitable struggles from teams with weak goaltending. If this ends up being a short season then the pressure will mount early on for GM's of teams who stumble out of the gate will subpar goaltending.

vanwest is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:08 PM
  #797
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezeral View Post
Am I missing something but how do the Canucks plan on keeping luongo and Schneider beyond this season?
we're all missing something... it's called the CBA. Until we know how that shapes up, nobody can say with any certainty what the Canucks can or can't do with Luongo.

and just because we're not trading him going into this season (when the CBA does come in), doesn't mean he can't be dealt during the year... or by the deadline... or even next offseason. There's plenty of time to look for a better deal than just take whatever is offered right away.

And again, if Luongo does come back and plays the year in Vancouver, maybe it's Schneider who is moved a year later? Luongo has the ability to take that #1 spot again and force the team to move Schneider.

We just don't know what will happen at this point.

NFITO is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:10 PM
  #798
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danfromwaterloo View Post
Toronto has the power because Vancouver is actively shopping Luongo. He's made it clear he'll veto trades to teams he doesn't want to go to, and he appears to only want to go to Florida (family reasons) or Toronto. Toronto has a need, yes, but it's certainly not as pressing as Vancouver fans want us to believe. I believe the tandem of Reimer and Scrivens will be no worse (and probably better) than last years tandem, which we made do with.

Is Toronto better with Luongo, at a loss of Bozak, Gardiner, Frattin and a 1st, or are we better WITH those guys, and Reimer?
Vancouver fans say we are, Toronto fans believe we're not. I think Gardiner will be a top-pairing defenseman. Frattin has 2nd line potential. Bozak is servicable as a third line player, and that first will likely be between 5 and 15 next year, which could be akin to MPS, Hodgson, or Koistytsn.
I think you are a few months behind in the discussions. Few Vancouver fans are saying that is the price. Most of the ridiculous offers on here are coming from a small minority of Leaf fans who see Luongo as a salary dump or fans like you who don't understand his contract and the impact of the proposed new CBA.

vanwest is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:12 PM
  #799
Joe Pesci
Do I amuse you?
 
Joe Pesci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Not to comment either way....but what else would he say??? "Yup, it's a done deal!!"
Oh I know. I was just posting it for info. I don't care either way. Just passing along a story.

Joe Pesci is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:15 PM
  #800
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danfromwaterloo View Post
Sure.

If you're so convinced that a tandem of 2 good goalies will work for you, then great. Don't trade Luongo.

Toronto is one of only two apparent locations he can go, so your market is limited. The other, apparently, is Florida.

So, you have three choices - keep him, trade him to Toronto, or trade him to Florida.

We only have to beat Florida's offer if you decide you have to trade him. Toronto is in a position of power here, not Vancouver.
1st off...as i look at my avatar...and then let you know that i am a LEAF fan, i am not advocating selling the farm, but i would be willing to offer a better than crap deal to fill a gaping hole on my team.

Liferleafer is online now  
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 12:59 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.