HFBoards

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

The Luongo Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-24-2012, 11:29 PM
  #576
Kingstonian84*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Bear Pig View Post
There's no way we take Ballard too. Luongo's contract is bad enough. We have enough dmen already too.
Ok no offence but i'm getting fed up with all you people whining about his contract! So what he has 8 years left, guess what Burke wont be hear in that amount of time, it will be the next GM's problem, Burke's job IS to make the leafs a contender, and Luongo helps get us there so if we can grab him then so be it.

Kingstonian84* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:38 PM
  #577
MorriPage
Registered User
 
MorriPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Earth
Country: Canada
Posts: 720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingstonian84 View Post
Ok no offence but i'm getting fed up with all you people whining about his contract! So what he has 8 years left, guess what Burke wont be hear in that amount of time, it will be the next GM's problem, Burke's job IS to make the leafs a contender, and Luongo helps get us there so if we can grab him then so be it.
Bad contracts and devil may care management from the previous regime is one of the reasons it's taken Burke so long to fix this team. I don't want Burke to make any moves that hemorrhage the future purely for the sake of cutting the rebuild time down. This has to be done the right way, and getting a 33 year old goalie who's got about three or four productive years left at the most isn't a sound management strategy.

MorriPage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:42 PM
  #578
Kingstonian84*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorriPage View Post
Bad contracts and devil may care management from the previous regime is one of the reasons it's taken Burke so long to fix this team. I don't want Burke to make any moves that hemorrhage the future purely for the sake of cutting the rebuild time down. This has to be done the right way, and getting a 33 year old goalie who's got about three or four productive years left at the most isn't a sound management strategy.
The problem pre 04' was that we signed too many over the hill guys and gave up a lot of picks for vets. There is a time to do this type of thing and this is one of those times where we should give up assets for Luongo! He has 5-6 good to great years left in him, and that should give guys like Riemer/Rynass/Scrivens time to grow and prove themselves.

Kingstonian84* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:51 PM
  #579
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorriPage View Post
Bad contracts and devil may care management from the previous regime is one of the reasons it's taken Burke so long to fix this team. I don't want Burke to make any moves that hemorrhage the future purely for the sake of cutting the rebuild time down. This has to be done the right way, and getting a 33 year old goalie who's got about three or four productive years left at the most isn't a sound management strategy.
Agreed on nobody wants Burke to make any panic moves the mortgage the future, and he won't, despite any likelihood or not of being around here in 8 years or not, that's not how he rolls.

But, if Lou is available on the cheap, like some deal centred around Bozak and not much else as is being tossed around, is it really that much of a risk? What's to be scared of contract wise, unless the new CBA bars burying A hits and also won't allow trading cap space? I'd put the cap very conservatively at 70 million in 3-4 years at 50/50, and frankly be surprised if it's below 75 million. I see no reason to be scared.

It risks being over-thought when a player of Lou's ability available cheap is shied away from for long term cap flexibility concerns. There's always ways to deal with it.

__________________
bWo: If you don't know, you should know... Buds WORLD Order Constitution
Adj: "Squiffy" - stupefied by a chemical substance (esp. alcohol)

R.I.P. Darryl buddy... it was too soon.. too soon
Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 06:09 AM
  #580
Platapie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
Agreed on nobody wants Burke to make any panic moves the mortgage the future, and he won't, despite any likelihood or not of being around here in 8 years or not, that's not how he rolls.

But, if Lou is available on the cheap, like some deal centred around Bozak and not much else as is being tossed around, is it really that much of a risk? What's to be scared of contract wise, unless the new CBA bars burying A hits and also won't allow trading cap space? I'd put the cap very conservatively at 70 million in 3-4 years at 50/50, and frankly be surprised if it's below 75 million. I see no reason to be scared.

It risks being over-thought when a player of Lou's ability available cheap is shied away from for long term cap flexibility concerns. There's always ways to deal with it.
People want the perfect 0 risk trade which just don't exist. Burke has shown a remarkable penchant for identifying talent and winning deals in that regard-- and a keen eye for making good risks. I think his worst trade was Kessel, and even that one was a damn solid trade from a risk/reward point of view (just one I personally think blew up on him).

Aside from that, you can point to more than one deal where Burke absolutely pillaged the other side, and you can see many scenarios where the Kessel deal would have been equally as ridiculous (e.g, if they got a middle round pick in return).

So calm the F down and let the man work. We've not had a GM able to wheel and deal like him in a long time (longer than I can remember). That being said, he will have to give up something to get something and there will always be a chance that Luongo doesn't work out, but again, finding elite goaltenders available for trade or in FA is like a unicorn. The only elite goalies I can think of moving have been Cujo, Belfour and Luongo himself. They tend to stay put, even if I am forgetting some.

Platapie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 10:32 AM
  #581
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorriPage View Post
Bad contracts and devil may care management from the previous regime is one of the reasons it's taken Burke so long to fix this team. I don't want Burke to make any moves that hemorrhage the future purely for the sake of cutting the rebuild time down. This has to be done the right way, and getting a 33 year old goalie who's got about three or four productive years left at the most isn't a sound management strategy.
Who plays goalie then, if not Luongo? The Leafs have played that tune for too many seasons now, and look what they have accomplished. Even a team that is young, and on the rise needs a true #1 goalie. Look at the Oilers. A lot of great younger players (some very good older ones too) and yet they don't make the playoffs. They also don't have a true #1 goalie. The Leafs absolutely need to acquire Luongo. With out him, the Leafs' future continues to look bleak, no matter how many other good position players they have.

Alflives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 11:38 AM
  #582
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
Agreed on nobody wants Burke to make any panic moves the mortgage the future, and he won't, despite any likelihood or not of being around here in 8 years or not, that's not how he rolls.

But, if Lou is available on the cheap, like some deal centred around Bozak and not much else as is being tossed around, is it really that much of a risk? What's to be scared of contract wise, unless the new CBA bars burying A hits and also won't allow trading cap space? I'd put the cap very conservatively at 70 million in 3-4 years at 50/50, and frankly be surprised if it's below 75 million. I see no reason to be scared.

It risks being over-thought when a player of Lou's ability available cheap is shied away from for long term cap flexibility concerns. There's always ways to deal with it.
The cost of bringing Luongo to Toronto will test your theory out here Squiffy.

No team has had less success than Toronto under a Salary Cap World CBA, and no GM is currently in more need for success under pressure to perform & also requires a proven goalie more than Burke and Toronto do.

This creates a potential firestorm of controversy from potential backlash based on the cost to obtain Luo to appease MLSE desire for playoff revenue, and job security for the GM responsible to deliver it.

This trade could rival the Kessel trade in fan acceptance/displeasure all based on how big a sacrifice the organization is willing to make and the cost will debated endlessly thereafter. IMO

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 12:02 PM
  #583
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
The cost of bringing Luongo to Toronto will test your theory out here Squiffy.

No team has had less success than Toronto under a Salary Cap World CBA, and no GM is currently in more need for success under pressure to perform & also requires a proven goalie more than Burke and Toronto do.

This creates a potential firestorm of controversy from potential backlash based on the cost to obtain Luo to appease MLSE desire for playoff revenue, and job security for the GM responsible to deliver it.

This trade could rival the Kessel trade in fan acceptance/displeasure all based on how big a sacrifice the organization is willing to make and the cost will debated endlessly thereafter. IMO
I wouldn't disagree. Burke cannot overpay for Lou, no blue chip prospects and it would be PR suicide to move a 1st. A Bozak, a Franson, a MacA, one of those kind of pieces is what we can afford to move, a still young-ish ready now NHL player, and flush it out from there with whatever. If we move much beyond that I would consider it an overpayment and would rather take a pass. Not getting Lou is an acceptable outcome, getting him "cheap" also is, paying anything beyond a trade that makes the hockey world go, "That's all they got for Lou?" should not be done.

I'm of the believe that Burke is working in essentially those parameters. I really hope that I'm not proven wrong in this case lol.. I don't mind being wrong in general, everyone is sometimes, but it'd kill me to see an overpayment for Lou.

Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 12:14 PM
  #584
gabeliscious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
I wouldn't disagree. Burke cannot overpay for Lou, no blue chip prospects and it would be PR suicide to move a 1st. A Bozak, a Franson, a MacA, one of those kind of pieces is what we can afford to move, a still young-ish ready now NHL player, and flush it out from there with whatever. If we move much beyond that I would consider it an overpayment and would rather take a pass. Not getting Lou is an acceptable outcome, getting him "cheap" also is, paying anything beyond a trade that makes the hockey world go, "That's all they got for Lou?" should not be done.

I'm of the believe that Burke is working in essentially those parameters. I really hope that I'm not proven wrong in this case lol.. I don't mind being wrong in general, everyone is sometimes, but it'd kill me to see an overpayment for Lou.
assuming burke is on the case to get luongo i think it is reasonable to assume that he isnt willing to part with anything of significant value otherwise a deal would have been done?

if gillis was able to get any of our top 5 prospects or combination of 1st round pick + i think he woul have pulled the trigger at this point.

the one thing that gives me confidence is that burke is as stubborn as he is patient. i just dont see him caving in and giving anything more then is absolutely necessary to get a deal done.

gabeliscious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 12:35 PM
  #585
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
I wouldn't disagree. Burke cannot overpay for Lou, no blue chip prospects and it would be PR suicide to move a 1st. A Bozak, a Franson, a MacA, one of those kind of pieces is what we can afford to move, a still young-ish ready now NHL player, and flush it out from there with whatever. If we move much beyond that I would consider it an overpayment and would rather take a pass. Not getting Lou is an acceptable outcome, getting him "cheap" also is, paying anything beyond a trade that makes the hockey world go, "That's all they got for Lou?" should not be done.

I'm of the believe that Burke is working in essentially those parameters. I really hope that I'm not proven wrong in this case lol.. I don't mind being wrong in general, everyone is sometimes, but it'd kill me to see an overpayment for Lou.
Another huge factor impacting this trade is how Luongo's cap circumventing contract will be handled under the new CBA.. As we know presently there are things in discussion that factor into this very thing and who and for how much the team is impacted in the future in this regard is vital to any final decision on his acquisition.

Only the first 5 years (age 33 -38) are expected to be beneficial for the team that acquires him, while the final 5 years of his current contract (age 39-43) at his current cap, with reasonable expectations for player decline due to age a significant factor.

I think this situation in terms of Cap consequences >> then cost of acquisition even. IMO

So even if its Bozak + spare parts to get him, if its potentially 4 to 5 years at the end of Luo's deal effecting the Leafs cap negatively, as he sits on the bench as a backup playing limited games it supersedes cost unless of course a Cup victory occurs ending any debate on the subject thereafter.

If top prospects like Kadri or 1st round pick(s) etc, are include then the potential increases for disaster here long-term, and it wouldn't be worth the sacrifice. However if Luo contract becomes Vancouver's concern in his twilight years then I expect the cost to increase also to obtain him and he wouldn't come cheap.

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 12:39 PM
  #586
Kirkpatrick
Registered User
 
Kirkpatrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabeliscious View Post
assuming burke is on the case to get luongo i think it is reasonable to assume that he isnt willing to part with anything of significant value otherwise a deal would have been done?

if gillis was able to get any of our top 5 prospects or combination of 1st round pick + i think he woul have pulled the trigger at this point.

the one thing that gives me confidence is that burke is as stubborn as he is patient. i just dont see him caving in and giving anything more then is absolutely necessary to get a deal done.
I think there's no way the deal could get done before the CBA is signed - not from a legal/tampering standpoint, but just that the cap hit is a huge part of the deal, and it would be foolish to make the trade without knowing how the hit will be applied upon retirement and the new cap and so on.

That said, I hope that you're right once the CBA is done

Kirkpatrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 12:49 PM
  #587
Joe Pesci
Do I amuse you?
 
Joe Pesci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
Who plays goalie then, if not Luongo? The Leafs have played that tune for too many seasons now, and look what they have accomplished. Even a team that is young, and on the rise needs a true #1 goalie. Look at the Oilers. A lot of great younger players (some very good older ones too) and yet they don't make the playoffs. They also don't have a true #1 goalie. The Leafs absolutely need to acquire Luongo. With out him, the Leafs' future continues to look bleak, no matter how many other good position players they have.
No, no, no. If there's any tune the Leafs have played far too often it's attempting to get a quick fix in net by mortgaging the future.

The Oilers don't make the playoffs because their defense is weak and their star forwards are too young. Goaltending plays a part in it for them, but it's not as though adding Luongo would've guaranteed them a playoff spot last year.

The Leafs do not "absolutely need Luongo" as you put it. The Leafs would be perfectly fine to continue to allow the likes of Reimer and Scrivens to continue to develop. Each of them have shown promise to possibly be that future #1 goalie that we need. Will there be growing pains along the way? Probably, but the Leafs future does not solely depend on whether or not they acquire Luongo. That's an absurd notion.

Also,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
Gardiner is already the Leafs' best player, by far. He performs, even in front of horrible goaltending! If he comes with 'baggage', the Canucks would accept that. Wealthy teams like Vancouver (Toronto too) bury salary. Unless, of course, any new CBA restricts such.
You are blatantly wrong on this point as well. Gardiner is not the Leafs best player.

Joe Pesci is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 01:06 PM
  #588
daveleaf
Registered User
 
daveleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,756
vCash: 500
I still get a kick how this Luongo thing still has legs and how much you guys debate it. This team, where it is right now, would not benefit from a 33 year old goaltender that carry's the baggage Lou carries. This teams mental makeup is not strong enough to handle the side show that follows Lou-you would have two competing polar opposites in the room with Dion and Lou.

The way things are going right now there will be no hockey this year but when it does return next year people will start to see, whoever get's Lou, how much on the downside of his career he is. That contract will strangle a team, regardless of what is in the CBA.

Leafs should go with what they have and continue to build within, goalies will come available in time with a lot less baggage.

daveleaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 01:33 PM
  #589
Al14
Fire Shanahan
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleaf View Post
I still get a kick how this Luongo thing still has legs and how much you guys debate it. This team, where it is right now, would not benefit from a 33 year old goaltender that carry's the baggage Lou carries. This teams mental makeup is not strong enough to handle the side show that follows Lou-you would have two competing polar opposites in the room with Dion and Lou.

The way things are going right now there will be no hockey this year but when it does return next year people will start to see, whoever get's Lou, how much on the downside of his career he is. That contract will strangle a team, regardless of what is in the CBA.

Leafs should go with what they have and continue to build within, goalies will come available in time with a lot less baggage.
I agree totally with this!

Al14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 01:35 PM
  #590
Rare Jewel
Patience
 
Rare Jewel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leaf Land
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleaf View Post
I still get a kick how this Luongo thing still has legs and how much you guys debate it. This team, where it is right now, would not benefit from a 33 year old goaltender that carry's the baggage Lou carries. This teams mental makeup is not strong enough to handle the side show that follows Lou-you would have two competing polar opposites in the room with Dion and Lou.

The way things are going right now there will be no hockey this year but when it does return next year people will start to see, whoever get's Lou, how much on the downside of his career he is. That contract will strangle a team, regardless of what is in the CBA.

Leafs should go with what they have and continue to build within, goalies will come available in time with a lot less baggage.
Despite Luongo's baggage, I doubt just after what he's experienced in Vancouver that the first thing he'll do is confront Dion on leadership matters.

I do agree do a extend on the need for Luongo given the asking price(but that's mostly reflective on the crazy Canuck fans on here) and the options outside of Luongo.

I one thing I will contest you on is the validity of the story. When someone like John Shannon who has a lot of respect in the hockey world and is sticking his reputation to this by basically guaranteeing Luongo will be a Maple leaf. I at least take it seriously, So much so that I now believe that he will be a Leaf. Also I think the biggest tell in this is the fact neither Burke or Gillis have outright refuted the rumours. Gillis came out last week and basically said "the deal isn't done" not "there has been no discussion with Toronto". Burke also has stated that he can't talk about player he's interested in, But he can say when he's not interested in a specific player, And he hasn't done that.

Rare Jewel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 01:52 PM
  #591
MapleLeafsFan4Ever
Go Leafs Go
 
MapleLeafsFan4Ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Another huge factor impacting this trade is how Luongo's cap circumventing contract will be handled under the new CBA.. As we know presently there are things in discussion that factor into this very thing and who and for how much the team is impacted in the future in this regard is vital to any final decision on his acquisition.

Only the first 5 years (age 33 -38) are expected to be beneficial for the team that acquires him, while the final 5 years of his current contract (age 39-43) at his current cap, with reasonable expectations for player decline due to age a significant factor.

I think this situation in terms of Cap consequences >> then cost of acquisition even. IMO
Hopefully all that will be the responsibility of Vancouver because it was shown the NHL would make sure the salary cap hit would count against the team who signed a player to that cap circumventing contract in theur CBA proposal. So even if Luongo gets traded to Toronto and retires at age 39, the remainder of his contract would count against Vancouver's salary cap and not Toronto's.

MapleLeafsFan4Ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 02:01 PM
  #592
ACC1224
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 29,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
Hopefully all that will be the responsibility of Vancouver because it was shown the NHL would make sure the salary cap hit would count against the team who signed a player to that cap circumventing contract in theur CBA proposal. So even if Luongo gets traded to Toronto and retires at age 39, the remainder of his contract would count against Vancouver's salary cap and not Toronto's.
and if he doesn't retire?

ACC1224 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 02:16 PM
  #593
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
and if he doesn't retire?
Then Luongo at $5.33 mil Cap hit against the Leafs regardless of his play or contribution until his contract expires.

So even if the new CBA rules change, there is still as long a Luongo continues to strap on the pads a cause and effect on the team that acquires him.

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 02:21 PM
  #594
ACC1224
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 29,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Then Luongo at $5.33 mil Cap hit against the Leafs regardless of his play or contribution until his contract expires.

So even if the new CBA rules change, there is still as long a Luongo continues to strap on the pads a cause and effect on the team that acquires him.
That is the scary part and why the cost for him will be minimal.

I'm still on the fence about it. Burke has a tough call.

ACC1224 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 02:25 PM
  #595
DirtyDion03
**** Brooklyn
 
DirtyDion03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
That is the scary part and why the cost for him will be minimal.

I'm still on the fence about it. Burke has a tough call.
Honestly, it just depends on the cost. I think it's a no-brainer if you can get an All-Star goaltender for under market value. It's what we need..

__________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/28b4abo.jpg
DirtyDion03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 02:29 PM
  #596
ACC1224
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 29,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyDion03 View Post
Honestly, it just depends on the cost. I think it's a no-brainer if you can get an All-Star goaltender for under market value. It's what we need..
I love the idea of having him for the next 3 to 5 years, after that not so much.

ACC1224 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 02:30 PM
  #597
DirtyDion03
**** Brooklyn
 
DirtyDion03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
I love the idea of having him for the next 3 to 5 years, after that not so much.
I think he's capable of playing until at least 40. Goalies tend to have that ability. But yes, I agree.

DirtyDion03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 02:33 PM
  #598
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli View Post
No, no, no. If there's any tune the Leafs have played far too often it's attempting to get a quick fix in net by mortgaging the future.
You are blatantly wrong on this point as well. Gardiner is not the Leafs best player.
If the Leafs follow this logic they will continue to miss the playoffs, and their young players will continue to show poor development. Goaltending is the key position for building confidence in players, especially young, developing ones. Look at the retarded growth for Luke Schenn. He regressed behind poor (young) goalies. It's a sad case too about (young) Gardiner. Without a real #1 goalie, I see him taking a step back in his development. I certainly hope Mr. Burke does not share your opinion on the value to a teams' developing players of a goalie.

Alflives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 02:51 PM
  #599
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
and if he doesn't retire?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Then Luongo at $5.33 mil Cap hit against the Leafs regardless of his play or contribution until his contract expires.

So even if the new CBA rules change, there is still as long a Luongo continues to strap on the pads a cause and effect on the team that acquires him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
That is the scary part and why the cost for him will be minimal.

I'm still on the fence about it. Burke has a tough call.
I still don't think that the new CBA will eliminate burying cap hits in the A. It's one of those points the NHL needs to give on in return for the players going to 50/50, IMO. IIRC Lou doesn't have a NMC, so my thinking is you bury the problem if it becomes one.

Of course, none of us can know at this point. So much of this is dependent on the CBA.

Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 02:55 PM
  #600
ACC1224
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 29,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
I still don't think that the new CBA will eliminate burying cap hits in the A. It's one of those points the NHL needs to give on in return for the players going to 50/50, IMO. IIRC Lou doesn't have a NMC, so my thinking is you bury the problem if it becomes one.

Of course, none of us can know at this point. So much of this is dependent on the CBA.
Absolutely, all speculation.

If we lose the entire season what's his value going to be worth then? Another year older and I suspect more UFA Goalies available.

ACC1224 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 12:50 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.