Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
Well, you have Raymond playing out of position on the right side where he has been significantly less effective, with a player he has shown little to no chemistry with in Kesler. You also have Higgins switching back to center, a position he hasn't played in years, yet you seem to assume he'll be able to transition there without trouble. Also, you have Hansen, a rare natural RH shot, switching to the left wing simply to accommodate Kassian moving into a role on the checking line, where he would be poorly situated anyways. These roster moves seem rather forced.
Lastly, are you really still prepared to continue making your assumptions based on the notion that there will be a compressed 82 game season?
If there isn't a compressed 82 games season, there will be a compressed 70, 60, 50, 42 game season...the same logic applies.
I guess if you wanted deeper thoughts about the roster (I had just made one off the cuff), I would do this:
It should be noted that Higgins has been an effective centre at the NHL level and has scored 52 points as a centre in the NHL which is more than Bozak ever has. His production in recent years is as good as Bozak's considering their roles.
The only reach is Kassian but let's be honest, whether you have him or Kulemin on the 2nd line, you are gambling either way.
I'd rather not give up our franchise goalie to acquire a whole lot of nothing that useful. If the Canucks trade Luongo, we are gambling on Schneider, if we keep Luongo we are giving Schneider a chance to prove himself with Luongo as insurance. If Schneider does amazingly well, we can trade Luongo for something next off-season...it's not like the return is getting much worse based on the proposals here...we can't afford to be throwing away seasons on promising but not completely proven goalies.
The benefit of waiting to trade Luongo outweighs the risk we take if we do trade him without getting a star impact forward or defenseman back (we could add futures to get that but if we are getting spare parts why bother).
So what exactly are you holding out for? Curious as to how realistic your expectations are.
I'm not holding out for anything. I'm suggesting it makes more sense to keep Luongo than trade him for anything short of a drastic improvement at forward or D.
For example, if Perry/Plekanec/Green is available at the deadline and we needed a 1st + Kadri to get him (along with our 1st) I'd be happy to trade Luongo for Toronto's 1st + Kadri. If such an opportunity is not available, then I don't trade for him for TO 1st + Kadri.
If an opportunity to drastically improve our 2nd line, our #1 dman, or our centre depth, then I do not trade Luongo. I'd say there's as good a chance he's the starter going into the playoffs as there is that Schneider is.
I'm not holding out for anything. I'm suggesting it makes more sense to keep Luongo than trade him for anything short of a drastic improvement at forward or D.
For example, if Perry/Plekanec/Green is available at the deadline and we needed a 1st + Kadri to get him (along with our 1st) I'd be happy to trade Luongo for Toronto's 1st + Kadri. If such an opportunity is not available, then I don't trade for him for TO 1st + Kadri.
If an opportunity to drastically improve our 2nd line, our #1 dman, or our centre depth, then I do not trade Luongo. I'd say there's as good a chance he's the starter going into the playoffs as there is that Schneider is.
Would you not agree that management has clearly made it's choice? I think they obviously have and no team wants that much cap space tied up in two goalies even if space isn't an issue. You may not get another chance to deal Luongo, he's not getting any younger. He has value now, who knows where that is in say, 2 years when he's 35 and possibly declining. This is part of the problem for me as a Leafs fan. Luongo isn't that far off from the start of his decline.
Oh no, I wasn't asking. I was telling, because he's not. IMO. How is saying he's above-average belittling him?
Interesting. So is the definition of a "franchise goalie" tied to a given year's save percentage?
I'm not saying he's franchise level, but I think it's definitely debatable.
- Prior to entering the league, he was billed as a potential franchise goalie. Even got drafted 4th overall.
- He was a lynchpin in FLA. They were building around him before Keenan intervened.
- He was again viewed as a core building block when VAN dealt for him.
- I think Gillis viewed/views him as a franchise goaltender due to the contract he gave him.
- We've had this same discussion on the VAN boards, and there seemed to be importance placed on year to year effectiveness, rather than dominance in a given season. Lu has both by the way, if you take his entire career into account. As a result, there are very few goalies that stack up to what Luongo has done.
- He has a rare combination of size and athleticism.
Does this make him "elite" or "franchise level", I don't know. It's a label. I do think though that this label has been associated with him from time to time in his career, by media and the GMs of his respective teams... For whatever that's worth.
Although I would fight hard for Kadri, Bozak and Finn, I would probably eventually agree to something like this. I know it's too early to tell but it is a little disheartening to see Schroeder not doing as well as I hoped for in the minors and although it could very well be due to the incompentence of his linemates it just is a risky move having him slotted into a roster spot with no alternative. Kadri is a very good prospect that I would love to have. Don't know who the prospect or roster player would be, but unless it is a cap dump this trade seems somewhat appealing.
If Burke had another trade for a centre in the works, I would be ok with this deal for Luongo.
If Burke had another trade for a centre in the works, I would be ok with this deal for Luongo.
There's actually quite a few deals that have been agreed upon, there's just always people on either side who want more/to give up less. I would be okay with this too.
Little bit OT but I'd like to hear what VAN fans (and why not others) think.
IF Luongo had won the cup in 2010-2011, would it be Schneider on the block instead? Im just curious.
likely yes
esp, with lack coming up in a few years
that's why i (and many other canuck fans) would be perfectly fine w dealing schneider now if the deal were a significant improvement over luongo deal
Would you not agree that management has clearly made it's choice? I think they obviously have and no team wants that much cap space tied up in two goalies even if space isn't an issue. You may not get another chance to deal Luongo, he's not getting any younger. He has value now, who knows where that is in say, 2 years when he's 35 and possibly declining. This is part of the problem for me as a Leafs fan. Luongo isn't that far off from the start of his decline.
How do you know he will decline? How old was Thomas the year he won the cup? Was he on decline?
How do you know he will decline? How old was Thomas the year he won the cup? Was he on decline?
On average, how many goalies in the history of the NHL have played at an elite level in their late 30's into their 40's? The answer to that is, very very few, when you take into account how many goalies have played in the NHL, and how many played well into their 40's. It's possible Lou can play into the later stages of his career, but not likely at all. Thomas is a ridiculous example, becuase he has little to no miles on him. Whereas Lou has been playing in the NHL for a very long time (similar to that of Lecavalier) and has seen plenty of rubber especially in his days with Florida.
On average, how many goalies in the history of the NHL have played at an elite level in their late 30's into their 40's? The answer to that is, very very few, when you take into account how many goalies have played in the NHL, and how many played well into their 40's. It's possible Lou can play into the later stages of his career, but not likely at all. Thomas is a ridiculous example, becuase he has little to no miles on him. Whereas Lou has been playing in the NHL for a very long time (similar to that of Lecavalier) and has seen plenty of rubber especially in his days with Florida.
Luongo has been remarkably productive from a young age until now without any really bad seasons. He is 2nd in wins for active goalies and is only 33. In fact the goalie position is the best example out of all positions for a player to play late in his career. If there is a goalie in the league who looks poised to play late in his career, like Brodeur, Luongs's rare productivity and lack of injury looks like the best bet.
esp, with lack coming up in a few years
that's why i (and many other canuck fans) would be perfectly fine w dealing schneider now if the deal were a significant improvement over luongo deal
same here, I have no problem moving Cory but on HF he holds little to no value because of his inexperience therefore I don't participate in shopping him here.
How do you know he will decline? How old was Thomas the year he won the cup? Was he on decline?
He wont? Well then I think this puts everyone's concerns to rest. Maybe you should trade Schneider then, Luongo clearly will not decline so he also has more longevity. I don't know why anyone would want to trade a goalie with near immortal skills.
On average, how many goalies in the history of the NHL have played at an elite level in their late 30's into their 40's? The answer to that is, very very few, when you take into account how many goalies have played in the NHL, and how many played well into their 40's. It's possible Lou can play into the later stages of his career, but not likely at all. Thomas is a ridiculous example, becuase he has little to no miles on him. Whereas Lou has been playing in the NHL for a very long time (similar to that of Lecavalier) and has seen plenty of rubber especially in his days with Florida.
I would agree with this,
Since Luongo had such a heavy workload put on him at such a young age, it would seem unlikely that he will play until he is 40. I never got the Thomas comparison in that sense. I guess this is why the retirement part of the new CBA will be so crucial because I believe there is such a slim chance that Luongo will play out his entire contract
Side note- If Luongo goes to Toronto it will be interesting to see the opinion of Canucks fans and leaf fans change on him
Since Luongo had such a heavy workload put on him at such a young age, it would seem unlikely that he will play until he is 40. I never got the Thomas comparison in that sense. I guess this is why the retirement part of the new CBA will be so crucial because I believe there is such a slim chance that Luongo will play out his entire contract
I never got the thomas thing as well. he did not make the NHL till he was 32--he is 38 now full time and Luongo has been doiing dull time since he was 21 and luongo is 33 12 years vs 5 years
__________________
trying to fend off exwife number 2
45000/010113
GO SHARKS GO
Would you not agree that management has clearly made it's choice? I think they obviously have and no team wants that much cap space tied up in two goalies even if space isn't an issue. You may not get another chance to deal Luongo, he's not getting any younger. He has value now, who knows where that is in say, 2 years when he's 35 and possibly declining. This is part of the problem for me as a Leafs fan. Luongo isn't that far off from the start of his decline.
A lot of choices aren't permanent... Boston had clearly picked Rask in the offseason of 2010, Thomas ended up winning the Vezina and Conn Smythe in 2010-11.
I'm regards to age, Luongo has put up stellar numbers in recent years and if you consider that after the run to the finals, the team actually started the preseason late and thus the first month of the season was their preseason then Luongo had a 0.923 save percentage from that point onwards. That is elite level goaltending.
I can't think of too many goalies nominated for multiple Veiznas but I would suggest in recent history that would include Hasek, Joseph, Belfour, Brodeur, Thomas, Kipper, Nabokov, Lundqvist, and Rinne. I believe that everyone of those guys will play or has played as starters into their late 30's or 40's, there's no reason to think Luongo will be different (note, I considered guys like Fuhr, Barasso, and Roy to be the era before. Roy is the cutoff. Just off the top of my head).
Oh no, I wasn't asking. I was telling, because he's not. IMO. How is saying he's above-average belittling him?
ok, ill bite
#5 all time sv% rank, over 700 GP, half of which w a lousy Panthers team
2nd in active wins
4-time all star, jennings winner, oly gold winner, 3-time vezina finalist
his #s show zero decline, he just turned 33 ..
or do stats not matter w def'n of elite, just perceptions re playoff failure, more often team failures than individual..?
On average, how many goalies in the history of the NHL have played at an elite level in their late 30's into their 40's? The answer to that is, very very few, when you take into account how many goalies have played in the NHL, and how many played well into their 40's. It's possible Lou can play into the later stages of his career, but not likely at all. Thomas is a ridiculous example, becuase he has little to no miles on him. Whereas Lou has been playing in the NHL for a very long time (similar to that of Lecavalier) and has seen plenty of rubber especially in his days with Florida.
Can you find any keepers in the history of the league that put up #s like luongo for as long as luongo has, that then went into the crapper in their middle-30s..? I'd love to know
odds are a goalie that has put up #s as consistently as he has will continue to do so into later 30s
#5 all time sv% rank, over 700 GP, half of which w a lousy Panthers team
2nd in active wins
4-time all star, jennings winner, oly gold winner, 3-time vezina finalist
his #s show zero decline, he just turned 33 ..
or do stats not matter w def'n of elite, just perceptions re playoff failure, more often team failures than individual..?
It happens when something is over-analyzed and eventually only the flaws are pointed out. Welcome to everyday happenings in Leaf-land, HF does it all the time to anything TML-related.
PS, Luongo is an elite goalie, although he does look shaky in some really important games.
Luongo is above-average. It's just that he doesn't stop at being above-average. For the majority of his career he has been excellent. His career save percentage is just below that of Rinne's (who hasn't played as long) and Lunqvists, but ahead of Quick (who also hasn't played as long). If the argument is he is going to fall off, that isn't much of an argument. Last season his numbers were still pretty damn good. Like I said in a previous post, he had numbers below but similar to Rinne's numbers from last year. People regularly regard Rinne as one of the top goalies in the league.
Luongo had a worse season in 2009-2010 than he did last year, and followed it up with an impressive season in 2010-2011. Maybe we need more than a drop off from a season that saw a deep playoff run and a Vezina-nomination to confirm he really is falling off. Perhaps a continued drop in both performance and stats? Or does that take too much time?
btw... I don't like Luongo or the Canucks one bit.
Rinne is a great goalie no doubt: in my top 5 for sure. What makes Luongo stand out from the crowd is that you can't say he's been sub-par in any season he has played. His worst season he posted a .913 sv%. Luongo is very dependable from season to season, a fact he has demonstrated on multiple teams.
It happens when something is over-analyzed and eventually only the flaws are pointed out. Welcome to everyday happenings in Leaf-land, HF does it all the time to anything TML-related.
PS, Luongo is an elite goalie, although he does look shaky in some really important games.
Yes, he does looks shaky in some big games. Interestingly though Lundqvist has also looked shaky in some big games and hasn't taken his team as far as Luongo and yet seems to get a free pass (arguably Lundqvist also plays on a better defensive team that gives up fewer chances against). Part of that is probably due to the fact that Lundqvist has not played on as strong teams although last year you could certainly argue that the Rangers were one of the favourites. If Lundqvist fails to win a cup this year I wonder if he will be subject to the same analysis as Luongo.
