HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
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.

The All Purpose Luongo Thread (MOD WARNING IN OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 06:21 PM
  #751
LaymanX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcjonny View Post
What if ...

The tandem works out.

Who says ...

Schneider does not get hurt a few games into the season.

Its a great insurance policy at the most critical position in the sport. No matter how much some GM's like to marginalize it.

Some people forget it was only a couple of years since we had to trade Bieksa as we were going to be way over the cap. Sometimes the best trade to make is the one you don't make. If there was an ounce of panic in GMMG he would have dealt Bieksa and then would have been down a D man going into the playoffs.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl...134700505.html

Okay, serious question. Did he ask for a trade? A (very) brief search doesn't show that Lu denied asking for a trade... I'm not sure I'm up to date though.

If so, then there's little to no chance a tandem's going to work imo.

LaymanX is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:27 PM
  #752
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
When Luongo signed the deal with the Canucks, it was reflective of their relatioship as a whole. Luongo had already played 4 solid seasons for the Canucks before the contract kicked in. He's played 2 since.

So looking at the Luongo/Canucks relationship, you have probably 9-10 years of solid play. 3-4 years of potentially questionable play and then retirement.

The probem with him going to a new team is they only get a 2-3 years of guaranteed solid play then things get questionable. Also, you can't say that just because Gillis was willing to sign a 12 year deal brining a goalie well into his 40s, that every GM would have done that. You also have to take into account large changes in the goalie market since Luongo signed that contract. It's very rare these days for GMs to offer large long term deals to goalies. Instead the norm, is the Schneider type arrangement, where a goalie gets a 4-5 year deal max.

Look at the trouble Vokuon is having. Always a big risk with an older goalie.


The crux of your argument is in bold. I'm saying that if the team is rich, and they have the calibre of a player like Lu, then the GM of said team would be remiss not to sign Lu (or similarly ranked player) to such a deal. His track record speaks for itself. He is also well recognized as 1 of the top 4 players on VAN's roster (Sedins, Kesler the others). A key player indeed. Gillis and Gilman both recognized this and signed him to a brilliant deal because of it.



People forget that Gillis and Gilman had the opportunity to sign the Sedins to exactly this type of deal. In fact, it was rumoured that the Sedin camp proposed it. Gillis balked. He noted at the time that goalie longevity is much different than that of skaters, and that he could not envision giving such a deal out to anyone but Luongo for that reason. So they paid especially close attention to the Goalie position in particular. So this confuses me... On the one hand, people are saying offering such a contract to a goalie is a big risk, but on the other, from the mouth of VAN's own GM, he considered it the opposite. Which is likely to be true?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:30 PM
  #753
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I do agree with point 2 and 3, but point 1 is not as straight forward as u suggest. There are not necessarily many alternative trades.

Point 2 and 3 have merit, but it is overstated that the Canucks need to deal with Toronto exclusively, there are other interested parties believe it or not.
To the bold: absolutely! There are likely a few teams that want Luongo and I
will not speculate who because it is a fruitless effort.

And you raise a good point however if the speculated teams are Chicago, San Jose,
and Florida then I can already see three goalies who might become available to tandem
with Reimer. Again, a small upgrade may be enough for the Leafs in particular. I am
sure there are others who might not be a clear number one but who could work.

marty111 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:31 PM
  #754
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaymanX View Post
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl...134700505.html

Okay, serious question. Did he ask for a trade? A (very) brief search doesn't show that Lu denied asking for a trade... I'm not sure I'm up to date though.

If so, then there's little to no chance a tandem's going to work imo.
classic journalism there

the source for his "request" was a kypreos quote, which was quickly debunked as BS.

he never requested a trade.

later in the summer, he was quoted by someone as saying "maybe its best i moved on.." but that was as inflammatory as it got.
then later he showed up early for the canucks charity golf event and early camp.

No matter how much wishful spinning is put on this situation, the fact remains the relationship is as good as you could possibly hope for in this situation.

Luongo has been all class, as has Gillis & the Canucks, no matter how much gas the media has tried to throw on the non-existant fire.

this was his twitter quote today:

Strombone‏@strombone1

I guess I have to do one more for the masses..... "If you like him......you'll love us!" (me and Schneids) #strombonepickuplines

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:31 PM
  #755
bcjonny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 209
vCash: 500
Who is more of an NHL insider?

John Shannon who has reported that there is a deal in place that sends Luongo to the TML ... hence the flurry of Tor -Van trade proposals.

Or

Doug Maclean who said on the Team 1040 in the last 2 weeks that there are 5 NHL teams IN on Luongo.

I guess its subjective which one is true. Who do you believe to be better connected?

bcjonny is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:32 PM
  #756
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Shame View Post
I think you are right that the contract itself isn't so bad. But it is the optics of the situation more than the actual specifics of the deal.

Gillis signs Luongo to a long term deal. Then 2 years later is looking to deal him. Burke (and any other GM) has to ask himself, "Why should I pay for your mistake?"

And they probably are asking "If you already consider the deal a mistake 2 years after signing it, then maybe I'll consider it a mistake 2 years from now as well... why am I going to pay a premium for a guy that has a mistake contract?"

Maybe the truth is that it isn't a "mistake" contract, but it sure seems like one (the optics) when a team is trying to get rid of a player. So it becomes a bit of a game a chicken. One side says "I'm not taking your mistake for a good price." The other side is saying "It wasn't a mistake, and we are fine with keeping it if we have to". Both sides aren't telling the truth.

But Burke (or any GM) would be stupid not to use the optics of the contract as bargaining leverage.
So were Carter and Richards even bigger mistakes to sign? They signed and had not played on their new contracts yet. Shouldn't their value have dropped in a trade? Really what about anyone who gets traded, who is not a pending UFA or a RFA?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
Because he's not fine... he's just being a professional. Ovechkin, even if he's playing like **** isn't going to sit around Washington and get 15 minutes a night with limited PP time because he's a star. Similarly, an aging Luongo isn't going to sit around playing 30-40 games and be perfectly happy.
So why did Ovie not asked to be traded?

racerjoe is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:37 PM
  #757
Numbers
Registered User
 
Numbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by capemjs View Post
To the bold: absolutely! There are likely a few teams that want Luongo and I
will not speculate who because it is a fruitless effort.

And you raise a good point however if the speculated teams are Chicago, San Jose,
and Florida then I can already see three goalies who might become available to tandem
with Reimer. Again, a small upgrade may be enough for the Leafs in particular. I am
sure there are others who might not be a clear number one but who could work.
True, could be a three way trade as Gillis suggested before.

Numbers is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:42 PM
  #758
LaymanX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcjonny View Post
Who is more of an NHL insider?

John Shannon who has reported that there is a deal in place that sends Luongo to the TML ... hence the flurry of Tor -Van trade proposals.

Or

Doug Maclean who said on the Team 1040 in the last 2 weeks that there are 5 NHL teams IN on Luongo.

I guess its subjective which one is true. Who do you believe to be better connected?
Ah thanks for enlightening me... Well I guess it's possible that Lu goes to one of those other 5 teams or even stays put.

I still stand by my prediction however that IF he ends up on the Leafs, Burke ain't giving up significant assets. He just doesn't value goaltenders that way.

LaymanX is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:53 PM
  #759
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by capemjs View Post
Luongo's contract is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Regardless
if Gillis and every Canuck fan in the world can live with it, doesn't mean that they all
can comprehend
that potential disaster it brings. Gillis will be gone and Canuck fans
would have hoped getting good value for Luongo will bring them a cup. In the first
third of his contract he's already been removed from core piece of that cup win to
an expendable asset. Your rebuttle is likely what's wrong with getting value for
Luongo and moving on? Well that's still very much up in the air and potentially may
not bring Vancouver much of anything rather than the other side of the coin; signing
him to a proper contract in the first place and getting value that puts the Canucks
over the top. Again the potential is still there for this contract to blow up in their
face and most speculation - off of this site - point to that very possibility.


You still don't get it capemjs. Canuck fans have been dissecting this contract for two years now. Every which way imaginable. Do you honestly think they are the fanbase that fail to comprehend its pitfalls/benefits?... Think again.


A "proper contract"? You mean have a full price cap-hit of 6.75m instead of a 5.33m when you can have the latter? How does that benefit the Canucks more? Is it because you are assured it ends when you want it to? Gillis and Gilman don't care about that because they know when it will unofficially "end". The rest is just gravy. Note: Gillis didn't want a "proper contract", he wanted a "cheater contract". The latter is much better for building a stronger team.




Quote:
The point is that the Maple Leafs are trading for Luongo BECAUSE they might be
able to improve without digging other holes in their roster. A few realities that
REGARDLESS of any stance Canuck fans might have are the following:


No. Burke wants a strong goalie because he identified it as a position of need last year.


Quote:
(1) There are many more goalies out there that can be traded for, for far less
then Luongo. While Luongo is the best available doesn't negate the reality that
the teams interested won't blow up another part of their roster just to get him.
Continual improvement can be made WITHOUT Lu.

(2) Whether it is before game one or the trade deadline, Vancouver HAS TO TRADE
Luongo or Schneider eventually. Luongo is being a good teammate about all of
this but neither guy will hang around in Vancouver for long playing backup minutes.
GUARANTEED.

(3) Regulating 9.3m to two players who don't play in the same game every
night is going to severely hinder Vanocuver's ability to win the cup in the few
years that they have now. Especially as the cap dwindles. It is an extremely
poor use of cap management.

For these three reasons alone, for Vancouver this is not business as usual.



Answers:


(1) If Burke has alternative options he should pursue them. Makes no sense to try and pay for an elite goaltender when you can achieve your goals with lesser players. One question though: Why hasn't he done it then? It's been a long offseason already, surely he's had time to contact his other trade partners in order to get a deal done?


(2) Agreed. They have to trade Luongo eventually. I'm just not certain when. Could be they wait to the deadline. Could be before the start of the season. Who knows?


(3) Ties in with #2, but this is not a long-term situation. I doubt the 9.3m allocated to goaltending will stay that way for long.


All that said, this is still business as usual IMO. Gillis knows he has to deal Luongo. He doesn't know when. What's changed?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:14 PM
  #760
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,195
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The crux of your argument is in bold. I'm saying that if the team is rich, and they have the calibre of a player like Lu, then the GM of said team would be remiss not to sign Lu (or similarly ranked player) to such a deal. His track record speaks for itself. He is also well recognized as 1 of the top 4 players on VAN's roster (Sedins, Kesler the others). A key player indeed. Gillis and Gilman both recognized this and signed him to a brilliant deal because of it.



People forget that Gillis and Gilman had the opportunity to sign the Sedins to exactly this type of deal. In fact, it was rumoured that the Sedin camp proposed it. Gillis balked. He noted at the time that goalie longevity is much different than that of skaters, and that he could not envision giving such a deal out to anyone but Luongo for that reason. So they paid especially close attention to the Goalie position in particular. So this confuses me... On the one hand, people are saying offering such a contract to a goalie is a big risk, but on the other, from the mouth of VAN's own GM, he considered it the opposite. Which is likely to be true?
The consequences of giving a contract like that to a star forward who declines is that the forward may become a 40 point player, and you have to find someone else to play first line under the cap.

If you give that contract to a declining goalie, you are screwed. A goalie not playing at his prime is useless to a team.

If Luongo is so important to Gillis, the choice is obvious, move Schneider. I guarantee you, you won't get a huge return from Luongo. The market for goalies has changed, Luongo is older, and very few teams are interested. It also looks like the cap may be falling.

blankall is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:31 PM
  #761
Moe Szyslak
Sears catalog
 
Moe Szyslak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcjonny View Post
Who is more of an NHL insider?

John Shannon who has reported that there is a deal in place that sends Luongo to the TML ... hence the flurry of Tor -Van trade proposals.

Or

Doug Maclean who said on the Team 1040 in the last 2 weeks that there are 5 NHL teams IN on Luongo.

I guess its subjective which one is true. Who do you believe to be better connected?
Luongo, Booth, Gaunce, 1st to NYI for Tavares.

DO IT!

Moe Szyslak is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:34 PM
  #762
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
The consequences of giving a contract like that to a star forward who declines is that the forward may become a 40 point player, and you have to find someone else to play first line under the cap.

If you give that contract to a declining goalie, you are screwed. A goalie not playing at his prime is useless to a team.

If Luongo is so important to Gillis, the choice is obvious, move Schneider. I guarantee you, you won't get a huge return from Luongo. The market for goalies has changed, Luongo is older, and very few teams are interested. It also looks like the cap may be falling.
I just read an article, I can't remember who it was by, that went on to say it may not actually be falling. If we just go by what the owners deal was, we should see maybe a slight drop in 2013, but for the 2014 season, the Canadian TV deal is up, and this could mean a a huge boost to revenue, and negate any drop.

The following year NYI move into their new arena and this should see another similar increase.

just thought it was interesting.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:36 PM
  #763
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
The consequences of giving a contract like that to a star forward who declines is that the forward may become a 40 point player, and you have to find someone else to play first line under the cap.

If you give that contract to a declining goalie, you are screwed. A goalie not playing at his prime is useless to a team.

If Luongo is so important to Gillis, the choice is obvious, move Schneider. I guarantee you, you won't get a huge return from Luongo. The market for goalies has changed, Luongo is older, and very few teams are interested. It also looks like the cap may be falling.
i will reiterate the question I have posed multiple times in this thread, but have gotten no replies to, shocker ...

can you name ANY goalies from the history of the league, with numbers like Luo, for as long as Luo, who suddenly dropped off a cliff in his mid-30s?

The fact is, barring injury (a risk for any player), high-end goalies are more likely to continue to perform with only minimal decline in play into their late 30s, and often beyond. If you have any evidence to the liklihood of the opposite, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, it's just fabrications to help sell your position.

There is NO reason to think he isnt capable of play comparable to the past couple years for the next for 5-6 easily. At that cap hit he is a deal -- and if it is true that the new CBA has 'retirement years' cap hit going back to the Canucks, the price goes up significantly. If the Leafs can't compete for the cup in 5 years, then yes they should look elsewhere. But otherwise, he wont come cheap, despite the devaluing speculation going round & round in the echo chamber ...

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:37 PM
  #764
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moe Szyslak View Post
Luongo, Booth, Gaunce, 1st to NYI for Tavares.

DO IT!
without a moment's hesitation.

however, itll never happen

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:40 PM
  #765
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
The consequences of giving a contract like that to a star forward who declines is that the forward may become a 40 point player, and you have to find someone else to play first line under the cap.

If you give that contract to a declining goalie, you are screwed. A goalie not playing at his prime is useless to a team.


Really? So why did Gillis give that contract to Luongo instead of the Sedins? He was faced with the choice, why did he evaluate all factors and choose to do exactly the opposite of what you are contending?



Quote:
If Luongo is so important to Gillis, the choice is obvious, move Schneider. I guarantee you, you won't get a huge return from Luongo. The market for goalies has changed, Luongo is older, and very few teams are interested. It also looks like the cap may be falling.


You can't guarantee a thing blankall. Let's be clear, unless you having specific insight into the talks by GMs, you are speculating like everyone else. Guarantees are irrelevant.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:40 PM
  #766
FakeKidPoker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcjonny View Post
Who is more of an NHL insider?

John Shannon who has reported that there is a deal in place that sends Luongo to the TML ... hence the flurry of Tor -Van trade proposals.

Or

Doug Maclean who said on the Team 1040 in the last 2 weeks that there are 5 NHL teams IN on Luongo.

I guess its subjective which one is true. Who do you believe to be better connected?
Maclean has also said Toronto is the frontrunner

FakeKidPoker* is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:41 PM
  #767
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,291
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
without a moment's hesitation.

however, itll never happen
I would move Luongo, Kesler, 1st round pick for Tavares.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:19 PM
  #768
CanuckLuck
Registered User
 
CanuckLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I would move Luongo, Kesler, 1st round pick for Tavares.
In a second but I don't think NYI would ever trade Tavares.

Luongo is expendable because of Schneider and Tavares>>>>>>Kesler+1st

CanuckLuck is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:43 PM
  #769
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,989
vCash: 500
Since when has Doug Maclean ever been right about a rumour?

TieClark is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:45 PM
  #770
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
Since when has Doug Maclean ever been right about a rumour?

Still waiting for those links TieClark.


Doug Maclean has an awesome job: Get paid to be wrong all the time.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:46 PM
  #771
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
So were Carter and Richards even bigger mistakes to sign? They signed and had not played on their new contracts yet. Shouldn't their value have dropped in a trade? Really what about anyone who gets traded, who is not a pending UFA or a RFA?
They aren't even comparable... Both Richard's and Carter's contracts end when they're in their mid 30's. Luongo is already in his mid thirties and his contract ends when he's in his mid forties

Quote:
So why did Ovie not asked to be traded?
Because he averaged almost 20 minutes a game and lead the team in PP TOI/G? It was a hypothetical situation...

TieClark is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:49 PM
  #772
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Still waiting for those links TieClark.


Doug Maclean has an awesome job: Get paid to be wrong all the time.
I'm not providing links to the obvious. Every single reliable source has stated Florida and Toronto as the choices. There is a reason no other team is ever brought up minus Edmonton who is new and Chicago who hasn't been mentioned since the draft.

TieClark is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:50 PM
  #773
MapleReef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Nassau Bahamas
Country: Bahamas
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
Quoting John McEnroe

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I think we can all agree on Bozak and Frattin being 2 pieces. The other 2 could be any of:
Kadri
Finn
Colborne
Blacker
Ashton
Percy
(In that order for me)

I would add a piece like Schroeder for both Kadri and Finn.
You cant't be serious? No way Vancouver gets even close to this. No way.

MapleReef is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:05 PM
  #774
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
I'm not providing links to the obvious. Every single reliable source has stated Florida and Toronto as the choices. There is a reason no other team is ever brought up minus Edmonton who is new and Chicago who hasn't been mentioned since the draft.

FLA and TO are choices. They are not the _only_ choices. You will need to provide a link(s) to prove that they are. If not, no one should take you seriously when you say it.


So you admit EDM gets brought up and CHI was mentioned? So your statement that _only_ FLA or TO are choices was incorrect?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:21 PM
  #775
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
FLA and TO are choices. They are not the _only_ choices. You will need to provide a link(s) to prove that they are. If not, no one should take you seriously when you say it.


So you admit EDM gets brought up and CHI was mentioned? So your statement that _only_ FLA or TO are choices was incorrect?
Ok... you win. There are a bunch of other teams involved but nobody else knows who they are and only Doug Maclean who has never been right about anything says so, so obviously it's true...

TieClark 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 03:08 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.