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.

The All Purpose Lu Thread (MOD WARNING IN OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2012, 12:49 PM
  #826
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Hey Marty....what is your angle here?
My angle is to aid the trade talk. People go on for pages and pages, back and forth, and use shoddy reasons to support their claims. I think it's important just to remind everyone what some of the facts are rather then being highly speculative and subjective. (all of the points I raised).

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:58 PM
  #827
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,735
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I'll agree with all...except the bolded. Kessel,Lupul,Phaneuf,Gardiner,JVR,Reilly,Colborne, Kadri,Finn,Percy,Biggs,Liles,Franson,Brown,McCleme nt and even Steckel.

These are all Burke aquisitions and while results are not there (YET) in the standings, i think it's safe to say our future is brighter than it was when he got here.
While there certainly have been some big acquisitions, some big, big, big names have left town as well. Sundin, McCabe, Kaberle, Wellwood, Antropov Tucker, Stajan, Belfour, White, Ponikorovsky, Peca, Gill, O'Neill, Blake, Steen, Moore, Stempniak, Schenn, Cujo, Gerber, Kolzig, Tucker...A few of these may have been under JFJ (Gill and Peca especially), my memory is a little hazy, but there was some talent in the group of players that Burke (and possibly others) let go. If I was a real jerk I'd claim that Kessel was at the expense of Hamilton and Seguin as well....but that's not a fair assessment because I think Burke genuinely believed his team would be better.

It wasn't simple addition to our roster, just as we can't say Gillis added players like Hamhuis or Garrison or Ballard without acknowledging that Ohlund, Mitchell and Salo left.

Is Toronto better now with their current roster going forward? Probably, but that addition came with some subtraction, and how this ties in with Luongo is there wouldn't just addition for him, someone (and due to Burkes' replacement of nearly everyone in the system, a Burke acquisition) would need to be subtracted.

Cogburn is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:59 PM
  #828
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
My angle is to aid the trade talk. People go on for pages and pages, back and forth, and use shoddy reasons to support their claims. I think it's important just to remind everyone what some of the facts are rather then being highly speculative and subjective. (all of the points I raised).
If i recall, one of the first "facts" you raised was Luongo has asked to be traded. Could you please post the link to which you attained said "fact". Because, the ONLY thing he has said was "time to move on", which if taken totally out of context could be viewed as asking to be traded. But when taken in context, it was a response to a question about how he felt about Gillis shopping him....the whole quote was "if that's what they feel is best for the team, maybe it's time to move on". So you see, speculation runs rampant.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:01 PM
  #829
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorman View Post
Marty as a fellow rookie user, let start with some that was common where I used to go to, welcome to the board. I have read both your proposals and appreciate the work thought put intio them. you make some very valid points.
Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorman View Post
Bobby Ryan's case is slightly different though. He was more pissed off that his name kept be brought up time and time again as Ana was looking to trade him for help. So he finally said if you aren't happy with me trade me. But point taken
Didn't Bobby Ryan have a problem with the coach? Then the coach was removed and Ryan no longer demanded to be dealt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Boy View Post
Thank you LL

this needs to be put up in flashing lights above this thread.

While we can all assume Lu would prefer to have a guaranteed starter's role (as the majority of goalies would) he never asked to be traded...
Which is why he'll inevitably be traded. "Time to move on" is because the Canuck's no longer see him in the starter role for the club. That is evident by the way he was sat in the playoffs and the new contract to Schneider, etc. I'm saying he played poorly, but management clearly has indicated that the best guy for the team moving forward is Schneider.

Hence, all the point I've made. Lu will play nice and try to let Gillis move him keeping some dignity between the two of them, HOWEVER, Gillis only has so long. Lu isn't going to be the #2 guy for multiple years or anything.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:02 PM
  #830
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
While there certainly have been some big acquisitions, some big, big, big names have left town as well. Sundin, McCabe, Kaberle, Wellwood, Antropov Tucker, Stajan, Belfour, White, Ponikorovsky, Peca, Gill, O'Neill, Blake, Steen, Moore, Stempniak, Schenn, Cujo, Gerber, Kolzig, Tucker...A few of these may have been under JFJ (Gill and Peca especially), my memory is a little hazy, but there was some talent in the group of players that Burke (and possibly others) let go. If I was a real jerk I'd claim that Kessel was at the expense of Hamilton and Seguin as well....but that's not a fair assessment because I think Burke genuinely believed his team would be better.

It wasn't simple addition to our roster, just as we can't say Gillis added players like Hamhuis or Garrison or Ballard without acknowledging that Ohlund, Mitchell and Salo left.

Is Toronto better now with their current roster going forward? Probably, but that addition came with some subtraction, and how this ties in with Luongo is there wouldn't just addition for him, someone (and due to Burkes' replacement of nearly everyone in the system, a Burke acquisition) would need to be subtracted.
Wow, i'm not sure how to respond. Other than Sundin and maybe Schenn...are any of those players anything but old underperforming players? Do i think our roster is better now...Hell ya, which would you choose? And of course it's addition by subtraction, but the players he added are much younger and for the most part better than what he lost.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:04 PM
  #831
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
My angle is to aid the trade talk. People go on for pages and pages, back and forth, and use shoddy reasons to support their claims. I think it's important just to remind everyone what some of the facts are rather then being highly speculative and subjective. (all of the points I raised).
Actually your post was probably the most speculative and subjective.

You just labeled it as "facts"

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:04 PM
  #832
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
While there certainly have been some big acquisitions, some big, big, big names have left town as well. Sundin, McCabe, Kaberle, Wellwood, Antropov Tucker, Stajan, Belfour, White, Ponikorovsky, Peca, Gill, O'Neill, Blake, Steen, Moore, Stempniak, Schenn, Cujo, Gerber, Kolzig, Tucker...A few of these may have been under JFJ (Gill and Peca especially), my memory is a little hazy, but there was some talent in the group of players that Burke (and possibly others) let go. If I was a real jerk I'd claim that Kessel was at the expense of Hamilton and Seguin as well....but that's not a fair assessment because I think Burke genuinely believed his team would be better.

It wasn't simple addition to our roster, just as we can't say Gillis added players like Hamhuis or Garrison or Ballard without acknowledging that Ohlund, Mitchell and Salo left.

Is Toronto better now with their current roster going forward? Probably, but that addition came with some subtraction, and how this ties in with Luongo is there wouldn't just addition for him, someone (and due to Burkes' replacement of nearly everyone in the system, a Burke acquisition) would need to be subtracted.
Burke can only be accountable for his moves.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:06 PM
  #833
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Thanks!



Didn't Bobby Ryan have a problem with the coach? Then the coach was removed and Ryan no longer demanded to be dealt?



Which is why he'll inevitably be traded. "Time to move on" is because the Canuck's no longer see him in the starter role for the club. That is evident by the way he was sat in the playoffs and the new contract to Schneider, etc. I'm saying he played poorly, but management clearly has indicated that the best guy for the team moving forward is Schneider.

Hence, all the point I've made. Lu will play nice and try to let Gillis move him keeping some dignity between the two of them, HOWEVER, Gillis only has so long. Lu isn't going to be the #2 guy for multiple years or anything.
Ok...lets say all of your points are valid....why don't you post what you think is fair trade value from TO,FLA,EDM or others given the fact you feel Van HAS to deal him.

When you are done, ask yourself if you were Gillis, would you do any of them.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:06 PM
  #834
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
Actually your post was probably the most speculative and subjective.

You just labeled it as "facts"
All points were supported by facts. That's far more than anyone else is willing to contribute.

Perhaps adding a rebuttal with facts would be adequate. Denial, short sightedness, or ignoring the post doesn't help anyone.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:08 PM
  #835
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Thanks!



Didn't Bobby Ryan have a problem with the coach? Then the coach was removed and Ryan no longer demanded to be dealt?



Which is why he'll inevitably be traded. "Time to move on" is because the Canuck's no longer see him in the starter role for the club. That is evident by the way he was sat in the playoffs and the new contract to Schneider, etc. I'm saying he played poorly, but management clearly has indicated that the best guy for the team moving forward is Schneider.

Hence, all the point I've made. Lu will play nice and try to let Gillis move him keeping some dignity between the two of them, HOWEVER, Gillis only has so long. Lu isn't going to be the #2 guy for multiple years or anything.
No one will tell you this tandem is a long term thing...

But its not like there is any major rush here.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:09 PM
  #836
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
If i recall, one of the first "facts" you raised was Luongo has asked to be traded. Could you please post the link to which you attained said "fact". Because, the ONLY thing he has said was "time to move on", which if taken totally out of context could be viewed as asking to be traded. But when taken in context, it was a response to a question about how he felt about Gillis shopping him....the whole quote was "if that's what they feel is best for the team, maybe it's time to move on". So you see, speculation runs rampant.
I qualified that point by saying that Lu won't be in Vancouver for long. We can all agree on that considering the circumstances.

However we read the subtext of his quote is up to the individual but my point still stands.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:11 PM
  #837
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
No one will tell you this tandem is a long term thing...

But its not like there is any major rush here.
So then explain with some facts why the CBA, cap, and current trade speculation for Lu isn't a cause for concern with regards to the amount of time Gillis has to trade Lu.

And if you can, explain why you think Lu would be okay playing back-up for multiple years. I don't think so.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:12 PM
  #838
HamhuisHip
LeggsOverMyHamhuis
 
HamhuisHip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Just to dispel some myths going on in this thread(s).

Why Mike Gillis HAS TO trade Roberto Luongo:
(this off-season or by latest trade deadline)

#1. He has asked to moved. Plain and simple.
#2. Mike Gillis can keep both Luongo and Schneider? <snip> Refer to point #1. Luongo has far much more control than people suggest.
#3. New CBA, future cap ceiling, and the Canuck’s cap management going forward.

Again, the lockout and new CBA will determine a lot but it seems completely outside the realm of reason to think Gillis can keep both and he is most surely on a clock to make it happen, valuation aside.
Where are the facts in this? I see nothing but opinion.

Luongo hasn't asked for a trade nor has a CBA been signed.


Last edited by HamhuisHip: 11-17-2012 at 01:15 PM. Reason: Dang, should have refreshed before responding as it looks like others pointed out the flaw in his argument
HamhuisHip is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:13 PM
  #839
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
I qualified that point by saying that Lu won't be in Vancouver for long. We can all agree on that considering the circumstances.

However we read the subtext of his quote is up to the individual but my point still stands.
Actually no...your point is how you choose to see it (subjective), and you can only (speculate) as to whether Luongo will be moved. Is it not fair to believe Gillis/Luongo when they have both stated they are okay with Luongo remaining in Van? Or is that a quote we should forget as it doesn't support your "facts"?

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:16 PM
  #840
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
So then explain with some facts why the CBA, cap, and current trade speculation for Lu isn't a cause for concern with regards to the amount of time Gillis has to trade Lu.

And if you can, explain why you think Lu would be okay playing back-up for multiple years. I don't think so.
As soon as you explain how you can gurantee this to be fact.What makes you think that if they are both there he doesn't secure the starting role...or are you "speculating"?

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:19 PM
  #841
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
So then explain with some facts why the CBA, cap, and current trade speculation for Lu isn't a cause for concern with regards to the amount of time Gillis has to trade Lu.

And if you can, explain why you think Lu would be okay playing back-up for multiple years. I don't think so.
There is demand for goaltending.

Lu makes up the entire supply at this point (or is that an unfair statement to make).

No one is saying Luongo is a long term backup.

His cap hit is below market value (even at a 60 million cap it accounts for less than 10%).
Vancouver has no immediate cap issues, and Ballard would be dealt for cents on the dollar before you see a discounted Lu.

A lot can happen in a 1 momth, 3 month, 6 month window.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:19 PM
  #842
HamhuisHip
LeggsOverMyHamhuis
 
HamhuisHip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
As soon as you explain how you can gurantee this to be fact.What makes you think that if they are both there he doesn't secure the starting role...or are you "speculating"?
He is only presenting "facts" that support his POV, end of story. Nevermind he can't support them with a quote from anyone involved that he has asked for a trade nor can he show a new CBA that states the cap is now $60M for 2012/13 or 2013/14.


Last edited by HamhuisHip: 11-17-2012 at 01:20 PM. Reason: clarify year of cap
HamhuisHip is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:26 PM
  #843
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamhuisHip View Post
He is only presenting "facts" that support his POV, end of story. Nevermind he can't support them with a quote from anyone involved that he has asked for a trade nor can he show a new CBA that states the cap is now $60M for 2012/13 or 2013/14.
It's really not. READ THE WHOLE POST. Do some research yourself on the cap and future CBA negotiations and use a little common sense when looking at his potential to be moved. I never stated that it will be 60M either but is is possible, HOWEVER, my point is valid under a 70M dollar cap anyway.

Simple as.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:30 PM
  #844
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Actually no...your point is how you choose to see it (subjective), and you can only (speculate) as to whether Luongo will be moved. Is it not fair to believe Gillis/Luongo when they have both stated they are okay with Luongo remaining in Van? Or is that a quote we should forget as it doesn't support your "facts"?
Your splitting hairs on the way I phrased the first point just to try to discredit the whole thing.

Lu is going to be traded, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. I even said that he hasn't demanded a trade yet (although he could) to make the transition smooth for all sides. As point one stands alone, it valid. READ THE WHOLE thing before nitpicking.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:31 PM
  #845
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,537
vCash: 500
Marty:

What is your response to this-


Quote:
Vancouver can negotiate with ANY team in the league, when something is offered that is suitable to Gillis that is when the deal gets brought to Luongo. It will not come up in negotiations, and will not `lower` his value.
You can keep referring everyone to read your whole post, but there are ZERO facts to be gleaned from it. It is entirely speculative.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:32 PM
  #846
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Your splitting hairs on the way I phrased the first point just to try to discredit the whole thing.

Lu is going to be traded, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. I even said that he hasn't demanded a trade yet (although he could) to make the transition smooth for all sides. As point one stands alone, it valid. READ THE WHOLE thing before nitpicking.
Any input on what you believe a potential return is?

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:33 PM
  #847
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
Vancouver has no immediate cap issues, and Ballard would be dealt for cents on the dollar before you see a discounted Lu.
Moving Ballard will likely cost Vancouver assets. Just like McCabe in Toronto, especially if it is done in short order to get under a cap.

AND it still won't address the issue with Lu and Schneider which is why it's not an acceptable solution. It's a band aid that will cost something.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:36 PM
  #848
Kass Effect
Registered User
 
Kass Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Data Corrupted
Posts: 1,214
vCash: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
It's really not. READ THE WHOLE POST. Do some research yourself on the cap and future CBA negotiations and use a little common sense when looking at his potential to be moved. I never stated that it will be 60M either but is is possible, HOWEVER, my point is valid under a 70M dollar cap anyway.

Simple as.
Dude. Its still just your opinion. There is valid points from both "sides", maybe you should READ THE WHOLE THREAD.

Kass Effect is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:36 PM
  #849
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Marty:

What is your response to this-




You can keep referring everyone to read your whole post, but there are ZERO facts to be gleaned from it. It is entirely speculative.
It's really not. Capgeek's shows Lu's NTC as having 5 possible destinations of his choosing. That's a fact! He is within his right to use that clause.

Are you going to dispute that and tell me I present zero facts? Seriously?

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:36 PM
  #850
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Moving Ballard will likely cost Vancouver assets. Just like McCabe in Toronto, especially if it is done in short order to get under a cap.

AND it still won't address the issue with Lu and Schneider which is why it's not an acceptable solution. It's a band aid that will cost something.
The first part is your opinion... I doubt many people will agree. Cents on the dollar is a 3rd/4th round pick in all likelihood.

Lu + Schneider brings more marginal utility to our team than any garbage return. That is fact.

Ho Borvat 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 10:08 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.