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 use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

Luongo: The Neverending Story

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2013, 12:43 PM
  #451
CellarDweller0
Registered User
 
CellarDweller0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
lol no.
Do I need to add Frattin then? Leafs will need a forward coming back tho.

CellarDweller0 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:44 PM
  #452
ThereGoesVirtanen
Fire Benning
 
ThereGoesVirtanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,983
vCash: 500
Gonna need that first round pick if nothing else of quality is coming back.

ThereGoesVirtanen is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:44 PM
  #453
Seatoo
Never Stop Poasting
 
Seatoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Interior of BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,441
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by CellarDweller0 View Post
Ok, what about Connolly (since Kesler is hurt and he only has 1 year left), Kadri, Franson, conditional 2014 1st (making the 2nd round) and 2015 2nd for Schneider? The 2014 becomes a 2nd if the condition is not met.
Maybe if you are wanting Eddie Lack and Mason Raymond...even if you added Frattin its a huge "No" from us for Schnider. Luongo? Yes. Schnider? Look at Gardiner, Frattin, 1st ++ for Schnider+

Seatoo is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:45 PM
  #454
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CellarDweller0 View Post
Do I need to add Frattin then? Leafs will need a forward coming back tho.
No, you need to move a significant piece if Schneider is to be moved, not a package of lesser assets.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:45 PM
  #455
Beezeral
Registered User
 
Beezeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitto79 View Post
why would FLA trade Weiss for Luongo? Would it not hurt them more than anything else? They lose a top C

Vancouver would have to take secondary players if they want to move that contract. TO does make sense with Bozak , Franson, draft pick/prospect

Beezeral is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:47 PM
  #456
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
No, you need to move a significant piece if Schneider is to be moved, not a package of lesser assets.
I'd throw Gardiner out there and a 1st in 2014 and add on but that's where I refuse to include guys like Kadri of JVR like some fans have been asking.

marty111 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:49 PM
  #457
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
It's a good point BUT no one thought Gardiner was that good at the time. He was a late round 1st who SINCE the trade has played above that.

The price wasn't Gardiner as he sits today, it was what people thought of Gardiner over a year ago which most people didn't even know who he was.

They won't get a blue chip prospect for the kind of buyout we are talking about. A guy like Franson or a mid level prospect.


True, the price wasn't Gardiner as he sits today _to_us_. But that's what scouts are paid to find out. Just what does Gardiner project to be. So while the general populace may not have known, the guys in the industry likely know... He was a 1st rounder for a reason, after all.


The Canucks weren't going to get a blue chip, can't miss prospect regardless. I expect a good prospect, but with some question marks.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:51 PM
  #458
CellarDweller0
Registered User
 
CellarDweller0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
No, you need to move a significant piece if Schneider is to be moved, not a package of lesser assets.
Leafs are not in position to match the quality without creating another hole but they have assets to bolster a teams depth. Do the 'nucks need depth? I honestly don't know.

Other option would be to offer the Connolly, Kadri, Franson, conditional 2014 1st or 2nd and 2015 2nd for Luongo.

CellarDweller0 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:51 PM
  #459
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
I'd throw Gardiner out there and a 1st in 2014 and add on but that's where I refuse to include guys like Kadri of JVR like some fans have been asking.
If the Canucks were looking to move Schneider than Gardiner and a 1st may get their attention, but they aren't looking to move him.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:52 PM
  #460
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
True, the price wasn't Gardiner as he sits today _to_us_. But that's what scouts are paid to find out. Just what does Gardiner project to be. So while the general populace may not have known, the guys in the industry likely know... He was a 1st rounder for a reason, after all.


The Canucks weren't going to get a blue chip, can't miss prospect regardless. I expect a good prospect, but with some question marks.
Fair enough... I'd like to find the thread for the Gardiner trade and just see what fans were saying then about him. But I can see some common ground from what you are thinking now.

marty111 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:52 PM
  #461
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
If the Canucks were looking to move Schneider than Gardiner and a 1st may get their attention, but they aren't looking to move him.
I know. Just sayin'.

marty111 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 12:59 PM
  #462
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Fair enough... I'd like to find the thread for the Gardiner trade and just see what fans were saying then about him. But I can see some common ground from what you are thinking now.

What I am thinking now? I haven't changed my stance. Never thought the Canucks would get a blue chipper. There are only a handful of those types of prospects around the league.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:04 PM
  #463
Timmy
Registered User
 
Timmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamhuisHip View Post
Not sure about the $64M cap in 2013-14 carrying over to the next year but I did find the following link to a James Myrtle article that estimates the cap to be $60.1M for 2014-15 based on 5% revenue growth. He characterizes this as "worst case scenarios" for revenue growth. Also do not forget about the PAs 5% inflater clause (assuming it still exists - which is likely).

Also lets not forget the revenue growth was better than 5% after the last lockout. A growth rate of 7% will produce a cap of $64M in 2014-15.

I am also not sure how he calculated the cap in his table. I get a higher cap in 14-15 based on 5% growth. e.g. 3468M @ 50% = 1734M less $90M benefits = 1644M = $54.8M per team median; add $8M to get cap of $63.8M. I could be calculating it wrong though.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle6949050/

The article was written on January 4th, before the agreement was announced and details started to be leaked out about the escrow and cap arrangements going forward. The 64m minimum cap information may still prove to be wrong, but if it's correct then calculating a reduced cap based on reduced league revenue no longer applies.

Timmy is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:05 PM
  #464
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
What I am thinking now? I haven't changed my stance. Never thought the Canucks would get a blue chipper. There are only a handful of those types of prospects around the league.
I imagine you've been thinking the same thing the whole time, I hope.

My point being, I don't think a 'good prospect with question marks' is going to be an advantage for Florida or make their package that more enticing - which was the context of your original post - or at least my interruption of it.

My interpretation of your post was that they would be offering something significant to seal the deal for them, which isn't what you were implying, thus I wouldn't agree with your assessment.

marty111 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:06 PM
  #465
Juicey
aka HamhuisHip
 
Juicey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
The article was written on January 4th, before the agreement was announced and details started to be leaked out about the escrow and cap arrangements going forward. The 64m minimum cap information may still prove to be wrong, but if it's correct then calculating a reduced cap based on reduced league revenue no longer applies.
After looking at it again, he is correct in the article. The 14-15 cap is based on previous years revenue so it will be a $60M cap. But the 5% inflater could push it up to $63M. Again if the minimum $64M cap doesn't carry over from 13-14.

Juicey is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:12 PM
  #466
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
I imagine you've been thinking the same thing the whole time, I hope.

My point being, I don't think a 'good prospect with question marks' is going to be an advantage for Florida or make their package that more enticing - which was the context of your original post - or at least my interruption of it.

My interpretation of your post was that they would be offering something significant to seal the deal for them, which isn't what you were implying, thus I wouldn't agree with your assessment.



The only prospects I've discussed from FLA (in this thread) are Petrovic, Shore and Howden. None are bluechippers. They're good, but they're not Huberdeau/Gudbranson level.



To many VAN fans, it is an advantage to what FLA can now include. They're prospects look better than some of the alternatives to us. But the stumbling block has been salary. So to get them back into the picture is significant. To start considering their prospects again is significant. I hope that clears things up.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:14 PM
  #467
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,027
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
The article was written on January 4th, before the agreement was announced and details started to be leaked out about the escrow and cap arrangements going forward. The 64m minimum cap information may still prove to be wrong, but if it's correct then calculating a reduced cap based on reduced league revenue no longer applies.
Didn't the PA propose a similar arrangement back in November or December where the cap wouldn't go below $67M? Seems to me like the league gave in a lot unless I'm missing something. Granted I haven't read the full details yet. So far I haven't heard anything about punishment for these retirement contracts.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:16 PM
  #468
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Didn't the PA propose a similar arrangement back in November or December where the cap wouldn't go below $67M? Seems to me like the league gave in a lot unless I'm missing something. Granted I haven't read the full details yet. So far I haven't heard anything about punishment for these retirement contracts.
Nor have I.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:20 PM
  #469
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 45,480
vCash: 50
Strombone ‏@strombone1

I FKIN LOVE GARY! LET'S GO!!!!

God I hope he continues tweeting during the season

Lucbourdon is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:21 PM
  #470
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 45,480
vCash: 50
lol I just noticed luongo is trending worldwide

Lucbourdon is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:25 PM
  #471
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Nor have I.
Maybe they decided to just grandfather them in and change things going forward?

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:29 PM
  #472
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
Maybe they decided to just grandfather them in and change things going forward?

I would love that, but Canucks fans can't be that lucky can they? Nah.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:39 PM
  #473
MapleLeafsFan4Ever
Go Leafs Go
 
MapleLeafsFan4Ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
Not bad, and the 1st/2nd conditional pick idea is something I had thought of aswell, works out for the leafs because if Luongo doesn't take you to the playoffs for whatever reason the price is reduced (Since him making you a playoff team is the big sell on your end)


Wow that's rediculous, Gardiner isn't happening let alone the 5th ovr.

I'm in the same boat as you though, swap Franson for Finn since we need prospects and I'm on board.


Bozak
Finn
Kadri
Conditional 1st


Luongo
?

We honestly don't even need Bozak in the deal IMO cause I don't know if we would be able to re-sign him or even want to with JS, ZK and then Kadri coming up but it would be a nice rental option, perhaps we could even add a tad more on our side (? signifies possible minor additions).
Personally I would rather keep Finn and include Franson.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov
I don't think MG ever wanted Schenn, i heard the report about Schenn too and was pretty certain you guys offered it to us.

And can you confirm that the mystery team that wanted Coho was indeed Toronto? Or is it just your speculation, cause I have always been interested to find out. Do you have a source?
A few weeks after the trade deadline it was reported by Mike Augello who is a bloger on Hockey Buzz. Now Leafs fans also know him as Mike In Buffalo because he calls into every post game show after every game they play.

MapleLeafsFan4Ever is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:39 PM
  #474
trbr86
Registered User
 
trbr86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,907
vCash: 50
The TSN panel indicated that they think Florida will up the ante for Luongo now.

__________________
Derek Dorsett fan club.
trbr86 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:50 PM
  #475
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The only prospects I've discussed from FLA (in this thread) are Petrovic, Shore and Howden. None are bluechippers. They're good, but they're not Huberdeau/Gudbranson level.



To many VAN fans, it is an advantage to what FLA can now include. They're prospects look better than some of the alternatives to us. But the stumbling block has been salary. So to get them back into the picture is significant. To start considering their prospects again is significant. I hope that clears things up.
It does and we'll see.

marty111 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 03:44 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.