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.
The reason is simple though, it literally makes no sense to buyout Luongo, and pay him 40 mill, vs the other worst case trade him for futures, or a 7th, and owe him 10 mil when he retires, again in a worst case.
I actually agree with you, but if you read as far back as the starting point of this cafuffle you'll see the opinion was that with a $60M cap, some think that no team will want to take his contract at all. Hence the buyout claim.
I'm fairly sure it won't come to that as I think he will be traded but the implications of the highlights of the most recent CBA proposal would make it extremely interesting as teams scramble to make it under $60M in the offseason.
Mainly the point of discussion is that if nobody can/wants to take Luongo's contract, what does Vancouver do? Do they then consider the buyout, or do they buyout other players instead arguably weakening other parts of the roster?
If the Leafs were a goalie away from being a Stanley Cup contender I think the price would be a lot higher.
As it is, they're nowhere close.
Would the Leafs like Luongo? Yes - he's obviously an upgrade, but they aren't going to trade away a lot of young talent for him since they're a rebuilding team. It wouldn't make any sense.
The price has nothing to do with the Leafs. The Canucks have only themselves to blame for the low value of Luongo .
What is the equivalent of that package to FLA, given now salary can go back and be bought out by VAN? Shore + 2nd + Upshall + Bengtsson? If it is, I hope Gillis takes the FLA package.
Not a given at all.
Just because there will be a buyout window doesn't mean that you will be able to buyout newly traded player or that you will even be able to trade players before the buyout window closes.
I actually agree with you, but if you read as far back as the starting point of this cafuffle you'll see the opinion was that with a $60M cap, some think that no team will want to take his contract at all. Hence the buyout claim.
I'm fairly sure it won't come to that as I think he will be traded but the implications of the highlights of the most recent CBA proposal would make it extremely interesting as teams scramble to make it under $60M in the offseason.
Mainly the point of discussion is that if nobody can/wants to take Luongo's contract, what does Vancouver do? Do they then consider the buyout, or do they buyout other players instead arguably weakening other parts of the roster?
But that is part of the point in this debate, the Canucks can still keep him in a 60 mil cap world, and it would still make 100% more sense.
An absolute worst case, no one takes Lui, no one takes ballard, no one takes Booth, (the only 3 players that are even a remote possibility). It would still make more sense for Van to buyout Booth and Ballard with the two amnesty buyouts, both for an on ice, and fiscal stand point.
Just because there will be a buyout window doesn't mean that you will be able to buyout newly traded player or that you will even be able to trade players before the buyout window closes.
I may concede your first point, but the buyout would not be until the 2012 offseason. That is still 6 months away.
Ah but precedent is but one way to form an opinion among many my friend. This is especially true when discussing a situation that is unprecedented, as a theoretical cap drop with no rollback and amnesty buyouts concerning a long term contract for a guy in Luongo's situation would be.
Buyouts are not an unprecedented concept. A cap drop is not an unprecedented concept. Rollbacks are not unprecedented.
You can form an opinion in many different ways, but the more reasoned it is the more valued it will be. An opinion that skirts on the edges and adopts an outlier POV is not reasoned. It just opposes.
Quote:
In actuality I understand your point perfectly, but you are missing mine. Arguing that his prediction is invalid is not the problem. It is in fact the whole point; you arguing your view point. Claiming that it doesn't stir up any meangingful discussion without actually trying to discuss anything is the problem and that's my point.
Its like complaining your fries are cold without trying to cook them.
I get your point, I just think it's irrelevant. You are attributing something to SC's original post that was not there: An intent to incite meaningful discussion about the CBA's impact on Luongo. His _choice_ was to bandy about a rogue concept and present it as reasoned. Likewise, I didn't try to discuss anything upon that premise because the premise didn't invite it.
The price has nothing to do with the Leafs. The Canucks have only themselves to blame for the low value of Luongo .
Just because Leaf fans think Luongo's value is low doesn't make it true. Luongo is still a top 5 goalie in the league. I'm sure GM's will have a different opinion of Luongo than message board fans. I think you'll be surprised when Luongo is traded for a better package.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
If the Leafs 1st, Rielly, or Gardiner are all untoucheable, then no thanks.
I'd rather add something from both sides if we had to, and make it a deal where Van gets something back that they actually want.
I think you could make a case for Gardiner's value because he's shown his offense can translate to the NHL, but right now, Luongo > Rielly or the 1st - Rielly isn't a phenom and hasn't played 1 game of pro yet. At least a few years away from any meaningful NHL impact. The 1st won't be a lottery pick if Luongo is on the Leafs. He probably makes it a mid-first, which is solid, but still a gamble that won't help the Canucks anytime soon.(so that is 2 "untoucheables" that won't help the Leafs anytime soon)
In real life, a potential star isn't worth an actual one. Only on HF boards. It would be different if Luongo was guaranteed to retire in 1-2 years, but that isn't the case.
Generally, acquiring a player of Luongo's talent takes 1 really good prospect/pick,++.
I'd be prepared to compromise on or drop the ++, but most Leafs fans can't even offer a main piece, or they try to make Bozak out like a realistic main piece... when he is tied with MacArthur and Franson for players that Leafs fans don't want anymore (almost seems that way). Its as bad as Canucks fans that think Raymond will become desireable if we add Ballard.
Buyouts are not an unprecedented concept. A cap drop is not an unprecedented concept. Rollbacks are not unprecedented.
Not individually, but when was the last time a team was looking to trade a goalie in Luongo's situation when the salary cap was lowered without a salary rollback and teams were given two amnesty buyouts? I can't think of any myself.
Quote:
You can form an opinion in many different ways, but the more reasoned it is the more valued it will be. An opinion that skirts on the edges and adopts an outlier POV is not reasoned. It just opposes.
I get your point, I just think it's irrelevant. You are attributing something to SC's original post that was not there: An intent to incite meaningful discussion about the CBA's impact on Luongo. His _choice_ was to bandy about a rogue concept and present it as reasoned. Likewise, I didn't try to discuss anything upon that premise because the premise didn't invite it.
You claim his opinion is not reasoned. Why? Its true he didn't go into his opinion in detail until a subsequent post and doesn't align with what you consider in the realm of likelihood, but that somehow means he didn't put any reasoning into it and is only trying to annoy Canuck fans?
What I have been trying to show is that there is reasoning there, even if you consider it flawed. Its an interesting situation to explore and you addressed it by saying you would still keep Luongo at the expense of weakening the forward group. Fair enough. That's the kind of discussion I was hoping for.
But that is part of the point in this debate, the Canucks can still keep him in a 60 mil cap world, and it would still make 100% more sense.
An absolute worst case, no one takes Lui, no one takes ballard, no one takes Booth, (the only 3 players that are even a remote possibility). It would still make more sense for Van to buyout Booth and Ballard with the two amnesty buyouts, both for an on ice, and fiscal stand point.
10 mil>40 mil
True, its certainly possible to keep Luongo. I realize that. But my question was more along the lines of SHOULD they which you believe yes they should.
I can certainly see the fiscal stand point. The question becomes is weakening the forward group worth it? What's the end game? Why hold on to Luongo as a tandem goalie even though he apparently wanted to move on? Are you planning on trading him say the next deadline if a team has more cap space and re-adjusting the forward group from there?
Is it just me or does buying out Booth make the Canucks winger situation a little weak (for a contender)?
Just because Leaf fans think Luongo's value is low doesn't make it true. Luongo is still a top 5 goalie in the league. I'm sure GM's will have a different opinion of Luongo than message board fans. I think you'll be surprised when Luongo is traded for a better package.
that's irrelevant. How many teams are in the market for a #1 goaltender? Luongo's CURRENT market value is determined by what GM's would pay now, at this moment. Not what GM's would pay if...
Then he should say that his offer is the most the leafs could offer, not that it's a fair deal (which it isn't at all).
No its not, and quite honestly I don't think the Leafs are interested in giving Vancouver a "fair deal" for someone of Luongo's pedigree.
While I can't speak for all Leaf fans, in my opinion Luongo is not ideal for Toronto and that has nothing to do with his skill or his play. He is a fair amount older than the players the Leafs are trying to build around and is signed long term. To me, it would make more sense to acquire a stop gap while they determine if Reimer is the real deal or if they need to acquire a new goalie of the future. This is because the Leafs are still under construction and development.
Because of this, I'm only interested in Luongo if he comes at bargain price. If he does manage to garner what a goalie of his calibre would in a "fair deal" Toronto should not pay that. Its not about what's fair from a Leaf POV, its about current market value and whether that makes sense with the team situation.
I can speak even less for teams like Florida and Edmonton, but I would imagine they are in a similar position.
Now Burke could easily disagree with my assessment. I've been known to be wrong.
I'd love Gardiner, or even Rielly, but they are valued pretty highly by the Leafs. They are a futures-oriented team, and to be honest, I understand why some of them rate Luongo more lowly then I feel he is worth. Saying he is only worth X, when we want X+Y+Z isn't valid, but saying he isn't worth X+Y+Z to us is a fine argument (I'd still probably beg to differ, but no one can absolutely destroy how someone thinks until the trade happens). My point here
Nonis is a Luongo booster. This shouldn't have an impact on what his actual value is, but he will push harder to get Luongo then Burke likely would. Burke calls the shots at the end of the day, but exchanging an allstar powerfoward (with baggage, granted, but still coming off a 70 point campaign, and a high of 94), an up and coming defender (top 4 at the time....Gunnarsson as a proxy maybe?) and a Crawford/Niemi calbre starter (or a very good back up). I'm not saying we will, could, or should get this kind of package. My point is that Nonis isn't afraid to make a big shake up for a goalie, and while he isn't holding the reigns, I think he is close enough to Burke to make him go for a bigger trade then Komi, Lombardi and a 4th.
Finally, not posting in this particular thread for some time, I'd just like to make sure we don't return to the notion of we have no alternatives. We can keep Luongo, cap drop or not, there are other vested interests from other sources, and Toronto has other choices as well. We are not mutually exclusive teams, and I still feel we are bad trading partners. The Canucks are being iron mongers, looking for pieces that can help now, or top level prospects (the Riellys and Kadris, not the Colbornes, or Ashtons, or Blackers), while if the Maple Leafs get Luongo, they are no longer focusing strictly on futures, and likely won't give up the kinds of pieces Vancouver fans want.
Lupul and Kadri, or Lupul and a first this year (top 10 protected)
Or
Lupul, Bozak and a 2nd
This is the lowest I go, in the spirit of fairness for all the effort in these boards, and is pending there being a season, even if it is shortened, for 2013. No, I would not accept Kulemin+ or MacArthur+ for Lupul, and no, a slightly worse off prospect+ for Kadri won't work either. Bozak, because of his intrinsic value to the Leafs (due to their lack of a center to play with Kessel, and Bozak's chemistry) I would entertain a substitute of comparible value (ie one piece not several). If either side finds this utterly disagreeable, then we must simply agree to disagree.
I've put some thought into my post, I'd appriciate it if you do the same, cheers.
I'd love Gardiner, or even Rielly, but they are valued pretty highly by the Leafs. They are a futures-oriented team, and to be honest, I understand why some of them rate Luongo more lowly then I feel he is worth. Saying he is only worth X, when we want X+Y+Z isn't valid, but saying he isn't worth X+Y+Z to us is a fine argument (I'd still probably beg to differ, but no one can absolutely destroy how someone thinks until the trade happens). My point here
Nonis is a Luongo booster. This shouldn't have an impact on what his actual value is, but he will push harder to get Luongo then Burke likely would. Burke calls the shots at the end of the day, but exchanging an allstar powerfoward (with baggage, granted, but still coming off a 70 point campaign, and a high of 94), an up and coming defender (top 4 at the time....Gunnarsson as a proxy maybe?) and a Crawford/Niemi calbre starter (or a very good back up). I'm not saying we will, could, or should get this kind of package. My point is that Nonis isn't afraid to make a big shake up for a goalie, and while he isn't holding the reigns, I think he is close enough to Burke to make him go for a bigger trade then Komi, Lombardi and a 4th.
Finally, not posting in this particular thread for some time, I'd just like to make sure we don't return to the notion of we have no alternatives. We can keep Luongo, cap drop or not, there are other vested interests from other sources, and Toronto has other choices as well. We are not mutually exclusive teams, and I still feel we are bad trading partners. The Canucks are being iron mongers, looking for pieces that can help now, or top level prospects (the Riellys and Kadris, not the Colbornes, or Ashtons, or Blackers), while if the Maple Leafs get Luongo, they are no longer focusing strictly on futures, and likely won't give up the kinds of pieces Vancouver fans want.
Lupul and Kadri, or Lupul and a first this year (top 10 protected)
Or
Lupul, Bozak and a 2nd
This is the lowest I go, in the spirit of fairness for all the effort in these boards, and is pending there being a season, even if it is shortened, for 2013. No, I would not accept Kulemin+ or MacArthur+ for Lupul, and no, a slightly worse off prospect+ for Kadri won't work either. Bozak, because of his intrinsic value to the Leafs (due to their lack of a center to play with Kessel, and Bozak's chemistry) I would entertain a substitute of comparible value (ie one piece not several). If either side finds this utterly disagreeable, then we must simply agree to disagree.
I've put some thought into my post, I'd appriciate it if you do the same, cheers.
I appreciate the thought and it is a good post. That said, your proposals come in at what I would consider the "too rich to make sense for the Leafs" range.
Not individually, but when was the last time a team was looking to trade a goalie in Luongo's situation when the salary cap was lowered without a salary rollback and teams were given two amnesty buyouts? I can't think of any myself.
You're right, not all in unison. Do you consider this a doomsday scenario? Just to give you some perspective, the cap was at 60m in 2010-2011. That's right, about a year and a half ago. Do you think the additions/changes to teams during that span have been so drastic that a claw back to that figure will uproot what we know? Will it remove good sensible action from GMs that are paid to find fixes for this sort of thing? I don't.
In the last lockout, players salaries got rolled back 24%, but the league average at the time was already 5m (44m) over the projected cap of 39m. 15 teams were over that cap number. Yet there was no mass chaos. For teams like Detroit, that paid out 77.8m in salary in 2003-2004, it was quite a daunting task... They won the presidents trophy in 2005-2006, the year everyone came back from the lockout.
Shrewd GMs always find a way a through, more often than not. And yes, I think Gillis is a shrewd GM.
Quote:
You claim his opinion is not reasoned. Why? Its true he didn't go into his opinion in detail until a subsequent post and doesn't align with what you consider in the realm of likelihood, but that somehow means he didn't put any reasoning into it and is only trying to annoy Canuck fans?
What I have been trying to show is that there is reasoning there, even if you consider it flawed. Its an interesting situation to explore and you addressed it by saying you would still keep Luongo at the expense of weakening the forward group. Fair enough. That's the kind of discussion I was hoping for.
I know that's the type of discussion you were hoping for. That's not the type of discussion SC was hoping for. His initial post was a statement. A proclamation based on his own process.
I think you are confusing the act of thinking about something with reasoning something. Reasoning, or reason, is underpinned by logic. SC's post goes against logic by it's adaptation of the improbable as probable. Hence, it is unreasonable.
Last edited by Bleach Clean: 01-04-2013 at 04:56 PM.
that's irrelevant. How many teams are in the market for a #1 goaltender? Luongo's CURRENT market value is determined by what GM's would pay now, at this moment. Not what GM's would pay if...
As the moment changes, so does the market. Things change during the course of a season, needs change, and so to would the intent of some other teams out there. This was true before Luongo came on the block. It will be true after he is traded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spasmatic Dan
No its not, and quite honestly I don't think the Leafs are interested in giving Vancouver a "fair deal" for someone of Luongo's pedigree.
While I can't speak for all Leaf fans, in my opinion Luongo is not ideal for Toronto and that has nothing to do with his skill or his play. He is a fair amount older than the players the Leafs are trying to build around and is signed long term. To me, it would make more sense to acquire a stop gap while they determine if Reimer is the real deal or if they need to acquire a new goalie of the future. This is because the Leafs are still under construction and development.
Because of this, I'm only interested in Luongo if he comes at bargain price. If he does manage to garner what a goalie of his calibre would in a "fair deal" Toronto should not pay that. Its not about what's fair from a Leaf POV, its about current market value and whether that makes sense with the team situation.
I can speak even less for teams like Florida and Edmonton, but I would imagine they are in a similar position.
Now Burke could easily disagree with my assessment. I've been known to be wrong.
It would be so much easier if Leafs fans would preface their proposals with "Looking for a bargain bin price, here's my offer...". Then Canucks fans would immediately know what the score is and respond accordingly. It's when the bargain bin price gets justified as a fair deal, that's when we run into issues.
Also, your top bold line is a confusing, does any team want to give fair value for an asset? Wouldn't they all want to get a bargain price?
You're right, not all in unison. Do you consider this a doomsday scenario? Just to give you some perspective, the cap was at 60m in 2010-2011. That's right, about a year and a half ago. Do you think the additions/changes to teams during that span have been so drastic that a claw back to that figure will uproot what we know? Will it remove good sensible action from GMs that are paid to find fixes for this sort of thing? I don't.
No I don't consider it doomsday. Contrary to what some think, I believe the proposal will work. I don't think Vancouver will have a problem getting under the cap and I don't know where you got the idea that I did.
What I'm saying is that this scenario is different, and that you can't necessarily judge what will happen so acting like somebody's theory isn't worth your time based on that is a little silly. But hey, you can if you want to.
I don't think Gillis will need to buy out Luongo. I also don't think buying out Luongo would necessarily be a bad idea (assuming he has no takers on Luongo) if it meant he can strengthen his forward group while still maintaining excellent goaltending in Schneider.
Quote:
I know that's the type of discussion you were hoping for. That's not the type of discussion SC was hoping for. His initial post was a statement. A proclamation based on his own process.
I think you are confusing the act of thinking about something with reasoning something. Reasoning, or reason, is underpinned by logic. SC's post goes against logic by it's adaptation of the improbable as probable. Hence, it is unreasonable.
Funny thing about logic is that you can use it to justify pretty much anything.
I'm not confusing thinking with reasoning. I'm saying that two different people thinking logically can reach different conclusions and that's what allows discussion boards to exist. You've made your point about why you think it is unreasonable, but that doesn't mean everyone should and those who don't are simply out to bother you.
I appreciate the thought and it is a good post. That said, your proposals come in at what I would consider the "too rich to make sense for the Leafs" range.
I agree. That's too much... if it was up to me.
re: Lupul and Kadri, or Lupul and a first this year (top 10 protected)
that's irrelevant. How many teams are in the market for a #1 goaltender? Luongo's CURRENT market value is determined by what GM's would pay now, at this moment. Not what GM's would pay if...
We cannot be certain until the CBA is signed. If it's $65M< than plenty of teams, enough to make a mild bidding war. Schneider is also a very real possibility on the trade front, especially if Lu offers are lackluster.
It would be so much easier if Leafs fans would preface their proposals with "Looking for a bargain bin price, here's my offer...". Then Canucks fans would immediately know what the score is and respond accordingly. It's when the bargain bin price gets justified as a fair deal, that's when we run into issues.
Also, your top bold line is a confusing, does any team want to give fair value for an asset? Wouldn't they all want to get a bargain price?
I thought the bargain bin price thing was sort of implied by now . Leaf fans also aren't the only ones who want to add Luongo but only at a discount.
I think the issue is that "fair deal" and "market value" get blurred into one.
As for the top bold, you're right every team wants the best deal possible but are willing to give up fair value if it makes sense. What I'm trying to say there is that fair value in a vacuum for a goalie of Luongo's calibre doesn't work for Toronto. All IMO of course.
Just because Leaf fans think Luongo's value is low doesn't make it true. Luongo is still a top 5 goalie in the league. I'm sure GM's will have a different opinion of Luongo than message board fans. I think you'll be surprised when Luongo is traded for a better package.
Luongo's value will be determined by the same thing as everyone else: market. The question is, what is the market?
But that is part of the point in this debate, the Canucks can still keep him in a 60 mil cap world, and it would still make 100% more sense.
An absolute worst case, no one takes Lui, no one takes ballard, no one takes Booth, (the only 3 players that are even a remote possibility). It would still make more sense for Van to buyout Booth and Ballard with the two amnesty buyouts, both for an on ice, and fiscal stand point.
10 mil>40 mil
Works in theory but it hardly makes sense. By retaining Luongo under those parameters, we would ice a considerably inferior team. When every team is aware of our bleak alternative, they will not offer previously perceived demands. Frankly, we are better off trading Schneider in that scenario to at least muscle a good return.
Any Panthers fans still subjecting themselves to these threads?
In the summer we couldn't find a lot of traction in trade talks, partially because of your insistence of sending back salary and our potential cap concerns. With the two compliance buyouts now proposed in the new CBA this might no longer be a cause for concern.
If we were to take back Upshall in a deal and buy him out, what other assets could you see the team parting with?
. Leaf fans also aren't the only ones who want to add Luongo but only at a discount.
