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
Notices

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 for Grabovski

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-22-2013, 03:12 PM
  #576
BlueBaron
Registered User
 
BlueBaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto, On
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
No way. Overpayment.



LOL.

Scrivens holds next to no value in the deal.

And that upgrade in goal would be major, not marginal.



That's the problem. An elite goaltender is making slightly less than an average 2nd line C.

We don't plan to keep Luongo till next season, so adding a big contract at this point doesn't make much sense, especially if it is north of 5 Million.

If it was around 4.5 or even 5, I think it would make the deal alot of feasable, and I don't see what the big issue with taking 1 million of cap in it is, but you guys don't seem willing to do that.



I know.



What do that exactly mean?

what is the affect?

Elite goaltending, then even when he starts to decline a tad at 38-40. (if he is still playing) you will still get high quality goaltending, probably what you get from Riemer now, maybe a bit more due to experience.

And you get all that at an exceptional cap number.

Basically you get Luongo as long as you need him, then you could either buy him out later on, or just pay the small penalty which would probably be 2 million at the most, really not much.

It's great to say "its a longer deal" or whatever, but breakdown the affects it will really have, and you will see it isn't as bad as what its made out to be.
So the reason no one has traded for this elite goalie with the wonderful contract is ?....His contract. But it's a great contract...keep telling yourself that. it's great for the next couple years, then it's a problem.

BlueBaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:14 PM
  #577
Liferleafer
Bob's assclown
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 21,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
Go look at the details yourself.

So many Leaf fans saying its bad, and I doubt most of them even know the ins and outs of what the deal actually entails and what that might mean in terms of the affect on your team.

Probably not as bad as what you think.



Exactly, he would be lost either way. So really no value.

I think he would retain it if that is what makes the deal go through. Especially if the retain is something as little as 500k - 1 Mill.
I have, and under the old CBA, you would be correct. But under the new CBA, words such as penalty are attached to contracts like that. When the term "the Luongo rule" is used, it ain't a good thing.

Liferleafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:17 PM
  #578
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I have, and under the old CBA, you would be correct. But under the new CBA, words such as penalty are attached to contracts like that. When the term "the Luongo rule" is used, it ain't a good thing.
Whats the penalty exactly? How much is it?

Sergei Shirokov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:19 PM
  #579
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
So the reason no one has traded for this elite goalie with the wonderful contract is ?....His contract. But it's a great contract...keep telling yourself that. it's great for the next couple years, then it's a problem.
It's not a great contract, but its not as bad as people think.

I ask again, what is the issue for your team with the contract? And don't say "its long" Why not actually breakdown what it will actually cause your team, if anything at all.

For us, the Grabovski contract doesn't work due to our salary structure next season, not because he is just overpaid.

Sergei Shirokov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:25 PM
  #580
Zoombie
Registered User
 
Zoombie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
No way. Overpayment.



Elite goaltending, then even when he starts to decline a tad at 38-40. (if he is still playing) you will still get high quality goaltending, probably what you get from Riemer now, maybe a bit more due to experience.

And you get all that at an exceptional cap number.
Thats a big if considering his contract takes him until age 44. If he does retire, TO and the 'Nucks would be penalized and have to retain cap hit even though he is gone (the exact calculation depends on term remaining... etc but is substantial on a 5.3 M contract).

Zoombie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:31 PM
  #581
Liferleafer
Bob's assclown
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 21,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
Whats the penalty exactly? How much is it?
I think you know how the recapture penalty works. And yes, Van is on the hook for half of it. It doesn't even matter how much, the point is, there is a penalty that the Leafs would have to pay. Now i know you'll say "it will only be 2 million and the cap will be higher then". That may be true, but couple that with you asking for cap retention on Grabo's contract as well and the odour of this deal gets a little stronger.

Liferleafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:31 PM
  #582
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoombie View Post
Thats a big if considering his contract takes him until age 44. If he does retire, TO and the 'Nucks would be penalized and have to retain cap hit even though he is gone (the exact calculation depends on term remaining... etc but is substantial on a 5.3 M contract).
Wrong.

His contract takes him until age 42.

And yes it is based on those things, which comes down to about around 2 Million. And the longer he plays the number will only decrease.

The cap will steadily rise after next year. That small penalty will really have little affect.

Or else perhaps you buy him out before then, near the end of the deal, when there is little cost remaining on the deal. Or trade him to a team that struggles to get over the cap, where he would help get them over the cap without costing much in actual dollars.

Sergei Shirokov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:33 PM
  #583
Zoombie
Registered User
 
Zoombie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
I ask again, what is the issue for your team with the contract? And don't say "its long" Why not actually breakdown what it will actually cause your team, if anything at all.
The issue is that cap space is valueble, and the cap penalty they may have to pay for possibly the last 4 years of Lou's contract is money they cannot spend to acquire free agents, or trade for more expensive players at a time when they may be trying to add to make a playoff run.

Edit: My bad, he will be a young 42 not 44.

Even if they buy him out later, that doesn't absolve them of 100% of his cap hit. If they buy him out when he's 39 they'd still have some of his cap hit on the books for the next 3 years.


Last edited by Zoombie: 03-22-2013 at 03:36 PM. Reason: **
Zoombie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:35 PM
  #584
TMLFC
Registered abuser
 
TMLFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,333
vCash: 500
Reimer looks feeble in net. It's hard to watch sometime - I would seriously consider pulling this trade soon. We need the stability more than anything.

TMLFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:35 PM
  #585
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I think you know how the recapture penalty works. And yes, Van is on the hook for half of it. It doesn't even matter how much, the point is, there is a penalty that the Leafs would have to pay. Now i know you'll say "it will only be 2 million and the cap will be higher then". That may be true, but couple that with you asking for cap retention on Grabo's contract as well and the odour of this deal gets a little stronger.
So then we can agree the contract/penalty angle is really not what it is made out to be worth what Roberto will provide to your team which is underrated in itself.

Lets break this down once again. Grabovski's contract has 4 years left on it after this year.

Lets say you take 1 Million off. You would then be adding 1 Million onto your cap for 4 years. It has nothing to do with Luongo, although that way you add it on is a nice way to spin it.

And really with the fact that Luongo's cap hit is outstanding for an elite goaltender, adding that cap wouldn't really be a toll on your cap chart. since even if you want to add it on, as a cap number 6.3 is about fair for what goaltenders of Roberto's caliber are making.

Sergei Shirokov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:38 PM
  #586
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoombie View Post
The issue is that cap space is valueble, and the cap penalty they may have to pay for possibly the last 4 years of Lou's contract is money they cannot spend to acquire free agents, or trade for more expensive players at a time when they may be trying to add to make a playoff run.
2 Million at the most. And there are other options later on like trading him to a cap floor team prior to his retirement. Which would interest the other team and be of interest to you.

And we are taking a terrible contract off your hands aswell, in some ways worse. We are paying that issue for it right away, and it has a bigger impact on us than Lu's will likely have on you later on.

So don't act like you are the only ones doing us a favor, cause we are doing u an Ace taking that contract off your hands aswell.

Sergei Shirokov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:41 PM
  #587
Zoombie
Registered User
 
Zoombie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
2 Million at the most. And there are other options later on like trading him to a cap floor team prior to his retirement. Which would interest the other team and be of interest to you.

And we are taking a terrible contract off your hands aswell, in some ways worse. We are paying that issue for it right away, and it has a bigger impact on us than Lu's will likely have on you later on.

So don't act like you are the only ones doing us a favor, cause we are doing u an Ace taking that contract off your hands aswell.
Yes, a bad contract but also taking a player who is filling a valuable role, which we would have to replace (which would cost us additional cap room).

Zoombie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:44 PM
  #588
Liferleafer
Bob's assclown
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 21,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
So then we can agree the contract/penalty angle is really not what it is made out to be worth what Roberto will provide to your team which is underrated in itself.

Lets break this down once again. Grabovski's contract has 4 years left on it after this year.

Lets say you take 1 Million off. You would then be adding 1 Million onto your cap for 4 years. It has nothing to do with Luongo, although that way you add it on is a nice way to spin it.

And really with the fact that Luongo's cap hit is outstanding for an elite goaltender, adding that cap wouldn't really be a toll on your cap chart. since even if you want to add it on, as a cap number 6.3 is about fair for what goaltenders of Roberto's caliber are making.
Why would we do this? Simple question.

Liferleafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:54 PM
  #589
Lebanese Leaf
Registered User
 
Lebanese Leaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 6,993
vCash: 500
Yes please!

Lebanese Leaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 04:02 PM
  #590
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoombie View Post
Yes, a bad contract but also taking a player who is filling a valuable role, which we would have to replace (which would cost us additional cap room).
At the same token, you are getting a player that fills a valuable role. (I would argue much more valuable.

And you do have cap space, it isn't like you are cap strapped moving forward like us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Why would we do this? Simple question.
I think it is obvious.

To trade Grabovski for Luongo. To improve your hockey club.

Sergei Shirokov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 04:08 PM
  #591
Petes2424
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,335
vCash: 500
What all this comes down to, is they both have large contracts.

As a Leafs fan, I would prefer to have a goaltender with a contract problem than a forward. Luongo's only real detriment to his contract is the length. That can be dealt with. Grabovksi is bound to become the whipping boy of Toronto and things are just going to get worse.

I dont support going after Luongo in really any other way and I think most Leaf fans would agree. Right now though, I'd much rather have Luongo in net than Grabovski on the ice. That doesnt mean I've given up on Reimer but more, we have a better chance today with Luongo in net.

Having said that, I dont think it's a good trade for Vancouver unless they think completely opposite and this is the best they can get for Luongo.

Petes2424 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 04:24 PM
  #592
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
It's not a great contract, but its not as bad as people think.

I ask again, what is the issue for your team with the contract? And don't say "its long" Why not actually breakdown what it will actually cause your team, if anything at all.

For us, the Grabovski contract doesn't work due to our salary structure next season, not because he is just overpaid.

The problem is pretty simple though. The contract is too long for a player as old as Luongo is, even with the "retirement" years. That's the only problem.

blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 04:48 PM
  #593
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,514
vCash: 500
I simply dont see how the canucks could justify making Grabby the highest paid guy on the team, after the Sedins.

NYVanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 05:18 PM
  #594
Mystifo
No more Mr.FightGuy
 
Mystifo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: YYT
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
I simply dont see how the canucks could justify making Grabby the highest paid guy on the team, after the Sedins.
If you want to argue semantics technically Luongo is the "highest paid" on your team right now raking in a whopping $6,714,000 to split the net with a guy making $3,500,000 So please explain how you can justify that one?

Mystifo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 05:21 PM
  #595
Darkhorse1280
Nigel Cadbury
 
Darkhorse1280's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
It's not a great contract, but its not as bad as people think.

I ask again, what is the issue for your team with the contract? And don't say "its long" Why not actually breakdown what it will actually cause your team, if anything at all.

For us, the Grabovski contract doesn't work due to our salary structure next season, not because he is just overpaid.
So when Luongo inevitably retires before his contract expires and the Leafs are still on the hook with his cap hit, is it still not as bad as people think?

Darkhorse1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 05:30 PM
  #596
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ampedx View Post
LOL. VAN will continue to sit on Luongo unless you trade him .50 on the dollar, not sure what you're expecting in return. The Leafs are in a playoff position and Reimer is 10-4-3, we don't NEED Luongo right now.
Good for Toronto. Vancouver still doesn't want Grabovski.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 05:35 PM
  #597
Darkhorse1280
Nigel Cadbury
 
Darkhorse1280's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver Blazers View Post
Good for Toronto. Vancouver still doesn't want Grabovski.
Ok, Mike Gillis.

Darkhorse1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 05:42 PM
  #598
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
The problem is pretty simple though. The contract is too long for a player as old as Luongo is, even with the "retirement" years. That's the only problem.
Okay what is the affect on the Leafs?

Grabovski is really overpaid for a 2nd line center. Goes both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystifo View Post
If you want to argue semantics technically Luongo is the "highest paid" on your team right now raking in a whopping $6,714,000 to split the net with a guy making $3,500,000 So please explain how you can justify that one?
How can we justify that one?

He's an elite goaltender that was the best player on the team, and at one point the best goaltender in the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkhorse1280 View Post
So when Luongo inevitably retires before his contract expires and the Leafs are still on the hook with his cap hit, is it still not as bad as people think?
His cap hit is cut based on time left and actual pay remaining.

And since it is a back diving deal the pay is low.

Basically the cap hit will be 2 Million at the most, depending on when he retires it might even be less.

Plus there are options, buyout or trade him to a cap floor team before he retires, that would be something of interest to them.

Sergei Shirokov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 05:44 PM
  #599
Ronning On Empty
Moderator
Formerly BleachClean
 
Ronning On Empty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystifo View Post
If you want to argue semantics technically Luongo is the "highest paid" on your team right now raking in a whopping $6,714,000 to split the net with a guy making $3,500,000 So please explain how you can justify that one?
That's an easy one: for VAN, the cap structure is often more "important" than the actual dollars paid. It's how they keep their "covenant" intact. Which means, a structure that allows them to better negotiate future deals with FAs. So while Luongo's paid salary is greater, everyone is well aware that he falls into #3 on the high end depth chart, behind the twins. It's also why Kesler and Edler are clearly recognized under the next rung of players getting 5m flat.

So we know an inferior player won't likely exceed Kesler and Edler's cap. Therefore, Grabovski's salary as it is doesn't make sense here.

And before the notion of having a covenant is scoffed at here, it's the biggest reason why Garrison signed for his 4.6m value, and why Ehrhoff was allowed to walk for wanting a penny more. It exists, and it is being adhered to.

Ronning On Empty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 06:03 PM
  #600
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabeliscious View Post
i dont think it is a matter of being shrewd. pretty sure its just common sense realizing that any team would have difficulty if they had $9.3 million tied up in net.

i admit that math is not my strong suit but i dont see how vancouver is not going to be ****ed cap wise. after next season the sedins are ufa. with the amount getzlaf and perry just signed for i dont see how these resign for less. vancouver defense is also very pricey and locked up long term.

personally, i hope nonis doesnt let gillis off the hook.
Probably because the Sedins are much older and would be signing a retirement contract of sorts next year. Do you actually believe either is going to net $8 mill?

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:02 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.