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
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.

Vancouver offered Luongo for Scrivens + two 2nd rounders.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-04-2013, 05:22 PM
  #451
Frank Drebin
Registered User
 
Frank Drebin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,713
vCash: 50
Anyone else get the GM's mixed up?

Frank Drebin is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:29 PM
  #452
pooleboy
Registered User
 
pooleboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 6,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrence View Post
That's fine. We understand and reading between the lines. Its pretty much Leafs fans pointing their finger at Mike Gillis doing the Nelson Munts (from the simpsons) laugh at Mike Gillis. We know, we see it.

BTW, reports out of Vancouver now, it was Nonis that made that offer to Gillis. Gillis will never make such an offer to give Luongo away. Canucks. But either way, yes keep on laughing at Mike Gillis.
lol why dont u think about this for one second. who does the proposed deal help more and who is more likely to reject it? and who is more likely to blab about to to make himself look good? it all points to Gillis. and it isn't just leaf fans laughing at your GM.... its the whole NHL maybe even feaster.

pooleboy is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:36 PM
  #453
LEAFANFORLIFE23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EucaLEAFtys View Post
Really? Given the Leafs' current cpa payroll (barely under next season's cap ceiling) and the other factors I mentioned in my previous post, it's looking highly improbable that the Leafs could afford Luongo's potentially crippling contract.

There's no logical reason for Nonis to take such a huge risk at this point in time if he wants the team to be cap-flexible and competitive for years to come.

Which would you rather have.. both Kessel and Phaneuf extended for the next several years at say, $7+ million/year each plus two capable, reasonably young (and improving), inexpensive (and extendable) goaltenders OR Luongo for the next several years at $5.3 million and potentially no Kessel, Phaneuf, and one (or both) of the younger goalies after next season?

That's what it pretty much boils down to, IMO. Of the two options given above, I'd much rather have Kessel, Phaneuf, and the two younger goalies than Luongo.. and the reason is quite simple.. more assets to work with and to trade when it becomes necessary.
see post #383 for my reasoning in short weither fair or not after listening to Nonis post deadline press conference I'm not convinced Reimer could do ANYTHING short of standing on his head and winning a championship that would convince Nonis he is the guy going forward

LEAFANFORLIFE23 is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:38 PM
  #454
Zonk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
It is easy for fans to disregard the enormous risk of Luongo's contract, but GM's cannot. To put it into perspective for fans, go to Capgeek and add $5.3 million in dead cap space and see what it does to your team's roster.

Luongo's $5.3 cap hit will be there until he is 43 years old. While some goalies can perform at a high level into their 40's, the vast majority do not. The team with that contract on their books could have $5.3 million in dead cap space for years.

Please do not go into a lengthy explanation about how Luongo can simply fail to report and thus the team will suspend him and not have the cap hit. Do you really think that the NHL head office, those for whom a contract longer than five years was "the hill to die on", would wink at it? Is it not more likely that they would deem it to be a retirement and count it against the team's cap? Would you be willing to bet your team's future on this cap circumvention ploy?

Mike Gillis is in an interesting situation. Other GM's can do the math and see that he currently has just over $2 million in cap space and needs to sign nine players. Granted, he can use his two amnesty buyouts on Booth and Ballard, but this would only leave him with $11 million to sign 11 players. Plus, he uses both of his amnesty buyouts and would no longer be able to use one on Luongo in 2014.

There could be some debate whether the dumbest contract move of all time was Montreal trading for Gomez, or the Islanders signing DiPietro and Yashin to long term deals; the handling of the Luongo contract may well create a third candidate.

Zonk is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:40 PM
  #455
TheLeastOfTheBunch
Franchise Centre
 
TheLeastOfTheBunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,756
vCash: 500
Glad Nonis rejected him. Leaf goalies are playing well and there's no reason to believe they won't continue to play well. The defence in front of them has gotten better, PK structure has improved, etc. Good luck, Mike Gillis.

TheLeastOfTheBunch is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:44 PM
  #456
BlackBiRd5
Registered User
 
BlackBiRd5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaymanX View Post
Frankly, the Leafs could benefit from "standing pat" and going the draft/develop route instead of flipping out futures/prospects like candy.
Which is what's happening. It's just that many around here want to continue on as if Trader Cliff was still at the helm. I don't think they ever really strongly considered the trade, contract made it a no-go from the beginning and they're likely not coming out of the East. Nonis made the right no-move

BlackBiRd5 is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:45 PM
  #457
Fogelhund
Registered User
 
Fogelhund's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post

Luongo's $5.3 cap hit will be there until he is 43 years old. While some goalies can perform at a high level into their 40's, the vast majority do not. The team with that contract on their books could have $5.3 million in dead cap space for years.
It's doubtful that Luongo will play that long. My guess is he retires three years early, which would mean a cap hit of about a million a year after that to whomever picks him up.

Frankly I'm a little surprised that Gillis tried to make this deal at this time. Why trade Lou for nothing except a downgrade in backup at this point? After the playoffs, sure.

I'd suggested Mac A and Scrivens, or a second and Scrivens, so it looks like I wasn't too far off what would take to get it done. I wonder how much Nonis was asking Vancouver to hold onto in salary/cap space?

I think something like just Scrivens gets it done after the playoffs. Though I'm certain that some fans will come in and make an argument about why we need to give our first, and a roster player, and a top prospect again.

edit - btw, Gillis is full of you know what.. talking to four teams. LOL... Like I said previously, his version of talking was the other GM hanging the phone up when they heard Luongo.

Fogelhund is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:48 PM
  #458
Sid The Lid
Registered User
 
Sid The Lid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
It is easy for fans to disregard the enormous risk of Luongo's contract, but GM's cannot. To put it into perspective for fans, go to Capgeek and add $5.3 million in dead cap space and see what it does to your team's roster.

Luongo's $5.3 cap hit will be there until he is 43 years old. While some goalies can perform at a high level into their 40's, the vast majority do not. The team with that contract on their books could have $5.3 million in dead cap space for years.

Please do not go into a lengthy explanation about how Luongo can simply fail to report and thus the team will suspend him and not have the cap hit. Do you really think that the NHL head office, those for whom a contract longer than five years was "the hill to die on", would wink at it? Is it not more likely that they would deem it to be a retirement and count it against the team's cap? Would you be willing to bet your team's future on this cap circumvention ploy?

Mike Gillis is in an interesting situation. Other GM's can do the math and see that he currently has just over $2 million in cap space and needs to sign nine players. Granted, he can use his two amnesty buyouts on Booth and Ballard, but this would only leave him with $11 million to sign 11 players. Plus, he uses both of his amnesty buyouts and would no longer be able to use one on Luongo in 2014.

There could be some debate whether the dumbest contract move of all time was Montreal trading for Gomez, or the Islanders signing DiPietro and Yashin to long term deals; the handling of the Luongo contract may well create a third candidate.
I can prove you wrong with two words: Tim Thomas. There will always be a team trying to reach the cap floor willing to pay a pretty penny for $5.3m tied up in a single contract that you don't actually have to pay out.

There is absolutely no reasonable risk associated with Luongo's contract, at least all the reasons I've heard people give are incoherent and incorrect.

Sid The Lid is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:51 PM
  #459
Kbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fogelhund View Post
It's doubtful that Luongo will play that long. My guess is he retires three years early, which would mean a cap hit of about a million a year after that to whomever picks him up.

Frankly I'm a little surprised that Gillis tried to make this deal at this time. Why trade Lou for nothing except a downgrade in backup at this point? After the playoffs, sure.

I'd suggested Mac A and Scrivens, or a second and Scrivens, so it looks like I wasn't too far off what would take to get it done. I wonder how much Nonis was asking Vancouver to hold onto in salary/cap space?

I think something like just Scrivens gets it done after the playoffs. Though I'm certain that some fans will come in and make an argument about why we need to give our first, and a roster player, and a top prospect again.

edit - btw, Gillis is full of you know what.. talking to four teams. LOL... Like I said previously, his version of talking was the other GM hanging the phone up when they heard Luongo.
Actually, it's more than a 1million cap hit if he retires 3 years early. According to CapGeek, if he's traded to TO this summer and retires 3 years early, Toronto will be on the hook for ~2.3million for 3 seasons and Vancouver will be for ~2.5million for 3 seasons.

Here's the link: http://capgeek.com/recapture-calcula...aded_year=2013

Kbs is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:52 PM
  #460
Blackhawkswincup
Tornado Warning
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 134,310
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skead View Post
People saying Luongo's contract is so bad, but what's stopping a team from picking him up for 3-5 years, then he simply doesn't report, team puts him on $125 waivers with intention to terminate contract, if a team picks him up off waivers no problem, or he clears $125 waivers and contract is terminated without penalty.

He could even make a "come back" and then announce retirement shortly after to get pension from the NHLPA...

I think there is a ton of loopholes that people aren't thinking of.
What is stopping Luongo from not reporting to Nucks and them terminating his contract?

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:59 PM
  #461
tempest2i
The Gloaming
 
tempest2i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cowtown
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
What is stopping Luongo from not reporting to Nucks and them terminating his contract?
Millions and millions of dollars.

tempest2i is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 05:59 PM
  #462
Zonk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vestigial Brain View Post
I can prove you wrong with two words: Tim Thomas. There will always be a team trying to reach the cap floor willing to pay a pretty penny for $5.3m tied up in a single contract that you don't actually have to pay out.

There is absolutely no reasonable risk associated with Luongo's contract, at least all the reasons I've heard people give are incoherent and incorrect.
While I respect you opinion, there are 29 (and possibly 30) GM's who disagree with you. There are very significant differences between the Tim Thomas contract and the Roberto Luongo contract.

The Tim Thomas contract is for four years and was never considered to be designed to circumvent the cap. It took everyone by surprise when Tim Thomas opted to sit out the year. He is 38 years old.

The Luongo contract, as with many of the back-diving contracts, was perceived by many to be cap circumvention mechanisms. That is why the league worked so hard during the lockout to shorten term length, force the annual salaries to be more consistent, and put in place penalties if players retire.

If you want to think that a simplistic ploy of having the player refuse to report is going to work, go ahead. But, please do not act surprised if no GM risks his career to take the same risk.

Zonk is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:00 PM
  #463
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Beukeboom Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 13,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vestigial Brain View Post
I can prove you wrong with two words: Tim Thomas. There will always be a team trying to reach the cap floor willing to pay a pretty penny for $5.3m tied up in a single contract that you don't actually have to pay out.

There is absolutely no reasonable risk associated with Luongo's contract, at least all the reasons I've heard people give are incoherent and incorrect.
2 things about your post:

1) Don't think it's fair to assume that there would be a team looking to having a payroll signficantly less than that cap floor (like the Islanders this year) which would give Luongo some value. It's almost a certainty that there would be teams who spend below the cap that RL could play for, the team might have to move assets w/ RL to get the team to pick up the $5.3M cap hit.

2) If RL retires at 39-40, the team that has him for the next 6 years would probably have about a $1.7-2M cap penalty. IMO - that's not earth shattering, especially considering likely revenue growth over that period of time, but that penalty stays with the team that RL plays for over the next 6 years, and doesn't get "traded" if RL gets moved to a "budget" team.

The biggest risk going forward is that RL isn't the elite goalie that he's been over the last 10 years. IMO- his play this year is likely a result of the situation (not getting consistent starts) he's in with the Canucks, and a small sample size. But, it's possible that he falls off at 36-37, and the team is stuck with an anchor contract for a long time. That's not "incoherent or incorrect" from my perspective.

Beukeboom Fan is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:04 PM
  #464
kihei
Registered User
 
kihei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,529
vCash: 4108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Yet you seem to be ever present in Luongo threads kihei? Concern or interest?

It would be great if some posters would in fact move on. But seldom do some practice what they advocate.
Ah, the incurious, thin-skinned Vancouver poster strikes again. I have no concern what Vancouver does in the future beyond the extent that it may effect my team. Do I have interest to see what happens in Vancouver? Of course, I do. This is now a great train wreck of a story and fans from everywhere are going to want to see how your GM handles it, and at what price. My comment about "moving on" was intended as an admonishment to posters who might be tempted to rub it in, but, yes, I will continue to follow the story and comment on it if I see fit, just as I plan to do with other news from around the league. This hardly seems like a radical thing to do around here.

I chided you in our last exchange for lacking curiosity about other teams and sports in general, and after your above comment, I decided to look up your post record, and it is truly amazing. You must eat, sleep and dream only about the Canucks. 98% of your posts are Canucks related. I'm not knocking that, only pointing out that my interests aren't fixed. In fact, I would rank hockey third in interest for me behind tennis and movies. So I'm going to be bopping around where my curiosity takes me on the general boards. If that constitutes a burr under your saddle, you are going to have to get used to it.


Last edited by kihei: 04-04-2013 at 07:35 PM.
kihei is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:22 PM
  #465
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
It is easy for fans to disregard the enormous risk of Luongo's contract, but GM's cannot. To put it into perspective for fans, go to Capgeek and add $5.3 million in dead cap space and see what it does to your team's roster.

Luongo's $5.3 cap hit will be there until he is 43 years old. While some goalies can perform at a high level into their 40's, the vast majority do not. The team with that contract on their books could have $5.3 million in dead cap space for years.

Please do not go into a lengthy explanation about how Luongo can simply fail to report and thus the team will suspend him and not have the cap hit. Do you really think that the NHL head office, those for whom a contract longer than five years was "the hill to die on", would wink at it? Is it not more likely that they would deem it to be a retirement and count it against the team's cap? Would you be willing to bet your team's future on this cap circumvention ploy?

Mike Gillis is in an interesting situation. Other GM's can do the math and see that he currently has just over $2 million in cap space and needs to sign nine players. Granted, he can use his two amnesty buyouts on Booth and Ballard, but this would only leave him with $11 million to sign 11 players. Plus, he uses both of his amnesty buyouts and would no longer be able to use one on Luongo in 2014.

There could be some debate whether the dumbest contract move of all time was Montreal trading for Gomez, or the Islanders signing DiPietro and Yashin to long term deals; the handling of the Luongo contract may well create a third candidate.
Excellent post; well said. The amnesty buyout however can only be used once. Once at the end of this season, then the next year. Teams are permitted 2, but both cannot be used in the same year, or one will effect their cap.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:28 PM
  #466
Sid The Lid
Registered User
 
Sid The Lid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
While I respect you opinion, there are 29 (and possibly 30) GM's who disagree with you. There are very significant differences between the Tim Thomas contract and the Roberto Luongo contract.

The Tim Thomas contract is for four years and was never considered to be designed to circumvent the cap. It took everyone by surprise when Tim Thomas opted to sit out the year. He is 38 years old.

The Luongo contract, as with many of the back-diving contracts, was perceived by many to be cap circumvention mechanisms. That is why the league worked so hard during the lockout to shorten term length, force the annual salaries to be more consistent, and put in place penalties if players retire.

If you want to think that a simplistic ploy of having the player refuse to report is going to work, go ahead. But, please do not act surprised if no GM risks his career to take the same risk.
So Luongo isn't allowed to exercise his own free will and not report? I don't understand how it's different in any practical sense. Maybe some twerps like Brian Burke will get angry about it but that's about it. Argument from authority is cool too though.

Sid The Lid is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:30 PM
  #467
EucaLEAFtys
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In the Underdark
Posts: 2,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFANFORLIFE23 View Post
see post #383 for my reasoning in short weither fair or not after listening to Nonis post deadline press conference I'm not convinced Reimer could do ANYTHING short of standing on his head and winning a championship that would convince Nonis he is the guy going forward
IIRC, Nonis stated that he was looking for a veteram netminder to be Reimer's back-up and mentor, like Giguere was, which would easily explain why he had conversations with Kiprusoff to see if he'd consider playing out the remainder of his contract in Toronto.

Once those talks failed, he decided to "kick the tires" on Luongo on the off-chance that he might have been able to acquire him. Whatever the price was, it was clearly unacceptable to either Gillis or Nonis (not that we'll ever hear the real truth behind the rejection).

But Nonis' conversations with Gillis did serve a purpose: to show Nonis that the price to acquire Luongo was going to remain too high for him to justify falling back into the organization's bad habits of selling off futures for veterans.

In any event, I don't see the Leafs pursuing Luongo any further, even if the tandem of Reimer and Scrivens should happen to fail miserably in their first opportunity to play in the NHL play-offs (assuming, of course, that the team will make it there). Should the team make it into the post-season this time, they'll gain valuable experience regardless as to how well they perform which will stand them in good stead for next season.

It's pretty clear Nonis has much more faith in Reimer and Scrivens than you do, Ooherwise Luongo wold be a Leaf right now. I'm happy with his decision as it also means the Leafs can continue building through youth instead of being hindered having a potentially crippling contract on their books for several years.

Give the "kids" a chance.. they might actually surprise you. They've odne quite well so far.

EucaLEAFtys is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:35 PM
  #468
stanleyorbust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestZephyr View Post
To be fair, those examples are from a different era. I mean, you have goalies peaking, declining then coming back again at a later age. I don't mean to beat a dead horse but there's been some serviceable goalies in this era who were a bit long in the tooth. I.e. Thomas, Roloson, Brodeur. They may not be super stars but they're still stable. The way the players go about the game now is different. From physical training to mental work. the perspective of training has changed allowing players to lengthen their careers. I personally don't think Luongo is done until he can get his hands on or near the cup.
Fitness or not, Loungo's contract is risky. Its VERY hard to predict how long he could play, and what type of risky his contract poses to your team. Could turn out magical (cup run) or could go horribly bad.

Personally i think Gillis needs to look past the desired return and just move Loungo. This has the be a huge distraction for the team... And very difficult for the players.

stanleyorbust is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:39 PM
  #469
Christina Woloski
#FIREBENNING
 
Christina Woloski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Narnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Bear Pig View Post
Prior to the start of the season he supposedly nixed a deal between the Canucks/Leafs. Obviously things can change, but I'm not sure how desperate he really is. It is bizarre that a team/player would actually hold a press conference for a non-trade though.
WHY is Gillis "desperate" ???

We'd rather have the insurance in the playoffs than just a couple of picks. Gillis' effort into getting rid of Lu is more an attempt to treat the player well as he wants to be a starter not anything else.

If Schnieder falters this run, having Luongo is phenomanal. He gets injured and it's priceless.

Holding a presser when there's this amount of gossip and speculation is nothing but treating fans right.

Christina Woloski is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:39 PM
  #470
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,968
vCash: 500
Glad No is didn't accept, that's awful for what Luongo would have brought the Leafs. IF that's the value Lu will get, its time to move Schneider.

Cogburn is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:40 PM
  #471
Christina Woloski
#FIREBENNING
 
Christina Woloski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Narnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanleyorbust View Post
Fitness or not, Loungo's contract is risky. Its VERY hard to predict how long he could play, and what type of risky his contract poses to your team. Could turn out magical (cup run) or could go horribly bad.

Personally i think Gillis needs to look past the desired return and just move Loungo. This has the be a huge distraction for the team... And very difficult for the players.


This is not true whatsoever. Everyone is friends. There's no tension whatsoever. It's not a distraction for anyone but Luongo and he's okay with it and it's not like he's playing. It's not difficult on anyone but Luongo and he brought it upon himself. First by signing the contract, second by publicly saying he'd be open for a trade.

NO one seems to realize that Luongo handcuffed Gillis here. Not Gillis handcuffing himself. If Luongo wasn't so whipped by his wife who wants to live in Florida AND announce he was open to be traded AND tell everyone Schniender should start, yadda, yadda, Gillis would have simply traded Schnieder, Luongo would have been a Canuck forever and the team would be better.

I've seen a lot of particularly ignorant fan bases cite this as Gillis' error. So much facepalm.

Christina Woloski is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:43 PM
  #472
Skead
Registered User
 
Skead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,244
vCash: 500
Lebrun on Team1040: No one are winners in this non-trade; Vancovuer is left holding the bag and Toronto could have vastly improved the goaltending situation for a reasonable price.

Sum its up, I just want to see Luo playing number 1 don't care too much about the return anymore.

Skead is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:43 PM
  #473
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 33,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kbs View Post
Actually, it's more than a 1million cap hit if he retires 3 years early. According to CapGeek, if he's traded to TO this summer and retires 3 years early, Toronto will be on the hook for ~2.3million for 3 seasons and Vancouver will be for ~2.5million for 3 seasons.

Here's the link: http://capgeek.com/recapture-calcula...aded_year=2013
Wow this contract is a nightmare.

Soundwave is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:45 PM
  #474
Stats01
Registered User
 
Stats01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,982
vCash: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEVILS ALL THE WAY View Post
Reimer is having a solid season, can't say otherwise... but one good season doesn't mean that he'll be giving the Leafs the same type of caliber starts for the remainder of his career.

It takes more then a handfull of starts in a shorten season to convince me that Reimer is a legit #1 netminder. If that's the case, I don't know why Leafs management has been inquiring about Luongo for close to a full year now.



Adding a ELITE netminder on a cap friendly deal makes all the sense in the world. The only downfall is that the term is longer then expected but it doesn't take away the fact that Lou's cap hit is pretty friendly (5.3M$ per) when talking about a top #10 netminder.



Bryzgalov's contract is terrible cause he's not in the same league as Luongo... period. Comparing both deals is nothing short of dumb IMO cause one netminder is average/mediocre and the other can win games on his own and put his team on his back if need be.

It's like comparing Wisniewski and Keith cause they have the same cap hit. We all know that Keith is the better player, despite the fact that both players have the same cap hit.

Apple and oranges IMO when talking about Bryz and Lou.
You could say that about any young player in the league..Of course one good season doesn't make a career but it also doesn't mean you don't try and see what he becomes down the road. No need for the contract..it's been said like a million times on here lol

Stats01 is offline  
Old
04-04-2013, 06:45 PM
  #475
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsBeReality View Post
This is not true whatsoever. Everyone is friends. There's no tension whatsoever. It's not a distraction for anyone but Luongo and he's okay with it and it's not like he's playing. It's not difficult on anyone but Luongo and he brought it upon himself. First by signing the contract, second by publicly saying he'd be open for a trade.

NO one seems to realize that Luongo handcuffed Gillis here. Not Gillis handcuffing himself. If Luongo wasn't so whipped by his wife who wants to live in Florida AND announce he was open to be traded AND tell everyone Schniender should start, yadda, yadda, Gillis would have simply traded Schnieder, Luongo would have been a Canuck forever and the team would be better.

I've seen a lot of particularly ignorant fan bases cite this as Gillis' error. So much facepalm.
He sure seems fine with it durring his press conference yesterday. Another delusional fan who refuses to acknowledge the facts. Lou isnt happy, get real.

New Liskeard 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 08:15 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.