HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Chicago-Vancouver

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-20-2010, 05:50 PM
  #26
GCM
Stork
 
GCM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,041
vCash: 500
Trading Luongo to Chicago would be such a troll move.


This deal is a non-starter. no chance luongo wants to go to chicago and he has an nmc.

GCM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:29 PM
  #27
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCM View Post
. no chance luongo wants to go to chicago
and vice versa..I would rather have Niemi

Hawkaholic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:34 PM
  #28
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCM View Post
Trading Luongo to Chicago would be such a troll move.


This deal is a non-starter. no chance luongo wants to go to chicago and he has an nmc.
Luongo has a NTC, not a NMC - there's a HUGE difference between the two.

And that's why I'm surprised that so many people think his contract is so bad. His cap hit is $5.3mill - making him the 9th highest cap hit in the league... and unlike pretty much every other long-term contract given out (including Campbell's), he does not have a NMC - which means a player can't be waived to get his cap hit off the team. In fact, he doesn't even have a straight up NTC - there are 2 windows in his NTC to trade him.

So, how is a top-10 goalie, who's got a top-10 cap hit, can be waived, can also be traded in his contract, has a lowering salary later in his career, where ownership can easily just bury him in the minors if he's not performing up to his cap hit - how is that a bad contract exactly?

If the Hawks want to get rid of Campbell, they have to ask him permission for a trade... they can't even threaten to waive him, where any team can pick him up, if he doesn't agree to a trade. And his cap hit is also almost $2mill higher.

I'd much rather have a contract like Luongo's... personally, I hate NMC, and don't think any player should ever get them... just puts way too many restrictions on the team's flexibility. And not only is Luongo's a NTC, it's a limited NTC with trade windows attached.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:38 PM
  #29
JannikAtTheDisco
No panic it's Jannik
 
JannikAtTheDisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: a van in vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,787
vCash: 500
Washington - Vancouver

Different idea for a trade...

To Vancouver:
Alex Semin
Michael Neuvirth
Karl Alzner

To Washington
Roberto Luongo
Kevin Bieksa

JannikAtTheDisco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:38 PM
  #30
chopkins
Super Bowl Champs
 
chopkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,795
vCash: 500
Are you kidding me?

This trade is basically Luongo for Campbell and Crawford. If Luongo was traded, the Canucks would have two great prospects in Schneider and Lack to take over, therefore making Crawford useless. That leaves Luongo for Campbell, which would be a ripoff equal to Luongo for Bertuzzi.

Try Toews+ for Luongo.

chopkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:40 PM
  #31
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthVanCanuck View Post
Are you kidding me?

This trade is basically Luongo for Campbell and Crawford. If Luongo was traded, the Canucks would have two great prospects in Schneider and Lack to take over, therefore making Crawford useless. That leaves Luongo for Campbell, which would be a ripoff equal to Luongo for Bertuzzi.

Try Toews+ for Luongo.
LLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Hawkaholic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 03:52 AM
  #32
Selke
Registered User
 
Selke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,590
vCash: 500
This is horrible. I have nothing against Luongo as a man, but as a player he's almost the farthest thing I want away from this team.

I think both sides will mutually say we'll keep what we have.

This is probably one of the worst, most senseless trade proposals I've ever seen on here.

Selke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 07:23 AM
  #33
brevard*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 1,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
Luongo has a NTC, not a NMC - there's a HUGE difference between the two.

And that's why I'm surprised that so many people think his contract is so bad. His cap hit is $5.3mill - making him the 9th highest cap hit in the league... and unlike pretty much every other long-term contract given out (including Campbell's), he does not have a NMC - which means a player can't be waived to get his cap hit off the team. In fact, he doesn't even have a straight up NTC - there are 2 windows in his NTC to trade him.

So, how is a top-10 goalie, who's got a top-10 cap hit, can be waived, can also be traded in his contract, has a lowering salary later in his career, where ownership can easily just bury him in the minors if he's not performing up to his cap hit - how is that a bad contract exactly?

If the Hawks want to get rid of Campbell, they have to ask him permission for a trade... they can't even threaten to waive him, where any team can pick him up, if he doesn't agree to a trade. And his cap hit is also almost $2mill higher.

I'd much rather have a contract like Luongo's... personally, I hate NMC, and don't think any player should ever get them... just puts way too many restrictions on the team's flexibility. And not only is Luongo's a NTC, it's a limited NTC with trade windows attached.

Campbell does not have an NMC, he has an NTC and his NTC is limited.
He provides a list of 8 teams he is willing to be traded to. He can be traded to one of those 8 at any time (no windows). He has the right to change names on that list yearly.

And to be honest with you while I am not a big fan of Luongo, if the kid you have waiting is as good as some of you claim and the young D-men in Chicago's system are as good as they appear to be this is a trade that is probably doable. I do not think (under the Bowman system) you will ever see a big dollar goalie in Chicago but a stud netminder would not be a bad thing in an offense 1st system like Chicago's and a guy like Campbell he can take the puck from his own goal line and gain the oppositions blue line with regular ease would take huge pressure off the twins and the rest of Vancouvers offense.
Not saying it could or even should happen but compared to a lot of the totally assinine proposals put out here every day this one has reason to it.

brevard* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 08:39 AM
  #34
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,188
vCash: 50
funny stuff.
begins with a ridiculous proposal, then turns into a Hawks fans bash on Luongo thread.
You won, try a little humility

NYVanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 08:54 AM
  #35
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigTicket View Post
threads like this piss me off. u really had to make a ridiculous proposal with these two teams. you should be banned
Banned from what, the NHL general managers luncheon?? This is a message board, and it's for discussion and fun. Every trade prop doesn't have to be realistic in terms of really potentially happening so if a similar trade happens, we can all pat ourselves on the back for how smart and visionary we were. If you take the names out and consider the contracts, talents, postions and demand for D/lack of demand for G; this trade is close as a pure hockey deal. It just depends on how you want to build your team, and as you can see, most Hawks fans prefer the D-man in Campbell. Great D and average tending won us a Cup last year. Average D and "great" tending got Vancouver to the second round last year.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 08:56 AM
  #36
JUICEY*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,832
vCash: 500
No thanks.

I do not want Luongo on this team. Would much rather have Campbell.

JUICEY* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 12:21 PM
  #37
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,236
vCash: 500
Sorry, but this deal is bad for the Hawks...

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 12:59 PM
  #38
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brevard View Post
Campbell does not have an NMC, he has an NTC and his NTC is limited.
He provides a list of 8 teams he is willing to be traded to. He can be traded to one of those 8 at any time (no windows). He has the right to change names on that list yearly.

And to be honest with you while I am not a big fan of Luongo, if the kid you have waiting is as good as some of you claim and the young D-men in Chicago's system are as good as they appear to be this is a trade that is probably doable. I do not think (under the Bowman system) you will ever see a big dollar goalie in Chicago but a stud netminder would not be a bad thing in an offense 1st system like Chicago's and a guy like Campbell he can take the puck from his own goal line and gain the oppositions blue line with regular ease would take huge pressure off the twins and the rest of Vancouvers offense.
Not saying it could or even should happen but compared to a lot of the totally assinine proposals put out here every day this one has reason to it.
my bad on Campbell's contract.

But I disagree that it makes any sense for the Canucks. No one here has mentioned the Canucks defensive situation at all.

Forget Luongo here for a second... just adding Campbell (for any return) makes no sense for the Canucks. Adding Campbell means that you have no shot at retaining Ehrhoff as the cap just wouldn't fit... and personally, I'd rather try and lock up Ehrhoff to a better contract than the $7+mill/yr cap hit that Campbell has got.

The Canucks already have Hamhuis, Ballard and Edler all locked up... Ehrhoff is a UFA this offseason (along with Salo and Bieksa, who will both be let go). If you add Campbell, that's your top-4, with no room for Ehrhoff... a bigger cap hit on defense, with less depth overall.

With the contracts given to Hamhuis ($4.5mill) and Ballard ($4.2mill), with Ehrhoff hitting UFA status after this year, and Edler another 2 years from UFA status (while Hamhuis/Ballard and Campbell's contracts are still active), it makes zero sense to add a contract like that to the blueline.

Again, forget Luongo, I personally wouldn't pick up Campbell on waivers... and that's not say he's a bad player, just that his contract is a terrible fit in Vancouver and would do more damage than help them.

As for Luongo, his contract fits... $5.3mill for a #1 goalie isn't a outlandish contract. And while Schneider may well end up being a solid goalie down the road, he's still a rookie, and is a better fit as a #2 right now behind Luongo.

for the Canucks, Luongo at $5.3mill >>>>> Campbell at $7.14mill, because the latter forces the team to lose other players just to fit him, while hurting their contract flexibility long-term on defense.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 01:02 PM
  #39
Bobby Lou
Moustache Power
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,459
vCash: 894
God, look at this freaking homer-a-thon going on in here; it hurts my head.

Bobby Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 01:07 PM
  #40
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
This was bound to end badly. Though, in my honest opinion:

Campbell > Luongo.

Yeah, I said it.

I disagree. While his contract is longer, and probably not of any interest to Chicago given the structure of the salary and team, Campbell, for the sake of context, would be our 6th top four defensman. His cap hit, not necessarily his contract, is worse, and after the last few games Lu's value, if he were to be traded, would be at an all time low.

As for the OP, no flipping way Vancouver does this. Bieksa, if he is moved, will be for the sake of the cap, Campbell beats Bieksa in terms of skill, but Bieksa's cap hit is almost half of Campbells. For math geeks out there, Campbell > Bieksa, but Campbell < (2) Bieksa. That and what seems to alot of Canucks fans to be a bad contract for him expires at the end of this year, and he could resign for less, while Campbell's contract goes on for I think 3 years. Luongo also beats the hell out of Hendry and Crawford. For comparisons sake, I offer Tambellini and Schaefer for Kane. It won't happen, and even what ever contextual benefits that might be gained for the Canucks in Campbell vs. Bieksa (there aren't any I can see), the loss of Luongo for someone likely third on our depth chart behind Schneider and Lack, judging on his preseason performances, and a number.....11? defensman in our system isn't worth it.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 01:23 PM
  #41
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
For comparisons sake, I offer Tambellini and Schaefer for Kane. .
More like Raymond and Burrows.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 01:28 PM
  #42
99 steps
to the top
 
99 steps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
More like Raymond and Burrows.
More like no thank you.

In other news, this thread sucks.

99 steps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 01:53 PM
  #43
DayNah
Ship it donk!
 
DayNah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,244
vCash: 561
Vancouver can keep Luongo. He will continue to choke in the playoffs and make excuses. He gets way too much credit for Canada's gold medal.

DayNah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 02:28 PM
  #44
timorousme
luongod
 
timorousme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,572
vCash: 50
uh i'm pretty sure luongo recieves no credit for canada's gold medal.

like if you could find me one person outside of vancouver who believes canada won the gold because of luongo, i'd be shocked.

luongo's riding that weird wave where everyone think he's overrated, yet no one's actually overrated him in a while.

timorousme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 04:56 PM
  #45
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,188
vCash: 50
why cant i delete?

posted something, but then reconsidered as this thread is too stupid

NYVanfan 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 08:26 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.