**Pavel4Life** Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 too many centers... + vinnys past his prime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawberries Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 i would do it if they gave us that pick or conolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laoag Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 If you want to win a cup u do it, You are aquiring one of the best centers in the Nhl he is consistent plays with a lot of heart and can produce this could pick up kesler's game. Kesler-Sedin-Sedin Burrows-Vinny-Booth Hansen-Lapierre-Higgins Kassian-Manny-Moen These line equal a cup i love vinny and i would take him anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouticus Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Why do you have all the right hand shots playing left wing and vice versa??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsey Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 i like Vinny, but the team should go for youth or players about to hit their prime (20-28). I would rather a player that can play in the long term. Luongo still has a good 7 years in him at least, we should at least aim for the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buttock Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I didn't say the capitals were a barometer for success, simply an example that you can have huge contracts and still be a competive team. I agree that to be successful you need players on entry level contracts to step up and play a big roll, which is why it's ridiculous that we have guys like Ballard at 4.2 milliion being used as a 6th defenseman, or throwing around 2.5 million and a no trade clause at guys like Malhotra to be or 3rd/4th line center while we have elc guys like Kassian on the bench. These are the kind of things that hinder our cap space, so to say that ONE contract destroys the whole teams future is ridiculous. You mention trading Schneider instead of Luongo, and that buying out Lecavalier would be stupid, but I bet the Canucks would end up buying out Luongo anyways so whats the difference?? And I don't see how that helps the team at all when Luongo has some off games, lets in 7 goals in the playoffs and the fans boo him out of town. At least Lecavalier is a proven playoff preformer. And why is it a dumb idea to have an out clause for the nhl. The NFL, arguably the best run sports league in North America is structured so that players can be released by the team whenever they want. If a player isn't preforming or living up to their contract why shouldn't you be allowed to release them? Why should Scott Gomez be collecting 7 million a year? And no, the Rangers wouldn't be able to sign everybody to ridiculous contracts, thats what the salary cap is for bud. Also, saying we wouldn't have money for Burrows , Edler, or Schneider in like 3 or 4 years from now just because of Lecavalier is funny. Rosters change all the time, how do you know what the team will look like even 2 years from now? The Sedins contracts are up in a couple years, do you think they will still be worth 6.1 million when they re-sign? Maybe we save some money there. Maybe we don't even re-sign the Sedins Plus the real prize is the 10th overall pick anyways man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotesMagotes Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 It is bad. .... I think you are part of "Idiots". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Vinny hasn't cared since 2004. He played like he meant it back then but ever since nadda. Same story with Eric Staal, Early success kills motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Actually, what would make sense is a three way deal. We trade Luongo for Lecalvier and than we trade Lecalvier to Montreal. The fans in Montreal want Lecalvier so we could possibly do a deal with Montreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuxFan09 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 It's not that bad. Lecavalier is past his prime but the Canucks would still get more value out of his big contract than Luongo's if they keep Schneider in the fold. If they don't keep Schneider then, needless to say, it's not worth dealing Luongo for Lecavalier. That being said, I don't think the Lightning would do it anyway. Yzerman may be keen on it but Lecavalier himself is a Lightning lifer and would probably never agree to be traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueliner1955 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 wasnt it a while back vincent said he wont come to vancouver remember that soi still think he wont come here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnTavares Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Explain how it's bad. Thanks, and good luck. Also, take a look at this thread, it explains everything pretty well so i don't have to reiterate the points this guy laid out very well. /topic/329405-how-luongos-contract-will-affect-trade-value-not-in-the-way-you-might-think/">http://forum.canucks...ou-might-think/ Now tell me who the idiot is. You have no idea what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHIPS Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 And the cost is a contract that is widely considered an impediment to success. That is why the Lightning have wanted to trade him forever. The fact that we're even talking about this proves the point. If a contract is bad enough to have a discussion about how it can be "unloaded," you probably don't want to take on that contract. As was alluded to earlier in the thread, I wouldn't sign him to that contract for free, so no way in hell would I give up an asset for him, and that's what Luongo is.' I didn't say we wouldn't have enough money for those guys in three years; Burrows and Edler need new contracts in one year. Schneider needs a new contract right now, and at some point will have a higher cap hit than Luongo IF he is really better than Luongo (and if he is not, why would we not keep Luongo if he is so hard to move?). Yeah, we can waive Malhotra and Ballard and cut Raymond loose, but we still need to sign Schneider, three or four more defensemen, plus a fourth line and a backup goalie! Something would have to give. We would sacrifice depth at all positions for a player who blocked his team's last attempt to trade him, is content to play out his fat contract in anonymity in Tampa Bay, and by all accounts, just isn't as motivated since winning the cup. IF he would even agree to come here in the first place since he has an NTC. LOL at the NFL as the standard-bearer for a well-managed league. Penalty-free buyouts, or worse, allowing teams to terminate players at-will, would allow rich teams to go out, massively overpay players and then just cut them loose when they don't perform - how would this not drive salaries up? It removes the risk factor of signing somebody to a big contract because you can just cut them loose if they don't live up to it. If you're stuck with the contract you have to balance what you might get against the risk that they might not live up to the contract. Anyway, the PA would never allow it, and rightly so. Players want some degree of certainty and the onus should be on GM's to NOT OVERPAY. Why should Scott Gomez make $7 million a year? Because the Habs agreed to take on the contract. It was stupid of them and they should pay for it, as a cautionary tale for managers who think about giving out or taking on such ridiculous contracts. Gomez, too, will serve as a cautionary tale, along with Wade Redden, Steve Reinprecht, Cristobal Huet and others - don't sign a contract you know you can't live up to IF you don't want to find yourself priced right out of the league. This SHOULD make players AND GM's think twice about signing these deals and thus mitigate the urge to overpay. And, indeed, the salary cap is having the intended effect, and people have learned lessons from the Gomez, Redden and Huet contracts. Finally, I never said that you need players on ELC's to win. What you need is good value for money, and players on ELC's are usually a great way of getting it. Trading Luongo for Lecavalier and signing Schneider, even if we waive Ballard and Malhotra, gets us further away from good value for our cap space, not closer to it, and he's signed for eight more years! I also never said that buying him out would be stupid - I agree, buying him out in five years makes a lot of sense, so much sense that the contract was obviously structured that way intentionally - I said that we would want to buy him out much sooner than five years, if he continues his decline. I'm not concerned about the fans boo-ing Luongo out of town. The fans can kick rocks for all I care. But if you're concerned about this, what do you think the fans will do to an underperforming Lecavalier making almost 8 million a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLluvitorleaveit Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Not VL,Rick Nash Plzzzzzz.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buttock Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 We have to shorten our future planning to the next 3 years, instead of the next 10 years. Guys like the Sedins deserves a Cup and their windows are closing. We have to field the best team we can for the next 3 years to maximize their chances. As for Lecavalier, it is bad contract trading for a bad contract. So it is fair game. We need Lecavalier more than Luongo, and Tampa needs Luongo more than Lecavalier. Win win situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Get real canuck fans Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 It's not a bad contract though! You can argue that it will be a bad contract down the road, but from my perspective, even if Luongo is declining, that contract is good value for cap space right now and should be for several years. 5.3 million is on the cheap side now for a good #1 goalie - what kind of money do you think Cory Schneider is going to want, IF he is really better than Luongo (I don't think he is)? Lecavalier's is a bad contract. I agree we need to think about the next three years - those are the years for which Lecavalier's contract screws us the most, because Schneider needs a new contract right now, Burrows and Edler need new contracts in a year, and our defense needs a serious upgrade. The best way to make this team better, whether it's adding a linemate for Kesler or a good defenseman, is to trade the goaltender that will get us the best return, because if you want to think about the next three years you should have no problem going with Luongo. I mean the whole thread is asking - is it really that bad if we have to take on this contract? We should be trading one or the other of our goaltenders for an asset that we do not have to question whether it is really an asset or not!! Luongo's contract is not an impediment to winning!! Lecavalier's contract is an impediment to building a winner in Tampa, that is why they have been trying to unload it literally since it came into effect!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buttock Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I don't believe for a second Cory will get 3.3 a season for the next 5 years. Why would he sign a deal like that if he's really the better goalie you think he is? He will sign a one or two year deal for maybe 3.3ish, and then after that it will be time to get paid, he will want a contract fitting an elite #1 goaltender, which by now, and certainly by then, will be much higher than Luongo's 5.3. Look at what goalies have been signing for; those numbers will only continue to go up. You say Luongo will make 5.3 until hell freezes over - 5.3 isn't too much to pay, even if he's not an elite goaltender, know why? Elite goaltenders will cost you 7 million or more going forward. And Luongo is still better than most of those guys. Then you talk about adding Rick Nash and you say his contract is too huge, but he gives WAY better value for money than Lecavalier at about the same cap hit. But, no, I would not trade Schneider (and his 900k??? He needs to be re-signed right now, son, pay attention!) for Nash. I would trade for a high draft pick ("the real prize is the 10th overall pick man") or a prospect who could step in and contribute now or soon. But, see, I like Luongo and I'm happy to go with him again for next year. I think all the stuff about Luongo being a backup goalie in a few years is bunk too. Of course it wouldn't be easy to just make Ballard and Malhotra's contracts disappear, but that is exactly what we would have to do in order to make Lecavalier's contract fit here, or else we'd have to gut the team's depth and accept that we can't improve the defense (our real problem, has been for as long as Luongo's been here), so what's the plan there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan90 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 trust me its a really bad trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TmanVan Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 LOL at the NFL as the standard-bearer for a well-managed league. Penalty-free buyouts, or worse, allowing teams to terminate players at-will, would allow rich teams to go out, massively overpay players and then just cut them loose when they don't perform - how would this not drive salaries up? It removes the risk factor of signing somebody to a big contract because you can just cut them loose if they don't live up to it. If you're stuck with the contract you have to balance what you might get against the risk that they might not live up to the contract. Anyway, the PA would never allow it, and rightly so. Players want some degree of certainty and the onus should be on GM's to NOT OVERPAY. Why should Scott Gomez make $7 million a year? Because the Habs agreed to take on the contract. It was stupid of them and they should pay for it, as a cautionary tale for managers who think about giving out or taking on such ridiculous contracts. Gomez, too, will serve as a cautionary tale, along with Wade Redden, Steve Reinprecht, Cristobal Huet and others - don't sign a contract you know you can't live up to IF you don't want to find yourself priced right out of the league. This SHOULD make players AND GM's think twice about signing these deals and thus mitigate the urge to overpay. And, indeed, the salary cap is having the intended effect, and people have learned lessons from the Gomez, Redden and Huet contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.G Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Did that article just say Lecavalier would look really good as potentially the Canucks 3rd line center? For 7++ million???? Who the hell writes this non-sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.