Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Is Lu For Vinny Really That Bad.........if Its The Best Offer?


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

Poll: Is Lu For Vinny Really That Bad.........if Its The Best Offer? (248 member(s) have cast votes)

If a deal with TB that had Lu and Vinny as center pieces best offer would you do it? (Please read article or summary first)

  1. Yes (76 votes [29.23%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.23%

  2. No (91 votes [35.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 35.00%

  3. the 10th pick or the 19th pick along with Vinny is what makes or breaks the deal (93 votes [35.77%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 35.77%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 26 May 2012 - 10:42 PM

Yes, Luoooo for Vinny is really that bad. That wouldn't be the best offer, if Luongo wants to be traded when all is said and done, and regardless, the Canucks will not accept a devaluation like that. $7.7 cap hit til 2020 is ridiculous - not a single GM in the NHL would prefer Lecavalier's contract over Luongo.
  • 1

#62 carrotshirt

carrotshirt

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 06

Posted 26 May 2012 - 11:37 PM

His contract is brutal and he's on the downside of his career. If nothing else is out there, trade Schnieder and keep Lou.
  • 1
You are.

#63 Chetty29

Chetty29

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 09

Posted 27 May 2012 - 12:29 AM

The cap hit is too ridiculous, and he isnt the player he used to be. And you cant forget we still have to re-sign Schneid, and it isnt gonna be cheap to re-sign him either.
  • 0

#64 Boneman

Boneman

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 11

Posted 27 May 2012 - 12:34 AM

His stats from last years playoffs

18GP 6G 13A 19P +6
  • 0

#65 JohnTavares

JohnTavares

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,572 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 06

Posted 27 May 2012 - 12:35 AM

Why the hell do people think luongos contract is bad? Idiots.

It is bad.

....

I think you are part of "Idiots".
  • 1

RGMG: New York Islanders


Posted Image


#66 kmotamed

kmotamed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,981 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 27 May 2012 - 02:00 AM

I wouldnt trade Luongo, but I would trade Schneider for Vinny!
  • 0

#67 Boneman

Boneman

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 11

Posted 27 May 2012 - 02:24 AM

*
POPULAR

I wouldnt trade Luongo, but I would trade Schneider for Vinny!


So many things wrong with this comment....
  • 6

#68 gordfish

gordfish

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 27 May 2012 - 08:36 AM

Yeah, that's a bog ole NO THANKS on Lecavalier. The Canucks need a number one defenseman, and Lecavalier's contract would make that impossible for the rest of the Sedin era, which would mean no Stanley Cup.
  • 0

#69 Underachieving Hero of CDC

Underachieving Hero of CDC

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Joined: 12-February 11

Posted 27 May 2012 - 12:20 PM

We need a big, physical shutdown defenceman with playoff experience and I'd rather trade Schneider.

Something along the lines of Schneider for Brent Seabrook would be exactly what this team needs.

Edler - Seabrook
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Salo - Alberts
Tanev

That's a much bigger, physical defence already that can handle the big forwards who destroyed us in the last 2 playoff series.

You want to give Schneider to the Hawks? There is no facepalm epic enough for this...
  • 0

#70 canucks.bradley

canucks.bradley

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,383 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 07

Posted 27 May 2012 - 12:30 PM

hmm so when eklund says something about other teams, canucks fans say "no damn way" or "eklund is a joke"

and yet...the moment he mentions anything about a canuck player it becomes "interesting"

:picard:
  • 0
Posted Image
3000th post - September, 2010

K guys I nd hlp fast. Im @ a girls I rly like & txtng from my iphone. I did a #2 in the bathroom and it plugged, water is almost overflowing toilet. Srsly I dunno wut 2 do somebody help!


Watch Bowness somehow mess up Tampa Bay's already amazing 2 powerplay units...he'll probably tell Stamkos to do drop passes from centre ice, take him out from the faceoff dot, and place him infront of the goalie :lol:


#71 billabong

billabong

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,949 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 09

Posted 27 May 2012 - 01:10 PM

luongo isnt gonna be first on many teams wishlists....he is a back up plan for a lot of teams
  • 0
Posted Image

#72 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 27 May 2012 - 01:15 PM

Only 39% of people are saying "no" to this?

Luongo's not perfect, but he's not necessarily the problem, either. I would be inclined to keep him, and move Schneider. Trading Luongo is the definition of "selling low", and it would probably be a mistake, compounded by the fact that all reports seem to suggest that there's not exactly a ton of suitors for ol' Roberto.

Lecavalier's cap hit is insane, he's 32 years old, with a history of injuries, a history of inconsistent play, and a history of blocking a trade to his hometown team. He's turned into a Tampa guy; the nice weather, the relative anonymity, and the big dollars. Must be a pretty nice life. I don't imagine he'd have an ounce of interest in coming to play for the Canucks.
  • 0

#73 TVank15

TVank15

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 10

Posted 27 May 2012 - 02:17 PM

I would do this. Lecavalier is a good playoff performer and would add some much needed offense, and can center the second PP unit. For everyone saying what we need is a Number 1 D-man, what has been our biggest problem last two playoffs? It's been scoring goals. Lecavalier would for sure help out with that, though his contract does suck, if it brings us a cup or two in the next few years, who cares?
  • 1
Posted Image
Thanks to 23Qwerty

#74 TmanVan

TmanVan

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 27 May 2012 - 02:23 PM

People only looking at his stats and saying he sucks, his points have been declining every year are funny. He still averages 0.75 points a game, and last year had more than a point a game in the playoffs.

I don't care if it's hockeybuzz, if you actually read the article it makes alot of sense. We could use him for 5 years and then buy him out at a cap hit of only $750,000. If the deal were to go down exactly as described, getting a top 10 pick would be huge too. Think of the possibilities, we could then even package the 10th overall pick with something else and move up a couple more spots.

You have to look at these deals long term, as it wouldn't be Luongo for Lecavalier straight up, it would be Luongo for Lecavalier and Matt Dumba/ Griffin Reinhart/ Cody Ceci/ Alex Galchenyuk

To top it off, it is speculated that the new cba will introduce an "out clause" to get rid of contracts like Lecavaliers, or theres always the chance that he just retires. I don't see why we would turn this deal down, if teams like washinton can have ovechkin with a 9.5 million dollar cap hit and still have a competitive team than it would definelty work for us.
  • 0

#75 Christophe

Christophe

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 908 posts
  • Joined: 26-December 10

Posted 27 May 2012 - 03:02 PM

I have no problem with Vinny, only his contract.

I'd sooner get a couple draft picks/rookies or another veteran who has a bit lower cap hit.
  • 0

#76 soshified

soshified

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,223 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 09

Posted 27 May 2012 - 04:03 PM

We all loved Lu in 06 as well.
Times have changed and just not for Vinny.


Still love and support Luongo. So..
  • 1



Posted Image


#77 Sukanta

Sukanta

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 04

Posted 27 May 2012 - 04:21 PM

Interesting article from hockeybuzz - http://www.hockeybuz...Sense/164/44618

If you dont wanna read the article ill sum it up:

1) Tampa is still interested in Lu but only if we take Vinny back

2) If you ignore the cap hit for a second its a good deal for both teams ( fills holes )

3) Vinny can still produce for the season and the playoffs, big body playmaker for kes and booth

4) Even though the cap would be tight we could still make it work

5) New CBA may include an out clause for over-paid contracts,

6) Cap hit will be raised by 3 - 5 mill next season

7) FInal offer - VAN: Vinny, 19th overall pick, 50th overall pick; TB: Lu, 26th overall pick, 2013 3rd round pick

My thoughts:

Vinny is a great player that can still produce both in the season and the playoffs. He would be the perfect guy to center kes and booth, not to mention that kes will be gone tilll november and id be way more comfortable with vinny on the second and schoerder on the third. Yes the contract sucks and thats the only reason i would consider not making this trade. On the other side of this argument it makes perfect sense for both teams. TB get their #1 goalie and we get a legit top 6 playmaking forward. In the end I would do his deal IF it was the only reasonable offer we got, but i would have to change the deal a little bit.

To VAN: Vinny, 10th overall pick

To TB: Lu, 26th overall pick, 2013 3rd round pick


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.
  • 0

#78 CHIPS

CHIPS

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,784 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 07

Posted 27 May 2012 - 04:44 PM

Lecavalier's season records may not be that great but he is a proven playoff performer. He is huge and solid. I would definitely get him if we can.

Sedin-Sedin-Lacevalier

or

Booth-Lecavalier-Kesler

Both of which will be very deadly in the playoffs.

Edited by CHIPS, 27 May 2012 - 04:47 PM.

  • 0
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#79 Buttock

Buttock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 27 May 2012 - 04:58 PM

People only looking at his stats and saying he sucks, his points have been declining every year are funny. He still averages 0.75 points a game, and last year had more than a point a game in the playoffs.

I don't care if it's hockeybuzz, if you actually read the article it makes alot of sense. We could use him for 5 years and then buy him out at a cap hit of only $750,000. If the deal were to go down exactly as described, getting a top 10 pick would be huge too. Think of the possibilities, we could then even package the 10th overall pick with something else and move up a couple more spots.

You have to look at these deals long term, as it wouldn't be Luongo for Lecavalier straight up, it would be Luongo for Lecavalier and Matt Dumba/ Griffin Reinhart/ Cody Ceci/ Alex Galchenyuk

To top it off, it is speculated that the new cba will introduce an "out clause" to get rid of contracts like Lecavaliers, or theres always the chance that he just retires. I don't see why we would turn this deal down, if teams like washinton can have ovechkin with a 9.5 million dollar cap hit and still have a competitive team than it would definelty work for us.



The ???? Capitals are the barometer for what makes a competitive team now? Ovechkin's contract is not good if he doesn't play like he can. However, Vinny Lecavaler's contract is worse, one of the worst in the league. Yes, we can buy him out in five years, but I think we would want to be rid of that contract far sooner. Then, factor in that Schneider will want a raise, and within two or three years, if he is really as good as we think he is, will want a contract with a bigger cap hit than Luongo's 5.3 (which is on the small side for a good #1 goaltender now). Where will we get the cap space from? The only place it can come from is gutting the team's depth.

If you want to look at competitive teams, look at the ones that have recently won the cup. Most, but not all, of them featured players still on their ELC's in big roles. The reason so many think this is essential is obvious: in a salary cap world, if you're spending to the cap, how competitive your team is is going to correlate directly to what kind of value you're getting out of that cap space. Overpaid players mean less space to sign other players. Underpaid players mean more space to sign other players. Overpaid players means less depth and fewer quality role players, usually, and Vinny is one of the most overpaid players in the league! Look at Tampa's roster. No wonder Yzerman wants to unload that contract - Stamkos or no, they aren't in good shape and Lecavalier's contract is one of the major impediments to building a winner there. Why the heck should we take it on? We would have to be crazy.

A bad contract is a bad contract and you don't touch it, period. If this is the best trade offer we get for Luongo, why would we move him? Trade Schneider instead.

If you want to see what this does to the team's depth go to capgeek.com and fiddle around with their cap calculator. Add Lecavalier, re-sign Schneider to a reasonable deal and try to build a good Canucks team. Then carry it forward a year, when Burrows and Edler need new contracts. Then another year to when Schneider will want a big raise as well. You can't do it. Then realize that Lecavalier will likely be even more grossly overpaid in two years because he is getting worse every year. This trade would destroy the Canucks' future.

Hoping for an "out clause" is just foolish. It might happen or it might not. I would argue strenuously against it. The PA wants one because they don't think Wade Redden should be exiled from the league for signing a contract he can't possibly live up to, but why shouldn't he? If you put in a free buyout clause or something, get ready to see the New York Rangers overpay somebody every single year because hey, if it doesn't work out, no problem, just buy him out! I can't see the majority of owners agreeing to that because of what it would do to rising player salaries.

Edited by Buttock, 27 May 2012 - 05:05 PM.

  • 1

#80 TmanVan

TmanVan

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 27 May 2012 - 05:34 PM

The ???? Capitals are the barometer for what makes a competitive team now? Ovechkin's contract is not good if he doesn't play like he can. However, Vinny Lecavaler's contract is worse, one of the worst in the league. Yes, we can buy him out in five years, but I think we would want to be rid of that contract far sooner. Then, factor in that Schneider will want a raise, and within two or three years, if he is really as good as we think he is, will want a contract with a bigger cap hit than Luongo's 5.3 (which is on the small side for a good #1 goaltender now). Where will we get the cap space from? The only place it can come from is gutting the team's depth.

If you want to look at competitive teams, look at the ones that have recently won the cup. Most, but not all, of them featured players still on their ELC's in big roles. The reason so many think this is essential is obvious: in a salary cap world, if you're spending to the cap, how competitive your team is is going to correlate directly to what kind of value you're getting out of that cap space. Overpaid players mean less space to sign other players. Underpaid players mean more space to sign other players. Overpaid players means less depth and fewer quality role players, usually, and Vinny is one of the most overpaid players in the league! Look at Tampa's roster. No wonder Yzerman wants to unload that contract - Stamkos or no, they aren't in good shape and Lecavalier's contract is one of the major impediments to building a winner there. Why the heck should we take it on? We would have to be crazy.

A bad contract is a bad contract and you don't touch it, period. If this is the best trade offer we get for Luongo, why would we move him? Trade Schneider instead.

If you want to see what this does to the team's depth go to capgeek.com and fiddle around with their cap calculator. Add Lecavalier, re-sign Schneider to a reasonable deal and try to build a good Canucks team. Then carry it forward a year, when Burrows and Edler need new contracts. Then another year to when Schneider will want a big raise as well. You can't do it. Then realize that Lecavalier will likely be even more grossly overpaid in two years because he is getting worse every year. This trade would destroy the Canucks' future.

Hoping for an "out clause" is just foolish. It might happen or it might not. I would argue strenuously against it. The PA wants one because they don't think Wade Redden should be exiled from the league for signing a contract he can't possibly live up to, but why shouldn't he? If you put in a free buyout clause or something, get ready to see the New York Rangers overpay somebody every single year because hey, if it doesn't work out, no problem, just buy him out! I can't see the majority of owners agreeing to that because of what it would do to rising player salaries.


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 :shock:

Plus the real prize is the 10th overall pick anyways man.

Edited by TmanVan, 27 May 2012 - 05:43 PM.

  • 0

#81 **Pavel4Life**

**Pavel4Life**

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 27 May 2012 - 05:45 PM

too many centers...
+ vinnys past his prime


Some would argue that Lu is too...
  • 0
CFOO SIG FTW!


QUOTE (bugmo @ Jul 23 2009, 12:09 AM) And you are an idiot who can't see things for the way they are. It's people like you who make it seem okay for the canucks to have a non playoff making team every year. Gillis supporter go jump off the Patullo.

This was said to me and it makes me laugh everytime I read it.

#82 Strawberries

Strawberries

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,563 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 09

Posted 27 May 2012 - 05:47 PM

i would do it if they gave us that pick or conolly
  • 0
Posted Image

#83 Laoag

Laoag

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 11

Posted 27 May 2012 - 06:13 PM

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.



top line sucks. two great team players with a me first guy that keeps hurting himself. second line looks great.

in my eyes kesler is the best third line center in the world, so good infact.. he thinks he is a first line player. if kesler would play on the third line and the canucks aquired a playmaking 2nd line center this team would be a dynasty.
  • 0

#84 sprouticus

sprouticus

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 520 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 27 May 2012 - 11:38 PM

Why do you have all the right hand shots playing left wing and vice versa???



obviously the players are skating backwards
  • 0

"P.S. Sprouticus doesn't know me, but the world will now know Sprouticus."
Taylor Code
http://insidethecode.blogspot.com/2006/03/...posters-on.html


“Louie can shave in the morning and have a beard in the afternoon. I think the Twins have pretty weak beards. They should’ve started in September.”

-Brendan Morrison

#85 Burnsey

Burnsey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,782 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 28 May 2012 - 02:21 AM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#86 Buttock

Buttock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 28 May 2012 - 06:55 AM

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 :shock:

Plus the real prize is the 10th overall pick anyways man.


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?
  • 0

#87 TotesMagotes

TotesMagotes

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,273 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 28 May 2012 - 10:32 AM

It is bad.

....

I think you are part of "Idiots".


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.

http://forum.canucks...ou-might-think/

Now tell me who the idiot is. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Edited by DirtyHarry, 28 May 2012 - 10:36 AM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#88 goblix

goblix

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 28 May 2012 - 10:51 AM

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.


He was one of the best playoff contributors that brought Tampa Bay to game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals last year.

Not saying he's worth the cap hit, but he's still highly talented.
  • 0

#89 goblix

goblix

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 28 May 2012 - 11:11 AM

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.


Lecalvier for Gomez ?? :bigblush: i think i just barfed :sick:
  • 0

#90 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,179 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 11

Posted 28 May 2012 - 11:18 AM

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.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.