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?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
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

#91 blueliner1955

blueliner1955

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 07

Posted 28 May 2012 - 11:39 AM

wasnt it a while back vincent said he wont come to vancouver remember that soi still think he wont come here

#92 JohnTavares

JohnTavares

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 06

Posted 28 May 2012 - 11:47 AM

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.

I like how you tell me to explain, when you can't explain yourself and just use other points from someone else. I know exactly what type of contract this is, and the idiot is you. And I won't need the "luck".

The contract is bad, there's no doubt. You can give me a hundred irrelevant reasons and go into the numbers and statistics but it won't matter. Only a biased and unreasonable Canuck fan would think the contract is good.

Luongo is ALREADY 33, he is beginning to decline. He isn't a top 5 goalie anymore. Yes, goalies can play until an old age, but not all goalies can still play at a high level like Brodeur and Thomas at that kind of age He has 10 more years left in his contract. This is a player who WILL decline in a few more years, and will be lucky to still be a top 10 goalie 2 years from now. He will be a liability in 3/4 years and will be a backup goalie making 5.3 M. With that kind of money you can easily pursue a quality top six forward, or a top four defenseman. Why waste that type of money on a backup? And not many teams can afford to buyout contracts, or want to in the first place. Same with waivers, not every team is willing to place a 5.3M liability in the minors for an X amount of years.

So tell me now, in what way is Luongo's contract NOT bad? I'm sure teams are craving a 33 year old, past his prime goalie with inflated stats from playing on the best team for back to back years, who has 10 more years left on his contract at a hefty amount at 5.3 Million. Answer me, do you think Bryzgalov's contract is bad?

EHL: Detroit Red Wings

 

medium.png


#93 CHIPS

CHIPS

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,787 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 07

Posted 28 May 2012 - 12:12 PM

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?


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.

CanucksvsBruinsPollsmall-1.jpgRogerNeilsonSmall.jpgSig too big. 


#94 NLluvitorleaveit

NLluvitorleaveit

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 414 posts
  • Joined: 24-December 11

Posted 28 May 2012 - 12:13 PM

Not VL,Rick Nash Plzzzzzz....

Posted Image

10122810.jpg


#95 Buttock

Buttock

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 28 May 2012 - 03:43 PM

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.


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!!

If I am Gillis and Yzerman says he won't take Luongo unless we take Lecavalier I say "okay, let me know if you change your mind about that, meanwhile what will you give us for Cory Schneider?"

Edited by Buttock, 28 May 2012 - 03:48 PM.


#96 Get real canuck fans

Get real canuck fans

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 08

Posted 28 May 2012 - 03:59 PM

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!!



Lu will make 5,3 until hell freezes over, Cory will not get more than 3.3 a season for say the next 5 years. How can you understand that we need money for players expiring contracts and then think it is better to keep the guy who will make more money by 2 million a year?
I would rather have Vinny and Cory than Cory and Lu by a wide margin, and who are we going to get for Cory that doesn't make several million which of course makes it harder to sign the players you mentioned. Say we trade Cory and his 900k for Nash. How does that work with the money Nash makes? You think we going to trade all our crappy contracts like Ballard and Malholtra so it works because other teams have a cap to deal with as well ya know.
Vinny is the exact opposite as Lu, he is a playoff performer on more than 1 occasion including the 2010-11 season where he had 19 points in 18 games.
The league seems to be leaning towards letting more things go and big guys like Vinny will do better if they follow that trend and his lack of speed will not be as big of issue. Our 2 best forwards by quite a margin do not have good speed at all(Sedins)

#97 Buttock

Buttock

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 28 May 2012 - 04:09 PM

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?

Edited by Buttock, 28 May 2012 - 04:11 PM.


#98 hockeyfan90

hockeyfan90

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,461 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 11

Posted 28 May 2012 - 05:05 PM

trust me its a really bad trade

#99 TmanVan

TmanVan

    Comets Star

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

Posted 28 May 2012 - 05:47 PM

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.



You don't think that rich teams go out and massively overpay for players as it is?? This happens all the time.... it wouldn't just start happening out of the blue if the cba was changed. It wouldn't matter if teams have the option to buy out a player or not, New York, Toronto etc will be throwing money at players regardless. Its not like Florida is on an even playing field with the way it works right now....

And in "real life" if you were payed a certain wage your employer would expect you to live up to specific expectations, so if you all of a sudden only put in 50% of the effort you would most likely be fired. Why then do you think that millionaire athletes should be exempt from this?

Theres a reason why alot of players play better in a contract year, because they know they have to perform at a certain level... just like the rest of us do daily. If somebody gave you 5 million dollars a year or more and said it was guaranteed regardless of what you did, do you think you would put in as much effort compared to if it could be taken away at any given moment?

Being an athlete is a privelage, and the fact that 100% of what they do is based on performance why should they be guaranteed anything?

#100 Dr.G

Dr.G

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Joined: 08-September 09

Posted 28 May 2012 - 06:52 PM

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?

#101 TotesMagotes

TotesMagotes

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,334 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 28 May 2012 - 07:03 PM

I like how you tell me to explain, when you can't explain yourself and just use other points from someone else. I know exactly what type of contract this is, and the idiot is you. And I won't need the "luck".

The contract is bad, there's no doubt. You can give me a hundred irrelevant reasons and go into the numbers and statistics but it won't matter. Only a biased and unreasonable Canuck fan would think the contract is good.

Luongo is ALREADY 33, he is beginning to decline. He isn't a top 5 goalie anymore. Yes, goalies can play until an old age, but not all goalies can still play at a high level like Brodeur and Thomas at that kind of age He has 10 more years left in his contract. This is a player who WILL decline in a few more years, and will be lucky to still be a top 10 goalie 2 years from now. He will be a liability in 3/4 years and will be a backup goalie making 5.3 M. With that kind of money you can easily pursue a quality top six forward, or a top four defenseman. Why waste that type of money on a backup? And not many teams can afford to buyout contracts, or want to in the first place. Same with waivers, not every team is willing to place a 5.3M liability in the minors for an X amount of years.

So tell me now, in what way is Luongo's contract NOT bad? I'm sure teams are craving a 33 year old, past his prime goalie with inflated stats from playing on the best team for back to back years, who has 10 more years left on his contract at a hefty amount at 5.3 Million. Answer me, do you think Bryzgalov's contract is bad?


I can give you a hundred irrelevant reasons stating why it's good any you will still stick your nose up because you are just one of those people who hate Luongo blindly will never acknowledge facts because of your meaningless hate. This already tells me that no matter what i say, you're mind will never get changed. But i'll post the thread again, and maybe you will read it this time.

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

''Luongo is ALREADY 33, he is beginning to decline. He isn't a top 5 goalie anymore''

The season before this recent one, Luongo had a career year and played his best hockey of his life, going the deepest he has ever gone into the playoffs.....not to mention had another good season this year But wait, he's on the decline?

''He has 10 more years left in his contract. This is a player who WILL decline in a few more years, and will be lucky to still be a top 10 goalie 2 years from now.''

This one is a beauty. So all of the sudden you can predict the future? For a goalie who had another fantastic season that ended just months ago....you now paint him being a washed up bum in 2 years. Does this make a lot of sense? Is Luongo showing any signs of being on a decline? No. He was probably our best player this recent post season.

''He will be a liability in 3/4 years and will be a backup goalie making 5.3 M''

Oh more story telling? Here you go again with your baseless predictions of the future. Again, Luongo has shown no signs of slowing down.

''With that kind of money you can easily pursue a quality top six forward, or a top four defenseman. Why waste that type of money on a backup?''

Lol, First of all, seeing as you didn't read the thread that clearly points out as to why Luongos contract is great and not the least bit ''untradeable'' as many people here seem to think, i'll make it easier for you to understand. 5.3M for a very good goalie is not a bad cap hit at all, in fact it's probably a bargain.

The salary cap has gone up consistently the past 7 YEARS. From 39 Million to 64.3 Million. Do you realize the affects this has on certain large contracts? It makes the value of these long term deals go up and up and up. From the day Luongo signed that deal it may have seemed too big and overwhelming, but the salary cap has gone up 8 million since then, that's more than enough to make room for a very good goaltender.

Now if the cap continues to go up, as it is predicted to do so, Luongos contract can only get better and better. As it stands right now Luongo is 8th on the list in terms of goalies with the highest cap hits. Yet you keep blabbering on about how he isn't a top 5 goalie. Who said he has to be a top 5 goalie? He is without a doubt a top 10 goalie in this league and his cap hit is a mere 5.3 million, where guys like Pekka Rinne will have a cap hit of 7M, that is a scary high amount of cap for a goalie.

''So tell me now, in what way is Luongo's contract NOT bad?''

Well there you go, and instead of just predicting the future like yourself, i have stated reasons why Luongos contract isn't bad, where you have just told a fairy tale about how bad Luongo is because you have hate on for him, making up your mind without realizing the facts.

Again, i know you won't understand and will probably never change your mind about Luongo because of your hate for him. But the fact of the matter is, with the cap going up, Luongo is one hell of a bargain, rather than a bad contract. Most open minded people will understand this.
Posted Image

#102 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 28 May 2012 - 07:29 PM

Luongo simply put, has better value for our team. We don't need that contract, or another center.
Posted Image

#103 JohnTavares

JohnTavares

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 06

Posted 28 May 2012 - 08:02 PM

I can give you a hundred irrelevant reasons stating why it's good any you will still stick your nose up because you are just one of those people who hate Luongo blindly will never acknowledge facts because of your meaningless hate. This already tells me that no matter what i say, you're mind will never get changed. But i'll post the thread again, and maybe you will read it this time.

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

''Luongo is ALREADY 33, he is beginning to decline. He isn't a top 5 goalie anymore''

The season before this recent one, Luongo had a career year and played his best hockey of his life, going the deepest he has ever gone into the playoffs.....not to mention had another good season this year But wait, he's on the decline?

''He has 10 more years left in his contract. This is a player who WILL decline in a few more years, and will be lucky to still be a top 10 goalie 2 years from now.''

This one is a beauty. So all of the sudden you can predict the future? For a goalie who had another fantastic season that ended just months ago....you now paint him being a washed up bum in 2 years. Does this make a lot of sense? Is Luongo showing any signs of being on a decline? No. He was probably our best player this recent post season.

''He will be a liability in 3/4 years and will be a backup goalie making 5.3 M''

Oh more story telling? Here you go again with your baseless predictions of the future. Again, Luongo has shown no signs of slowing down.

''With that kind of money you can easily pursue a quality top six forward, or a top four defenseman. Why waste that type of money on a backup?''

Lol, First of all, seeing as you didn't read the thread that clearly points out as to why Luongos contract is great and not the least bit ''untradeable'' as many people here seem to think, i'll make it easier for you to understand. 5.3M for a very good goalie is not a bad cap hit at all, in fact it's probably a bargain.

The salary cap has gone up consistently the past 7 YEARS. From 39 Million to 64.3 Million. Do you realize the affects this has on certain large contracts? It makes the value of these long term deals go up and up and up. From the day Luongo signed that deal it may have seemed too big and overwhelming, but the salary cap has gone up 8 million since then, that's more than enough to make room for a very good goaltender.

Now if the cap continues to go up, as it is predicted to do so, Luongos contract can only get better and better. As it stands right now Luongo is 8th on the list in terms of goalies with the highest cap hits. Yet you keep blabbering on about how he isn't a top 5 goalie. Who said he has to be a top 5 goalie? He is without a doubt a top 10 goalie in this league and his cap hit is a mere 5.3 million, where guys like Pekka Rinne will have a cap hit of 7M, that is a scary high amount of cap for a goalie.

''So tell me now, in what way is Luongo's contract NOT bad?''

Well there you go, and instead of just predicting the future like yourself, i have stated reasons why Luongos contract isn't bad, where you have just told a fairy tale about how bad Luongo is because you have hate on for him, making up your mind without realizing the facts.

Again, i know you won't understand and will probably never change your mind about Luongo because of your hate for him. But the fact of the matter is, with the cap going up, Luongo is one hell of a bargain, rather than a bad contract. Most open minded people will understand this.


Like I predicted you would tell me how well he's been doing these recent years. He's been playing behind the best team in the regular season for back to back years, yet posting average numbers this year for a supposedly "very good" goalie. He lost his own job to an inexperienced backup goalie, played poorly in numerous playoff series, and is mentally weak. The team carried him to the finals, Luongo didn't carry us to the finals. He just played well enough to advance, likewise other average goalies can win the cup. Winning a cup doesnt make a certain player more valuable unless he made huge contributions to the cup run. So you can shove all these "stats" in my face, but he has been declining ever since his first year in Vancouver.

Why do you keep mentioning cap hit? The cap hit was never the problem. No one's arguing about the cap hit, but the LENGTH of the contract which you continue to neglect about because you can't put up a decent argument when you consider the length of the contract. He has TEN more years left in his contract. I bolded it this time so maybe you'll have the wit to realize the problem of the contract is not the cap hit, but rather the length.

Baseless predictions?

Lundqvist, Quick, Rinne, Smith, Thomas, Howard, Schneider, Backstrom, Kippursoff, Miller, Halak

All of these goalies will probably do as well as Luongo next year, if not better. An argument could be made for several other goalies out there as well (Lehtonen, Ellliot, Price, Bryzgalov). He's barely a top 10 goalie now, in a couple years, Luongo will NOT be a top 10 goalie anymore. You can quote me on it if you want, but it's an educated guess with a great chance that it will be come true.

Rinne will be 36 when his contract ends, Luongo will be 43. You see the difference? No wonder why Rinne costs so much more eh?

I don't have any hatred for Luongo, as a matter of fact I greatly appreciate what he has done but he missed his chance for the cup and now it's time to move on Yet you completely neglect my question again, do you think Bryzgalov's contract is a bargain?

EHL: Detroit Red Wings

 

medium.png


#104 sampy

sampy

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 07

Posted 28 May 2012 - 08:12 PM

3-way trade:

To Van:
Subban

To TB:
Lu

To Mtl:
Vinny
Van's 3rd pick

#105 70seven

70seven

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,262 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 09

Posted 28 May 2012 - 08:12 PM

7.8 million in cap hit, and 40 million in salary over the next 4 years for a guy who hasnt scored more that 70 points in the last 5 seasons?

Even if hte NHL allowed buy out clauses that wouldnt effect the cap.... worst effin contract in the league.

MUCH rather keep Luongo and his 5.3 cap hit.


IF this deal were to happen, it would have to look more like:

Lecavallier, Hedman
for
Luongo, Ballard

#106 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 28 May 2012 - 08:22 PM

7.8 million in cap hit, and 40 million in salary over the next 4 years for a guy who hasnt scored more that 70 points in the last 5 seasons?

Even if hte NHL allowed buy out clauses that wouldnt effect the cap.... worst effin contract in the league.

MUCH rather keep Luongo and his 5.3 cap hit.


IF this deal were to happen, it would have to look more like:

Lecavallier, Hedman
for
Luongo, Ballard


Do you think Steve Yzerman is an idiot? Hedman is their young stud defenseman of the future, while Ballard is just another big fat contract on top of Luongo's...

#107 Green Building

Green Building

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,133 posts
  • Joined: 16-October 09

Posted 28 May 2012 - 08:46 PM

Do you think Steve Yzerman is an idiot? Hedman is their young stud defenseman of the future, while Ballard is just another big fat contract on top of Luongo's...


You're right, but it's not about Yzerman being an idiot as much as it's about getting the best for our team. Who gives a FK about Stevie?

The point 70seven was making (and sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth) is that Lecalvier alone isn't worth Luongo so why the hell would we trade straight up for him.

After all, we aren't idiots here either right?

#108 TotesMagotes

TotesMagotes

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,334 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 28 May 2012 - 08:57 PM

Like I predicted you would tell me how well he's been doing these recent years. He's been playing behind the best team in the regular season for back to back years, yet posting average numbers this year for a supposedly "very good" goalie. He lost his own job to an inexperienced backup goalie, played poorly in numerous playoff series, and is mentally weak. The team carried him to the finals, Luongo didn't carry us to the finals. He just played well enough to advance, likewise other average goalies can win the cup. Winning a cup doesnt make a certain player more valuable unless he made huge contributions to the cup run. So you can shove all these "stats" in my face, but he has been declining ever since his first year in Vancouver.

Why do you keep mentioning cap hit? The cap hit was never the problem. No one's arguing about the cap hit, but the LENGTH of the contract which you continue to neglect about because you can't put up a decent argument when you consider the length of the contract. He has TEN more years left in his contract. I bolded it this time so maybe you'll have the wit to realize the problem of the contract is not the cap hit, but rather the length.

Baseless predictions?

Lundqvist, Quick, Rinne, Smith, Thomas, Howard, Schneider, Backstrom, Kippursoff, Miller, Halak

All of these goalies will probably do as well as Luongo next year, if not better. An argument could be made for several other goalies out there as well (Lehtonen, Ellliot, Price, Bryzgalov). He's barely a top 10 goalie now, in a couple years, Luongo will NOT be a top 10 goalie anymore. You can quote me on it if you want, but it's an educated guess with a great chance that it will be come true.

Rinne will be 36 when his contract ends, Luongo will be 43. You see the difference? No wonder why Rinne costs so much more eh?

I don't have any hatred for Luongo, as a matter of fact I greatly appreciate what he has done but he missed his chance for the cup and now it's time to move on Yet you completely neglect my question again, do you think Bryzgalov's contract is a bargain?


Why would i not tell you how he's doing in these recent years when his play has been just fine? Like i said, there is no possible way you can tell anyone with a brain he is on the decline when 2 years ago he had a career year, and went to the SCF, playing very well during that run, as did the rest of the team. If you didn't know, the goalie is a part of the team. You can't just say ''oh the only reason Luongo went far was because of the team''. Where was the team when Luongo played lights out in the first round vs LA this year? They lose as a team and they win as a team. Luongo had several great series in that SCF run.

You say the cap hit isn't bad but the length is the problem. Guess what? The cap hit is so good because of the length. You have to look at he contract as a whole, and i believe that the length of the contract, (where the final 4 years he only gets paid 7M) is by far worth it in order to lower his cap hit to 5.3 M. With the cap going up this contract is just fine. Like i said, 7M in the final 4 years, meaning the team could easily buy him out before he turns 40. As we all know goaltenders can play well up to that age as we are witnessing right now with Brodeur, and Thomas didn't get better UNTIL he was that old. Buying Luongo out at age 39 is not that bad at all. Luongo gets paid, his contract is off the books and everyone's happy.

Also, assuming we keep Luongo, and that your theory is correct that Luongo does start declining greatly in the next few years. The Canucks have an out clause in the contract that would allow them to request a 5 team trade list after the final game in 2017-18. Luongo would be how old by then? 36? 37? Just as old as Rinne, and not nearly as bad as keeping him until age 43 (where he would be bought out way before then anyways).

Lundqvist - Much higher cap hit than Luongo. Could he have a better season than Luongo? Easily. But his cap hit is just about 7M

Quick - Is an amazing bargain at the moment as he is a young goalie with another year at 1.7M, then, if LA is lucky, they will sign him to a contract similar to Luongos. Same goes with Schneider if we keep him. Could they have a better season than Luongo? Yes.

Rinne - 7M cap hit for a goalie who has never been past the second round. No thanks. Could he have a better year though? I wouldn't bet 2 M on it.

Smith - Has had one good year as a starter. Where Luongo has been one of the best in the past decade. There is no comparison here. I'd bet on Luongo having a better season next year.

Thomas - Will probably retire. You're out of your mind if you think he will have a better season than Luongo though. He is probably done as a starter.

Howard - Really? I guess it's possible, but highly unlikely.

Backstrom - He's a good goalie, but i would take Luongo over him any day. Plus he has a higher cap hit.

Kippursoff - Very good goalie, probably put him on par with Luongo. It's anyones guess who will have the better season. But again, higher cap hit.

Miller - See Kipper.

Halak - for a guy who lost his starting position to Brian Elliot this year i don't think i'd bet on him out playing Luongo next year.

you also mentioned Bryzgalov? And you have an issue with Luongos mental stability???? :picard: Plus again, he has a higher cap hit. I don't think anyone would rather have Bryzgalov over Luongo. Contract n all.

What does this list of players even prove? Most of them have a higher cap hit. Sure a shorter contract but as i've pointed out with multiple reasons, the length of the Luongo contract isn't really a huge issue when you think about it, with the out clauses and potential easy buyout.

Whether we keep Luongo or Schneider, i trust MG's decision. But my point is, Luongos contract is just fine if you actually look at how it's layed out. MG did a brilliant job circumventing the cap. In a salary cap world, cap hit is everything.

If you want to agree to disagree that's fine, as this could probably go on forever.

EDIT: Sorry for going off topic a wee bit.

Edited by DirtyHarry, 28 May 2012 - 08:59 PM.

Posted Image

#109 70seven

70seven

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,262 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 09

Posted 28 May 2012 - 09:45 PM

You're right, but it's not about Yzerman being an idiot as much as it's about getting the best for our team. Who gives a FK about Stevie?

The point 70seven was making (and sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth) is that Lecalvier alone isn't worth Luongo so why the hell would we trade straight up for him.

After all, we aren't idiots here either right?



Thankyou...

Im not suggesting that Yzerman would trade Hedman. Im suggesting that in order to take on Lecavalliers contract, TB will have to overpay to get rid of it.

10 million per season (7.727 cap hit) for 50-60 point center <<<<< 6.714 million per season (5.3 cap hit) for top 10 goalie

Lecavallier still has 55 million over 8 years of term remaining on his deal. Lui has 47 million with 10 more years of term. The odds of Lecavalier collecting most of that cash is better than that of Luongo, not to mention that goalies high level of play longevity is far greater than a forwards, thus justifying Luongos future earnings.

SO.. you are going to have to likley pay an extra 10-15 million dollars, while taking on another 2.5 million of cap hit per season for a player who most likley wont play at as high a level for as long... ... Its not a deal worth making straight across, unless we dump an amount of cash in a player (Ballard) that can actually help Tampa, and get something sweet in return. Substitute Connolly if you like, but thats what it would take.

Also consider that owners hav a say in the matter aswell. Its not just the about GM for clubs who decide they want to rid themselves of a bad contract. Ive heard a many stories from ex-GMs that are phoned up and told to do whatever it took to get rid of a specific contract, including parting with future assets. Tis a business, not a game.

#110 Canucklehead420

Canucklehead420

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 04

Posted 29 May 2012 - 11:05 AM

I like how you tell me to explain, when you can't explain yourself and just use other points from someone else. I know exactly what type of contract this is, and the idiot is you. And I won't need the "luck".

The contract is bad, there's no doubt. You can give me a hundred irrelevant reasons and go into the numbers and statistics but it won't matter. Only a biased and unreasonable Canuck fan would think the contract is good.

Luongo is ALREADY 33, he is beginning to decline. He isn't a top 5 goalie anymore. Yes, goalies can play until an old age, but not all goalies can still play at a high level like Brodeur and Thomas at that kind of age He has 10 more years left in his contract. This is a player who WILL decline in a few more years, and will be lucky to still be a top 10 goalie 2 years from now. He will be a liability in 3/4 years and will be a backup goalie making 5.3 M. With that kind of money you can easily pursue a quality top six forward, or a top four defenseman. Why waste that type of money on a backup? And not many teams can afford to buyout contracts, or want to in the first place. Same with waivers, not every team is willing to place a 5.3M liability in the minors for an X amount of years.

So tell me now, in what way is Luongo's contract NOT bad? I'm sure teams are craving a 33 year old, past his prime goalie with inflated stats from playing on the best team for back to back years, who has 10 more years left on his contract at a hefty amount at 5.3 Million. Answer me, do you think Bryzgalov's contract is bad?


its his caphit that is 5.3M his salary drops off significantly in 4 seasons. the last 4 years of his deal his salary is 3.3, 1.6 1.0 1.0

you think maybe his play has had an impact on us being the best team? certainly not our pourous D that makes us presidents trophy winners

Edited by Canucklehead420, 29 May 2012 - 11:08 AM.


#111 Buttock

Buttock

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 29 May 2012 - 03:01 PM

You don't think that rich teams go out and massively overpay for players as it is?? This happens all the time.... it wouldn't just start happening out of the blue if the cba was changed. It wouldn't matter if teams have the option to buy out a player or not, New York, Toronto etc will be throwing money at players regardless. Its not like Florida is on an even playing field with the way it works right now....

And in "real life" if you were payed a certain wage your employer would expect you to live up to specific expectations, so if you all of a sudden only put in 50% of the effort you would most likely be fired. Why then do you think that millionaire athletes should be exempt from this?

Theres a reason why alot of players play better in a contract year, because they know they have to perform at a certain level... just like the rest of us do daily. If somebody gave you 5 million dollars a year or more and said it was guaranteed regardless of what you did, do you think you would put in as much effort compared to if it could be taken away at any given moment?

Being an athlete is a privelage, and the fact that 100% of what they do is based on performance why should they be guaranteed anything?


It's not a privilege. Coaches and GM's get their salaries even if they are fired, why should players not? Even more to the point, should it work both ways - if you think a team should be able to cancel or renegotiate a contract, should a player? It's only fair. Think about that.

Of course rich teams overpay players, and each time the Rangers are allowed to bury or rid themselves of a Redden, Drury or Gomez contract without consequence it only encourages them to go do it again, and that drives up the salary expectations of ALL free agents. I didn't say you would see rich teams overpaying players out of the blue, I said it would exacerbate the problem.

LET'S TALK LECAVALIER:

Go to capgeek.com and make a roster out of a Luongo for Lecavalier swap, and you will see why I am against it for cap reasons. It puts us in cap hell, we don't have any rookies on ELC's waiting to step in, we can't improve the defense or sign a decent fourth line, even if we magically make Malhotra and Ballard disappear - and the difference between being tight up against the cap for a contract like Rick Nash's and being tight up against it for a contract like Lecavalier's is that Lecavalier is half the player!

#112 Buttock

Buttock

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 29 May 2012 - 03:07 PM

Now, LET'S TALK LUONGO:

We simply aren't going to agree here. The only ones who would ever contemplate a Lu for Vinny swap are haters. They just don't think we can win with him, so they want to go with the other guy even if it's not the best way to improve the rest of the team. Now, I don't think he's declining in fact. And I think that for the goaltending he gives you, his contract is one of the most cap friendly in the league. But some will disagree. Some are worried about four years down the road when we will have "missed our chance" to trade him, because they can predict the future and think Luongo is going to be a really bad goalie in four years. Still others think he sucks today! I don't know what to say to those people, except that if you are really so convinced that this contract is THAT BAD, you'll be taken more seriously if you aren't in the same breath advocating that we pick up a contract that just about everyone else is convinced is EVEN WORSE.

#113 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,219 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 29 May 2012 - 05:06 PM

A note to "JOHNTAVARES": calling someone an "idiot" does wonders for your credibility .. that is all .. :P

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#114 JamesTW

JamesTW

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 10

Posted 29 May 2012 - 05:42 PM

Simply put: You won't get a high quality top six forward or top pair d-man for Luongo. Delusional Canuck fans these days...

I don't know it depends on what the team trading with Vancouver needs and at which point in their career the player coming over is at. Luongo is an all-star calibre goalie but you'd be looking at 30+ year old high calibre player coming back. A good option would be to make a risky trade for a young player who has potential but has underperformed with perhaps some picks coming back. Schneider would definitely be worth a top pairing d-man plus picks or a top three forward but that is only because he is so much younger than Luongo and most likely has a lot more years ahead of him. Luongo doesn't have an albatross contract, his cap hit is actually fairly mediocre for starting goalies especially when you see Pekka Rinne's 7 million dollar cap hit next season. Compared to other goalies who have been consistantly as good as him over the last ten years that still have several years left to play he's a steal, oh wait there is nobody left in that category other than Luongo (Brodeur has one year left maybe two).

#115 JamesTW

JamesTW

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 10

Posted 29 May 2012 - 05:45 PM

It's not a privilege. Coaches and GM's get their salaries even if they are fired, why should players not? Even more to the point, should it work both ways - if you think a team should be able to cancel or renegotiate a contract, should a player? It's only fair. Think about that.

Of course rich teams overpay players, and each time the Rangers are allowed to bury or rid themselves of a Redden, Drury or Gomez contract without consequence it only encourages them to go do it again, and that drives up the salary expectations of ALL free agents. I didn't say you would see rich teams overpaying players out of the blue, I said it would exacerbate the problem.

LET'S TALK LECAVALIER:

Go to capgeek.com and make a roster out of a Luongo for Lecavalier swap, and you will see why I am against it for cap reasons. It puts us in cap hell, we don't have any rookies on ELC's waiting to step in, we can't improve the defense or sign a decent fourth line, even if we magically make Malhotra and Ballard disappear - and the difference between being tight up against the cap for a contract like Rick Nash's and being tight up against it for a contract like Lecavalier's is that Lecavalier is half the player!

You're overating Lecavalier, sure as far as talent goes they are roughly equal but it's Nash's will to win and tenacity that make Lecavelier not even worth comparing to him. Twice, Nash is easily worth four times the 2 million dollar cap hit Lecavelier is worth.

Edited by JamesTW, 29 May 2012 - 05:46 PM.


#116 JamesTW

JamesTW

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 10

Posted 29 May 2012 - 05:54 PM

Luongo posted a 0.919 save percentage this year, you know his career average, last year he posted a .928. If he was declining like some apparantly mathematically illeterate people are saying you would expect his numbers from the past two seasons to be at least 1 percent (.010)lower than his career average not equal to or better than it. To further prove my point Luongo's save percentage in Vancouver is .920 while in Florida it was .919 (statistically insignificant but absolute proof he is not declining) and his save percentage from the last two seasons is well over .920 showing he is in fact improving. And Tim Thomas wasn't even good enough to play in the NHL as a back up until 5 years ago and has had 2 stellar seasons and two mediocre seasons, he doesn't exactly compare to Luongo if you want to take their entire hockey careers into account.

#117 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 29 May 2012 - 06:15 PM

1. Nobody knows what ye future will bring. Lu has a great chance of being a great goalie at 40. VL could perform well for 5-6 years easy.

2. It's not about the cap hit itself, but whether u can afford it. Of course we have screwed our space by taking under performing Ballard and Booth... Wouldn't u rather have VL who can at least perform in the playoffs????? Earth to capologists...

#118 Get real canuck fans

Get real canuck fans

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 08

Posted 29 May 2012 - 09:17 PM

Luongo posted a 0.919 save percentage this year, you know his career average, last year he posted a .928. If he was declining like some apparantly mathematically illeterate people are saying you would expect his numbers from the past two seasons to be at least 1 percent (.010)lower than his career average not equal to or better than it. To further prove my point Luongo's save percentage in Vancouver is .920 while in Florida it was .919 (statistically insignificant but absolute proof he is not declining) and his save percentage from the last two seasons is well over .920 showing he is in fact improving. And Tim Thomas wasn't even good enough to play in the NHL as a back up until 5 years ago and has had 2 stellar seasons and two mediocre seasons, he doesn't exactly compare to Luongo if you want to take their entire hockey careers into account.


Is more about 3.59 2,56 3.22 gaa the last 3 playoffs.
The team has been so much better the last 2 years so his numbers should be the best the have ever been.
The Canucks scored first probably more than any other team the last 2 years, so the team does not have to abandon playing defence because they are behind.
On the very same team in 33 games last year Cory posted a gaa .16 better than Lu has ever had and a better save% than he ever had. In Corys 2 seasons combined including playoffs his gaa and save % is better than any 1 year Lu has had.
Goals are down and goalies are better throughout the league and Lu staying the same will only allow more goalies to surpass him.
In a few short years Thomas has 2 more Vezinas,1 more Conn Smythe and 1 more Cup than Lu will ever have.




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.