EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I'm not speaking for the markets, but Darren Dreger is, is he not? Or is he only credible when it's a good news story about the Canucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 If the Canucks were merely trying to "dump" Luongo's salary, they would have done so by now. The Luke Schenn deal, which you seem to be so convinced was actually made, would have been accepted. The Canucks would have acquired a useful, hard hitting, right-handed defenseman (even though you think that is irrelevant) and saved 2 million in annual salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 But sure lets go with Darren Dreger is speaking for the markets. He's a journalist...it's still meaningless in terms of actually speaking for the markets. You however are still choosing to input your opinion as fact. You've found someone to hitch your opinion onto but that doesn't really change anything. So yeah I stand by my previous statement. The bottom line here is that seeing Luongo as a cap dump is foolish. You've as much as championed the effort to say his cap hit is good and he's a great goaltender. In fact you're entire play here is that Gillis would have no problems trading Luongo except that Luongo "holds all the cards". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 OK, well, if seeing Luongo as a cap dump is foolish, then just know that you're calling Darren Dreger a fool. You're claiming to be more knowledgeable than he is. If that's what you believe, fine. My take throughout this is/was that I'm not surprised that something like this is/was happening. The teams that could most use Lou (CBJ & NYI) are teams that he's not going to accept a trade to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Maybe Gillis thought that Burke was balking at the JVR alternative, I don't know. Maybe Gillis just doesn't like Schenn. Maybe Gillis just thinks Luongo is worth a lot more. ...partly. If Florida's offering us Jovanovski for Luongo, that's not really a "hockey trade", is it? Florida clearly gets the better player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 How can they both be true when you've discredited one previously? You've said before that his contract isn't a factor when it's been brought up. Not pathetic King...just true. You've contradicted yourself so many times and all so that you can continue down the road of vilifying Gillis. It always comes back around to that. It's fine though if you're saying they are both true then you are essentially saying you were wrong before which is fine. While Luongo holds cards because of how his contract was laid out it essentially doesn't mean much. I disagree with you about his cap hit but it may be a factor to some teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 You say Luongo is a Cap dump, but Gillis might not like Schenn and Louie is worth a lot more. This is what the rest of us have been arguing all along. Gillis wants value for Luongo, not just to be rid of his Cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 In answer to your other question, (directed as the rest of us) I have said all along that it's Bjugstad plus another prospect (preferably Petrovic) or bust. If Tallon doesn't bite now, we'll see how he feels when the trade deadline rolls around and he's on the outside looking in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Seriously, this "contradicting" crap has got to stop. I have not been contradicting myself at all. SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT LUONGO'S CONTRACT IS A NON-FACTOR IN THIS DEAL, if I've been contradicting myself this whole time. And I expect to receive an apology when you don't find anything. For the last time, the contract is a factor, and that includes all elements of it; the length, the cap hit, the NTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 When Tallon looks at the standings at the trade deadline and sees what he is competing against, he is going to feel far more pressure to make a deal than Gillis will. The Canucks franchise does not live and die with playoff berths. Fans will always return. The same cannot be said of the Panthers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Nope no apology at all King. You have said that Luongo is a great player and his contract is fair and doesn't matter. You've stated that Luongo has publicly asked for a trade to spite Gillis and you've said the reason Gillis won't get what he wants is because Luongo holds all the cards. Sorry King...it seems you've become worked up over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Ahh, someone's trying to hide his previously strong assertion. "Doesn't matter" means what, exactly? It matters VERY MUCH in the context of this deal, which is what I've been speaking of this whole time. The whole "controls where he goes", thing? THAT IS PART OF HIS CONTRACT. Did you read that? CON-TRACT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Your entire scenario is under the assumption of the Canucks doing great, and the Panthers doing poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 How difficult is it to understand that if I'm saying the cap hit isn't the problem the contract is that I'm clearly talking about the REST OF the contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 ...a far more likely scenario than the opposite. Especially considering the upgrades in Carolina and the off year last season by Tampa Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Still waiting on those brilliant proposals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 The cap hit is part of the contract. It's part of what makes the contract the contract. His cap hit is what it is because he's signed until the next ice age. Otherwise, it'd be far higher. So if you're saying, "it's not the cap hit, it's the length", what you're really saying is that it's the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Still waiting on those brilliant proposals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 How about the upgrades in Minnesota & Edmonton? How about Calgary adding a new coach, Wideman, and Hudler? I wouldn't be so sure that the Canucks will be the powerhouse that they were the last two seasons, nor would I be so sure that Florida would be in the position that you're assuming they'll be in. And you've gotta think that if Florida is in a bad position at the deadline, one of the bottom spots in the conference, perhaps, they might well just concede to run with their youth - namely, Jakob Markstrom. See what he's got. If they really suck, what's 34 year-old Roberto Luongo going to do for them, anyway? He couldn't lead them to the playoffs at 25, what makes you think it'll happen a decade later? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to give a highly-touted guy like Markstrom a shot, to grow with their other influx of good young players? What I seem to be the only one doing is looking at the transaction from the other side's perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhinogator Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 King of ES, are your arguments so fragile that you need to pick out grammatical mistake in another's post to pump your tires a little? Com'on, those antics are for highschool students. Losing a debate sucks, however, you'll just get looked down upon if you don't admit your mistakes. Learn how adults discuss, before you vilify this post anymore than you already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.