elvis15 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 It's not leverage for Gillis, because the Canucks don't benefit in any way by allocating $5.2M of their cap to a backup goaltender. Why do I need to keep repeating this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 And King of ES,How could Schneider's trade value be never higher than in 2011,when he has unseated a vezina candidate in 2012...to me that seems to indicate a higher value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 The only way the leverage increases is if a team that could be interested finds their goaltending is worse than expected and has to look for help in that department. The offers would get better in that case as the need would be greater. No guarantees that happens to a team that would fit with a Luongo deal, but there will be some teams that have sub par goaltending as the season wears on (Toronto, I'm looking at you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Luongo still has to agree to the destination. NYI will probably get off to a lousy start, as will CBJ and the other perennial bottom-feeders. Luongo won't be going to any of 'em. You mention Toronto, but it's been said (Botchford) that there was already a deal in place to send him there, which he vetoed. With Lu, I think it'll either be Chicago (hockey reasons) or Florida (family reasons). Can't see any reason for him to compromise on his stance. The ONE team that possibly could come out of the woodwork to be interested, if they have a terrible start, is Tampa Bay, but I doubt it, I think they'll give Lindback an opportunity to be the starter for a while and find his feet. The biggest distraction ever, far bigger than even Bure's holdout. That is not a good idea at all, and his value will only get worse by sitting on our bench. If he starts on our bench, he's going to waivers pretty soon, I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 The definition of insanity is doing something repeatedly and expecting different results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 No kidding Nuck, ES is on a one way street and theres no changing that.He's committed to his opinion and not open to anything that contradicts it. Best to ignore his posts because they are so repeatitious and just fuels his intensity and frustration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I don't think there's anyway in hell we'd risk him on waivers. We'd get nothing in return and have to eat half his cap hit for the rest of his career - no way man. If he starts on the bench he has to demonstrate he is a team guy and take it gracefully. From what I understand the Luongo-Schneider relationship is a good one, so hopefully he has no problem play behind a buddy. Your Tampa point reinforces something I said 2 pages ago, that teams out of the playoff picture 2 months in would be willing to pay Gillis's cost to acquire goaltending. For right now and up until the season starts Luongo really isn't helping his cause by opening his mouth. If the deal with Florida is still not adequate I fully expect Gillis to wait, although it's been stated by many "insiders" that there is an agreement in place, just waiting for the CBA to be figured out. If Luongo doesn't conduct himself in a professional manner, then ya maybe he gets waived. We're talking 3 months down the road where he's putting sabotage comments in the media and upsetting the locker room. This is a big IF. Of course if he does behave this way, not even bottom dwellers would be interested. Oh and his NTC is actually an NMC so he can't be waived, just bought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Agreed. Luongo should try and be a bit more professional by keeping quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks_dynasty Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I have a feeling that all MG will get for trading Luongo to FLA will be just Matthias and Clemmensen. VAN gets a 3rd line C and back up goalie. FLA will get their #1 goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, whatever, just move him! Didn't have to be as soon as the ink dried. I was saying last summer (2011) that he needed to be moved ASAP, because his trade value would never be higher. At that point, the thought of trading Luongo hadn't even been explored by anyone - rightfully so, NTC, 12-year contract and all. That's confirmation of a mistake right there, because I'm sure he's been even further underwhelmed by what's been offered for Lou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Luongo is coming back to Vancouver to practice next week. To me that means he's trying to help move the process along. Gillis is probably trying to show that he's serious about keeping both goalies if he doesn't get the right offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goal:thecup Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 It's not leverage for Gillis, because the Canucks don't benefit in any way by allocating $5.2M of their cap to a backup goaltender. Why do I need to keep repeating this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prngr44 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I don't think there's anyway in hell we'd risk him on waivers. We'd get nothing in return and have to eat half his cap hit for the rest of his career - no way man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Disagree. Schneider's value would certainly have been higher this off-season, that the one previous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prngr44 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I'd agree that whichever goalie had to go, he has passed the point of maximizing the value of return in either scenario. If you hold onto it too long, sooner or later you get handcuffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everybody Hates Raymond Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Mobile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Possibly, but that's not the point. The point is that it was extremely risky to have held both assets for this long. Gillis got greedy, and it backfired. Schneider should've been moved at any time when we got have gotten a prospect/young player of equal pedigree/expected upside. I can't really comment on that until you more precisely define "decent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 are you F@cking kidding me?! what are you on dude? learn some hockey you retard. and try actually watching canucks games cause clearly you dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I totally disagree with you. Luongo's value is a little lower due to his poor playoff performance. Other teams might use the (10 year contract) as a thing to try to reduce value, regardless Mike Gillis is a smart guy. Right now the interest might not be as high, as a lot of teams are set with their teams, and will see how their teams go as the season progresses. As that happens, some teams will realize they might need to improve their goaltending. If luongo does himself a favor, and plays good, it will increase his chance of getting traded, on top of getting more interest. He is a great goalie, and Mike Gilllis has not lost any leverage whatsoever on Luongo. Thank god you are not Gillis. There is no "timeline" only noobs like yourself will try to trade him within a timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Get real canuck fans Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 You clearly have NO IDEA what's really going on here. Nobody is saying that Luongo's a bad goalie. Do us a favor, child, and look up what "NMC" means. Remember how Dany Heatley got traded to Edmonton, and it was vetoed? That's exactly what's going on here. Luongo has that sort of control. So this whole thing has nothing to do with whether he's a good goalie, or worth his contract, or not, this is related to the fact that Roberto Luongo will not be interested in moving to probably 25/30 teams, meaning that we cannot trade him to them. You're forgetting that for this trade to happen, two things need to be at play:Goaltending need of the trade partnerA willingness by Luongo to move there Like I've said thousands of times before in this thread, Columbus can get off to the worst start in NHL history, they could offer the Canucks the moon, Roberto ain't goin' there. Do you see how the NMC is the key factor in this whole thing? VERY, VERY few teams for Mike Gillis to converse with. Probably only Florida, really, as I do believe that Roberto blocked a trade sending him to Toronto in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.