You're forgetting about the other factors. Florida has no money. I'm sure that the idea of a goalie with a lot of upside on an ELC intrigues them. Markstrom was the 31st overall pick in '08, put up ridiculous numbers in the AHL, and was also very, very good in his 7 NHL games played last year. He might not be as far off as you think.
Completely disagree on the first argument here. The cap has only gone in one direction for many years -- up, up, up. That means, in FLA's case, their cap floor also goes up. By some accounts, not factoring in impossible-to-know new CBA projections, the team cap floor could be $54 million. Budget constricting teams like Florida are becoming squeezed to meet the expanding cap. And remember that it was considerably lower when Florida panicked before, trading for Campbell's $7 million per. At the time, most were scratching their heads. But when you need to throw around money, even if you don't want to, you're liable to have to overpay for players who aren't key pieces for your future. Two years ago, they had to do more of the same for multiple
players. If you're gonna spend the dough, may as well take on a player that makes sense. As for Lu's contract length -- Salary floor will most likely keep going up, considering the NHL's revenue growth. That 5.3 million will look even better in 3-5 years.
As to Markstrom, again it's all hope. 7 games? Remember my arguments vis-a-vis Holtby and Reimer? At least the latter two have been in the fire a bit longer.
And even then, would Florida care? Are they that motivated to win, right now? Probably not. Given their youth, it would probably be ideal for Markstrom to grow with their core. A backup/Schneider-esque role to Clemmensen over the next two seasons would probably be most ideal for them.
Yes, they're motivated to win, because they need the money that even a first round gate would provide. And as we've seen with playoffs, especially last year, even if you hit the #8 seed, you can go four rounds. I'm sure LA's owners, AND Florida's last year, would trade a possible benefit down the road for 9 more sold-out gates in Apr-May-June.
As for growing with the core, Luongo would be there for another 6-8 years. Lots of growing with the skaters in front of him in that time.The two teams are in different stages. Washington barely made the playoffs last year, and are pretty entrenched in a downturn, while the Canucks have won two straight President's Trophy's and have a core that's a lot older than Washington's.
King of the ES --Holtby is unproven, yes. But maybe they'd rather take the gamble and see what they've got. Reasonable, no? --
A downturn, you say, yet they went farther in the playoffs last year than in their Ovie "glory" days. Holtby getting hot at the right time just cements the fact that goaltending is crucial, especially in the playoffs. People pick on Semin's and Ovechkin's lack of effort in past playoffs, but their goaltending also let them down. Backstrom had a puzzling season. If he gets back on track, even with the improvements other teams have made in their division ( it's a soft grouping), they'll be formidable. Having Luongo as a 65 game starter (over an unproven Holtby in the long season slog) could certainly boost Washington's chances of doing something special in a conference not exactly rife with powerhouses (NYR excepted), especially since Crosby's one hit away from another long layoff.
Again, I remind you who their GM is. How many consecutive years were people bickering about Dan Cloutier while he was here? Brian Burke is one stubborn SOB, and he has publicly defended Reimer in nearly identical ways that he used to do with Cloutier. I don't doubt that they'd like to have him, but I'm not sure that Luongo would go there, for one, and I'm not sure that Burke is prepared to give up very much to get him, for two.
First off, it's ridiculous to compare Reimer with Cloutier. As much as people on CDC love to ridicule and bash Cloutier, I'd wager that many of them never saw the long service Cloutier gave us during his stay here. Probably the infamous centre ice playoff gaffe has a lot to do with it. But Cloutier had many good regular season years. (I agree he was less than sensational in the post-season.) Reimer hasn't even had ONE full solid season yet. And in fact, he's regressed badly.
You must be kidding with putting any stock in Burke's defense of Reimer. Burke, as a lawyer, is an intelligent and practised liar. Everything he says is for his own perceived benefit with how it goes down. Just like Columbus with Mason, Burke isn't going to dump on Reimer if he's looking to replace him. Doesn't help with trade value. Burke has a loooooong history of supporting players and even coaches, pugnaciously so, only to release or trade them when the right deal came along.
As to Luongo not wanting to go there: (1) pure conjecture, and (2) not relevant. This discussion hinges on who would want him, not which or how many team(s) Lu wants to waive the deal to go to.
He was awful last year, without a doubt. The worst statistical starting goalie in the NHL, if I'm not mistaken. But we all saw him in the 2011 playoffs, and he was remarkable, definitely the best goalie in the series. Again, my only point in all of these teams that I bring up is that they all have reasonable objections to getting a guy like Luongo.
Personally, based on what I saw in 2011, I think Crawford has the potential to bounce back.
Right, and I agree he could
bounce back, but don't you find it troubling that a 2nd year goalie could regress so much? Playoffs in 2011 noted, but he was even worse than his regular season 2011-2012 in last season's playoff against Phoenix. Smith was lights out, and Crawford stunk up the joint, especially in the quick overtime handouts.
Wait - first thing first, I'm not "straight-up comparing" Luongo to any of these guys. He's obviously the better goaltender than any of them. Each team needs to be evaluated in context.
With Edmonton, they drafted him 14th overall in 2004. The last two years have been pretty promising, too, especially when you consider how bad their record was (having a .914 SVP in front of Edmonton - impressive). I'm just saying that they might want to give him a shot while the team should be in a better position to win games and be consistently competitive.
Lots of teams draft higher than 14 overall and end up with a dud. Meaningless argument. At least Dubnyk has been seeing action, though. I watched quite a few Edm games last year just because their offense was exciting with their young stars in the making. He's big and covers a lot of net, but at least in the games I saw, he didn't make many "keep us in the game" saves. I know their terrible defense plays into this, but he also didn't bail them out many times, either.
As Edmonton improves with their young guns, they'll need a first rate goalie. Dubnyk's role now is negligible since Edmonton is still several years away, at least, from competing in any meaningful way. But if I were Tambellini, I wouldn't be too enthused about a Dubnyk as your starter when every regular season game actually means something.
Past Calder winner...10-shutout season...24 years old...lots of reasons to not give up on him.
He was very good. Was
being the operative word. If a goalie has four good seasons, then lays an egg, I cut him some slack. If he has one good year, then falls off, I would worry. Word on the street is that opposing teams' scouting (and scouting and analyzing goalies is much better than it used to be) has found out Mason's weaknesses. Can't recall what they were as I don't recall actually watching much of Mason, but there are many ways of looking for goalies' weak points. Go high since he stays low, fake and tuck in from the side, plenty of bodies in front 'cuz he has rebound control issues, shoot from the corners since he cheats to the front, stick side issues, in-his-face 'cuz he gets rattled easily, etc etc etc The point is that if even Luongo is weak in a few of these areas, then certainly an inexperienced Mason can be exploited when the book is finally out on him. (Btw, another reason to keep Schneider -- not too many holes in his game other than puck-handling.)
Regarding Tampa, I don't think they would've acquired Lindback if they weren't prepared to give him a shot as the starter. Rumor has it that they really wanted Schneider, actually, but Gillis was unwilling to move him.
Of course, they'll give him a shot. But, predicated on Luongo still being here until trade deadline, Lindback's body of work could be such that he'll be found unworthy of sticking with him. It's certainly a possibility.
King of the ES --And I'm not saying that Luongo isn't a huge upgrade to these other goalies; I'm saying that they all have decent arguments against his acquisition. I think that some of you are forgetting the impact that will be had on whatever organization takes Luongo. This is a 10-YEAR COMMITMENT, which will probably alter all aspects of the team, strategically. This will be an acquisition that really, really changes a franchise's landscape. If he goes to Florida, Markstrom probably has to be traded. If he goes to Toronto, Reimer probably is no longer in their future. Etc., etc.---end King of the ES
And I'll just remind you that Luongo's talent boost in contrast to the goalies we've discussed far outweight any dollars per/length worries that any new Luongo team will be on the hook for.
As already mentioned, Lu's contract will be a positive
on a team like Florida who needs to meet the cap floor.
Another thing: why is the length such a deterrant? You must know by now, since it's been explained to you countless times, that the last years of Lu's contract are essentially meaningless, $1 million or a little more. In addition, there's nothing saying that Luongo wouldn't be traded by that new team sometime in the future, too. Sure, he'd still have the no-trade (or does it get negated completely if he waives it the first time?), but another 6 years of no playoffs on his new team (even in sunny Florida with his family) could make Lu more open to jumping ship again.
edit: damm these limited quote quotas.
Edited by Barry_Wilkins, 24 September 2012 - 05:51 PM.