Darth Kane Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 No rly? But I wouldn't expect Chicago fans to understand what to do when you have 2 great goalies, while u haven't had 1 in along time. And people talk about trading luongo because it could happen but to say you won't give fair value because we apparently have to move him is rediculous. Have fun with Crawford and.... and... what's that other guy's name... oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayray2112 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 We had a great goalie in 2010 when we won the Cup. It's too bad our GM was asleep at the wheel and let Wilson scoop him up (indirectly via the offer sheet to Hjalmarsson. With Crawford, he may bounce back and have a solid year like 10/11. Bud sadly he could repeat 11/12. I wouldn't oppose a goalie upgrade but the price needs to be right. I hope you gets get a tonne for Luongo, I just hope it's not from us. But in the meantime I would be interested in Lack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 When I say "not giving up much" I'm not referring to Luongo's abilities or accomplishments. But the reality of the situation is that Luongo is now your back-up, so for 60-70 games he won't play. Which means you'd be giving up a goalie who's going to play 20 games for you in exchange for an cup winning forward who'll give you 70 games and 30 goals. The fact that Luongo wants out diminishes his trade value (trade value and actual value are different). Look at the return Columbus got for Nash, it was 3 third lines who's point totals combined to Nash's. Do you think Luongo will bring you more than Nash brought Columbus? I don't. I'm not trying to take away anything from Luongo, he's a great goalie but I'm not about to give up Toews or Sharp or Kane or Hossa or Bolland. Keep in mind that we already have 2 crazy long contracts with Keith and Hossa, I don't think the Hawks want a 3rd (before you ask I wouldn't trade Keith or Hossa either). I see your point about our young talent, but the problem with that is none of them are proven and Sharp is. Teravainen, Saad, and Morin could be top 6 guys, but maybe they're not. I'd say we'd miss Sharp greatly, Q leans on Sharp/Hossa/Toews/Kane a lot (too much some might say), just look at what happened after we lost Hossa in the playoffs last year. If Gillis wants to get a top return for Luongo he'll have to trade him to the East, and Florida makes the most sense. I think Gillis would be hesitant to deal with Chicago anyway. Can you imagine the two teams meeting in the playoffs with Chicago and Luongo winning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The fact that he's now our so called "back up" doesn't take anything away from his trade value. Right now the trade market is zero, and will remain that way until the CBA is successfully renegotiated. Gillis doesn't have to move Luongo, at all. Not right away, and he's certainly not going to give him away for next to nothing. I'd say once the season starts, and it's 1-2 months into it (especially if there's a shortened season) Luongo's gonna look mighty tasty to the Blackhawk fans if Crawford continues to soil the bed sheets. Gillis will gladly pluck Sharp, Saad and a 1st from Bowman in return for Luongo and Raymond, because that's what it will take and there will be a flood of demand for Luongo's services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Niemi isn't that great, your offense brought you the cup. Lack isn't going anywhere, can't just trade all our goalies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayray2112 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Niemi was solid, I have no complaints about him. Trade Lack and keep Luongo and Schneider. I keep hearing that Gillis doesn't have to trade Luongo so why doesn't he just keep him and get something for Lack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 Saad isn't going anywhere. One thing you need to understand about the Hawks is that they love to market their up and coming stars. Saad is the latest marketing gem and Stan isn't trading him, he's already penned into the top 6 in Chicago. At first it was Sharp for Luongo, now Raymod is apparently worth Saad (our #1 prospect) plus a first? If you think you can get a player of Sharp's caliber for Luongo then best of luck. Gillis is not dealing from a position of strength, even if he feels he doesn't have to trade Luongo. I'm not trying to troll or rain on your parade but the discussion is about trades between Chicago and Vancouver. Many of you are representing Vancouver's side and I'm representing Chicago. Where does reality lay? Probably somewhere in between us. But I know how the Hawks organization is and I know how much they love their "core" from a hockey and marketing perspective. It will take a lot more than Luongo to get one of the core from Chicago. Also, the Bowmans generally don't like to give goalies big fat contracts and while you can argue if that's right or wrong the fact is that becomes a deterrent to Chicago acquiring Luongo. If you're looking for a big return for Luongo them don't expect it from Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Completely skipped over the scenario in which teams (of which Chicago may become sooner than later) will inevitably pay the rightful price it will take to land Luongo. Luongo wants out sure, but Gillis isn't in the position where he's forced to trade him, not even close. So long as Aquilini is content to pay his contract Gillis will never be forced to trade him for table scraps. As it stands Luongo is under contract, and as such must report. Sulking and refusing to play would not be in his best interest, the sooner he plays, and plays well the sooner he will be traded as his value will rise. A team is only as good as it's weakest link, you can have the best core on the planet and market them to death, but a terrible goaltender is a terrible goaltender. From where I look right now, Crawford is 1 or 2 bad seasons from becoming another Chris Mason. Luongo is proven, that is why the price is so high, you know what you are getting. The Canucks very well may be taking that exact risk with Schneider, but for what it's worth Schneider thus far in his career has eclipsed what Luongo had achieved in the same time frame, a lot of that has to do with being properly groomed and having the luxury of playing in behind an elite franchise goaltender, but he still had to go out and achieve what he has earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Rivalries for the most part are for the fans benefit. Sure players may have grudges against certain others, but it's not a loathing of one organization for another, and if it is then that player or players should have their priorities adjusted. What you are referring to is a players pride to uphold the legacy of one team versus another, and it's that pride that drives the player to perform actions that might not otherwise be performed against players of different team. Many fans live vicariously through the team in which they cheer, they seemingly share in the emotional ups and downs, and by extension generate feelings of hate toward other teams for no other reason than "they beat my team". Looking at sport objectively, and specifically with hockey I am a fan of the competition between the Canucks and Team X. I don't delude myself into thinking that it goes beyond that, I can watch a game, be mad at isolated incidents and once the game's over I move on. To blame another team for our own teams failures and call it a rivalry is mundane, but hey if that's what floats your boat all the power to ya, it takes all different kinds of folk to run the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayray2112 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Every time I've seen a situation where a player wants out of a team they never receive fair market value in return. Gillis may get a better return by waiting but it won't be from Chicago. I'm not knocking Luongo or the Canucks, I'm just trying to be realistic about the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Lindros? Staal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Burrows 14 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 hahahahahahahahahahahaha there is no way chicago does this. i proposed getting sharp a few weeks ago and everyone said sharp was waaaaaay too valuable to be traded and u thjink they would trade him fo a slight upgrade on d, a low first round pick and a decent propect? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TACIC Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Ha ha! I hear you on that. What would be your realistic offer for Sharp be? Please no Ballard, Edler. Luongo or Malhotra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TACIC Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 If we want to talk about a realistic trade between Chicago and Vancouver involving a goalie let's talk about Eddie Lack, what would yo want for him? Jeremy Morin or Brandon Pirri? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayray2112 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Exactly. Neither player brought their originating teams fair value in return but Quebec got lucky with Forsberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamic_canuck21 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Kesler,Schroeder,Hansen and a first for Bolland ,Sharp,5th and maybe Mayers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TACIC Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 LOL!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TACIC Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 LOL!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamic_canuck21 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 At what :musta: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamic_canuck21 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 oh I see How about a 2nd instead of a first and add a third for then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.