Canuck Surfer Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 A money deal, and it would be the money that attracts Florida but still helps them(???); Bjugstad and Campbell for Lou, Ballard and a first? Why, because as many puck moving (via the pass) D we have; we do not have a puck carrying guy who can lug the puck under pressure! Half Ballard's salary (3 years) + Campbell's (4 years) is $34.6 for a component we desperately need. With them absorbing 1/2 Campbell's cap we actually save nearly $700K in cap space on Ballard and all of Lou's! And Campbell / Connauton gives us plenty of depth if Edler remains injured or does not re-sign (and if he does not we are already nearly at the next year's cap threshold!). Edler / Campbell (matched with the Twins, we might never actually spend time in our D zone ) Hamhuis/Bieksa Connauton / Garrison That looks pretty frickin dynamite to me with Lou's cap hit to spend on any short term help at forward for a run this year. We would still have Bjugstad, Jensen, Connauton and Kassian to keep us vibrant over time. Aquilinni would recover almost all Campbell's $34 mill this year? And hopefully they have a good memory, and remember Bally was pretty effective for them for their comparable $6.3 mill investment over 3 years. And then they have HEAPS of money to find more good players to be effective! Ok, OK, Florida still wants to make the playoff's next year, but this trade makes waaay more sense than Lecavalier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I have always agreed with your posts Provost, but the take it or leave it offer that ends the lockout is instant rollbacks. The NHLPA wants what your proposing but the NHL said no way. There will be some small changes to the NHL's proposal, but when it comes to rollbacks they said it is not negotiable. The offer is on the NHL's main site. I will post a link to it so you can understand what is being offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Can we not find a player for $27.5 mill who would be as useful as Lecavalier though? Sooner or later Aquilinni, instead of idiot fans or his GM has to ask this question. We too actually have to pay real dollars! So we take all $55 mill owing on Vinny's deal, and 1/2 Lou's (what $40 mill remaining?) and that's $75 mill for Lecavalier! Can I sell u a bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 What is a Cup worth to you? If the mechanism to retain contract dollars and not have to count salary towards the cap is available in the next CBA, I can virtually guarantee that we will be making full use of it. I suspect it will also help us stock some young prospects, as if we are relieving a poor team of dollars... we will get value for that. With a reduced 50% split to players, an already ridiculously lucrative Canucks franchise makes even more. The savings Aquilini would have is significantly more than taking on half a Lecavalier contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yikes. Kadri and Lecavalier. "If Nazem Kadri is serious about a career in hockey, he’d better get serious about his diet. So says Dallas Eakins, head coach of the Toronto Marlies, who left the Maple Leafs first-round pick and the rest of his charges gasping for air after a litany of fitness tests on Friday. “The one thing Kadri has to improve is his eating habits,” said Eakins. “His body fat today is probably in the bottom three to five guys in our whole camp. That’s unacceptable." http://www.thestar.c...at-marlies-camp Why would the Canucks need this undersized, soft kid who simply doesn't work hard? Where would Kadri fit in the lineup? He's the antithesis of a third line center, and with all due respect, is he top 6 material? The Canucks have a speedy, skilled, two way guy in Schroeder, with far more grit, who I certainly would not give the Leafs one for one for Kadri, and a pair of 1st and 2nd round draft picks at center just acquired in this year's draft, who fit the bill much better in terms of the types of players the Canucks need in the near future. A serious no thanks on Kadri. Kyle Wellwood would probably be a better option haha. And Lecavalier? Forget his contract - some people here have suggested (with absolutely no statistical evidence) that Luongo is declining... Lecavalier has his Cup, he has his lifetime contract, he has insane money guaranteed, he seems to lack incentive, and if you want to talk decline, how about 92 points, 67, 70, 54, 49 over his last five seasons (and a combined -49). Tampa's top 6 isn't exactly chopped liver, meaning 49 points playing with those guys doesn't really impress... By comparison, Higgins and Hansen had 82 points on the third line in Vancouver, play solid two way hockey, were +29, and made 1.9 and 1.35 million. Not to mention that I've seen these two guys tossed in as extras in a Luongo deal for some pretty pathetic returns. Kadri is a 1.72 million cap hit... and Lecavalier? Some of the same people here complaining (endlessly) about Gillis, proposing to waste Luongo on these kinds of assets. Thank gawd Gillis is the guy making this deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 So do you want Lecavalier or not? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 It wouldn't be my first choice... it was an illustration of how the new system would work with the ability to retain cap/salary and opens up a ton of trade options for Luongo that didn't exist. I think it would be a better choice AND more likely that it would allow us to move Luongo to Florida and keeping some of his salary. we could take on one of their worse value contracts like Upshall at half the cap hit... plus get a young guy like Bjugstad thrown in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Why on earth would Gillis put him on waivers and lose him for nothing? That's one of the stupidest ideas I've heard. Gillis: "If you don't accept this trade to Toronto, I'll put you on waivers. Maybe Columbus would like to pick you up?" Luongo: "I call your bluff. You'd never put me on waivers and lose me for nothing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 If the offers are as being reported... with Burke willing to give even less now than in July, we would be better off waiving him. There are thoughts coming out of Toronto that Luongo has negative value and not only do we not get a decent piece back... we have to take on some of their overpaid crap in return for the Leafs doing us the favour of taking one of the top 10 goalies on the planet off our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I gave you a +1 cause of the Lecavalier stuff but I disagree on the Kadri stuff. After watching the game tonight he looks fine to me. His offensive skill is clearly there, he just has an abililty to make things happen, I dont think he is really that soft, he is probably just as tough as Schroeder (even I love Schroeder) I think the leafs have pushed him down way too long, and I dont really think there is an evidence to support this theory that his defensive game is a weakness. Yes he's not a defensive specialist at all but When he was there last year he was a +2, playing on that bad of a team, with that goaltending/defense and he doesn't have anymore turns over's than the next guy. Then they have guys go 20 games without a goal and are a huge minus, but this guy keeps getting buried by that team. They just have treated him badly, if they kept him up there he would be fine. With players like Higgins and Hansen helping him along, aswell as the 2nd PP time, his offensive game could been given an opportunity to shine through, and he would get better defensively, grit wise just playing with those players alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 For those pumping Vinny his best before date is overdue. Refer to the ecoli scare for details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I dont think we will get Bjugstad, because if we did I think the deal would have been done along time ago, I dont think getting guys like Upshall or Goc or whatever other's pieces we want were the issue, I just think MG really wanted Bjugstad in it and Tallon wasn't willing to go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I gave you a +1 cause of the Lecavalier stuff but I disagree on the Kadri stuff. After watching the game tonight he looks fine to me. His offensive skill is clearly there, he just has an abililty to make things happen, I dont think he is really that soft, he is probably just as tough as Schroeder (even I love Schroeder) I think the leafs have pushed him down way too long, and I dont really think there is an evidence to support this theory that his defensive game is a weakness. Yes he's not a defensive specialist at all but When he was there last year he was a +2, playing on that bad of a team, with that goaltending/defense and he doesn't have anymore turns over's than the next guy. Then they have guys go 20 games without a goal and are a huge minus, but this guy keeps getting buried by that team. They just have treated him badly, if they kept him up there he would be fine. With players like Higgins and Hansen helping him along, aswell as the 2nd PP time, his offensive game could been given an opportunity to shine through, and he would get better defensively, grit wise just playing with those players alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 In fairness, so is Luongo's. Vinny's actually a reasonable idea, but I don't think that he'd be interested in coming to Vancouver. There were the Montreal rumors a few years ago, and I think there were actually even some pretty strong Calgary rumors a year or so ago. He's got the NTC, and it doesn't look like he appears to have any interest in playing in a pressure-cooker environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 That's crap - pure and simple. Nothing in Luongo's numbers indicate any sort of decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 To repeat (you always seem to need to review things numerous times) Luongo's last two seasons: 2010-11.928 sv% (3rd amongst starting goaltenders), 38 wins, 15 losses, 2.11 gaa (2nd amongst starting goaltenders) 2011-12.919 sv%(9th amongst starting goaltenders), 31 wins, 14 losses, 2.41 gaa (11th amongst starting goaltenders) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I've added some key information to your numbers, to show that on a relative basis, Lu's 2011-12 was actually a pretty significant decline. In '06-'07, Luongo's first year with us, his SVP of .921 was 2nd amongst NHL starters, and his GAA of 2.29 was 5th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Lecavalier is a reasonable idea because he would make us better IMMEDIATELY, unlike your foolish Nick Bjugstad wish (a 6'5" C...of course...must be the next Lindros). Some people, like myself and Provost, want to see the Canucks actually win a Stanley Cup, which this would do. Would Lecavalier make us a better team? Yes. Would Lecavalier thus increase our chances at winning a Cup? Yes. Would it be a reasonable thing to do to acquire him for our backup goaltender? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Take this for what it is worth, I don't really care if you guys believe me or not: So I go to the U of Windsor and am in my MBA, today we had a guest speaker on leadership skills... Richard Peddie, former president and CEO of the MLSE, he is UofW alumni. His speech was pretty interesting, and he made some jokes at Brian Burke's expense. (I guess BB is going to be coming to campus in February, a speech I will not be missing.) One funny story was that when BB first came to Toronto Peddie had the luxury of giving BB his first performance review, Burke laughed in his face and said he hadn't had a performance review since he was in Law school, Peddie said to him that he probably should have. Now they are great friends, hang out a few times a month, and Peddie still has knowledge on the running and management of the leafs. After his speech he was talking to students and I pretty much said, "great speech, and It is really nice to meet you, but I want to talk hockey." he laughed and essentially said Burke has 2 strong offers for Lu, one involving and one not involving "a very valuable" non-player asset.(My speculation is 1st rounder) He believes they will have Luongo on the team come season start, and had very high praise for Lu which was nice to hear. He was also very excited today as the NHL offer had just been made out to the public about an hour prior to his talk. So take that for what its worth, I wouldn't lie, but he may have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 If you bothered to read the thread for a couple of pages you would possibly understand. The whole subject was how a new CBA clause allowing a team to retain a salary or retain cap would dramatically alter the trade market... especially for a guy like Luongo. So the fact it hadn't been done under the old rules is entirely meaningless. The long term cash outlay for a Luongo contract is a scary prospect for some of the teams that are in the market... if you remove that barrier the interest level and value goes up. Compound that with our ability to take a bad value contract back and only eat half the cap hit... suddenly there are many deals to be made. If that clause goes in (and not the punishing one about long term contracts), MG is going to look like a genius as his return for Luongo will be way bigger than he could have gotten in July. Just imagine how many suitors... including us... would have been interested in Nash if he was only a $3.9 million cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.