• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      Forum-specific Rules   07/11/2017

      These are board specific rules for the Trades and Rumors forum designed to provide organization and a better experience for everyone. Please review these rules before posting new threads. 
        THREAD ETIQUETTE   1. Please search for an existing thread before posting. This forum can be very fast moving, so it's understandable if redundant threads are inadvertently posted. In such a case, please use the report feature to request removal of redundant threads.    2. Provide a clearly identifiable topic title so that users can readily understand the content. The title should include any and all teams involved, as well as player names or other personnel involved as appropriate.   3. All trades, signings, rumors and other news MUST include a linkable source. Simply posting the name of the source is not enough. Effort should also be made to copy and paste the full article, or at the very least the relevant portion of text from the source to the first post of the thread. Moderators may remove low-quality threads in favour of high-quality threads. 

      Affixed to the front of your title should be a label that identifies the type of transaction that is taking place. For all trades use [TRADE]. For all signings use [SIGNING]. For all waiver-wire transactions use [WAIVERS]. For all rumours use [RUMOUR].
      For articles or news items that don't fit into the above categories, affix an appropriate label of your choice such as [NEWS], [ARTICLE] or [MISC].   4. When the status of a thread changes a new thread can be created. The new thread should reflect the change and help focus the discussion on current events. e.g. Someone may create a new thread when a rumor becomes a trades. The old thread will be locked by the moderating team.    5. Do not misrepresent the contents of your thread or post false trades or rumors. Trolling will result in a permanent suspension. 

      SOURCES   The following source types are considered INVALID. Any links to posts or threads on other message boards Any links to personal blogs Any news heard on the radio that does not have a link to an audio vault or podcast Any news seen on television that does not have a link to online video Any news spread by word of mouth
      Additionally, certain sources may be be blacklisted due to poor credentials, clear traffic-mongering etc. Blacklisted sources will be posted here. 
      Thank you for your co-operation and please PM the Administrator or Moderators if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding this forum.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Templeton Peck

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0

Recommended Posts

Dreger floated waivers last week.

It's the contract. Sheldon Souray and Wade Redden were put on waivers, too. Not that they're not good enough for the NHL, but because nobody wanted to touch those contracts.

It is an option, and it's actually probably Gillis' best leverage piece in this deal, since I can't imagine Luongo wanting spend the next decade in Columbus. This being a potential scenario is probably so severe that he'd accept a trade to a place like Toronto, even though he'd clearly rather be in FLA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching the Marlies vs Dogs and Wolves vs Abby I cannot say I see any sure things in Schroeder, Kadri or Colbourne. The most noticeable was Kadri. He does a pretty decent shot. Neither of those Marlies can be a center piece in any Lui trade. Throw-ins at best.

For those pumping Vinny his best before date is overdue. Refer to the ecoli scare for details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Henrik Sedin and Stamkos are the only players in the NHL to finish in the top 10 scoring the last two seasons. Daniel's concussion prevented him from joining those two guys.

Stick that in your declining pipe and puff on it. I guess the majority of the NHL is declining haha.

You never fail...to come up with another fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one should go in your top 10 of dumbest king quotes. For most people, that would be a clear #1, but for you, it just blends into the mix.

Regarding Bjugstad, like I said before, the Cancucks drafted Gaunce and Mallet - I wouldn't be surprised if they are no longer so interested in Bjugstad (and only you would compare him to Lindros on someone else's behalf.) Short term thinking and short term memory loss king. And on a similar note, it's funny how you speak for Provost / try to rope them into your claim that a Lecavalier trade would win a cup for Vancouver, "which this would do".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the point? Is he an upgrade on Schroeder? Doubtful, when you look at their all around game. If you watched the Marlies game, you likely also watched the Wolves game and got to see Schroeder's game, which is also creative - he moves the puck nicely, and does his job around Lack as well - and you would have seen Mallet's game as well, which was only one game, but very impressive imo, and not simply because of his highlights. His puck pursuit and aggressiveness all over the ice was very noticeable - I don't expect Mallet to maintain his Q production in the A, but the young guy hits very hard (highlight reel hit last night), is tough (a Heat made the mistake of dropping the gloves with him), has obvious hockey sense at both ends of the ice and offensive upside - at 20 years old (and after only 5 games) already looks comfortable at the A level - and he fits the order for a third line center much more suitably than Kadri. Kadri is not going to take Kesler's job or find any top 6 time in Vancouver. Add Gaunce to the mix and what really is the point of Kadri? If he can't crack the Leafs lineup (and it's not simply that they 'mistreat' him - he isn't a legitimate NHL top 6 or even 9 yet, and he doesn't suit a depth role), he's not going to cut it amid Hank, Kesler, Lapierre, Malhotra, Schroeder, Gaunce, Mallet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't take away from the fact that it was a decline, no matter how you want to try and spin it. Did Sedin's numbers drop in 2011 relative to 2010? YES. Did Sedin's numbers drop in 2012 relative to 2011? YES. Pretty cut and dry. Do you refute these facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are almost too obtuse sometimes to bother to respond to.

You have attempted to maintain that the Sedins and Luongo's careers are in decline. Of course, as usual, your doomsdaying is premature.One year variations occur with virtually every player in the NHL - that doesn't qualify a claim of decline.

Lecavalier (5 mere months older than the twins) has seen a six year trend - actual decline - where his numbers have dropped off by 55%.

108

92

67

70

54

49

Give your head a shake if you think there is a comparable trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything on Mallet, and Schroeder did look good.

But Kadri has been mistreated by the Leafs, and i'll prove it too you.

Kadri last season, had 7 points in 21 games and was a +2, that works out too about 25-30 points maybe more cause they were playing well you never know, and he was a +, then you look at there roster:

Matthew Lombardi had 18 points in 62 games and was -19.

Tim Connolly had 36 point's in 70 games and was -14.

Okay so Kadri was just as good as these guys, if not better, now another thing, and this is important.

Kadri was called up December 21st last year and sent down on Feburary 1st or 2nd I believe, after the Pittsburgh game on the 1st.

In that time the Leafs were (with Kadri) 10-6-2, Not a bad record, especially for them. And then after they sent him down they went 3-9-1 for the rest of Feburary.

Not mention all the complaints, that Connolly was playing terrible and didn't fit, and that Kadri should have stayed. Then they call him out again about the body fat thing. He should have stayed with the big club last year, it was stupid to send him down, they were playing well and winning then they send him down and look what happened.

Brian Burke said in his year end presser "You go back the Feburary 6th at that point we were in 6th place in the East, and chasing the 5th team, we were actually looking at the schedule to see when we could catch the team above them, And that's when the wheels fell off"

- And I would just like to point out that they hit this brick wall that derailed there season 6 Days after Kadri was sent down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

OK, so the fact that the Sedins' production has only declined for 2 consecutive years, rather than 5, means that I guess it's not a full-fledged "decline" quite yet...maybe a "decli"....

Thanks for clearing that up.

And BTW, the whole point of my initial response was to let you know that you can't SOLELY look at the numbers when considering a player's decline. Roberto Luongo arrived in Vancouver as a 27 year-old with the reputation as perhaps the best goalie in the league. He's now 33, has a shaky reputation, and is coming off of a so-so year on the President's Trophy team. If you think this is the same guy that arrived in 2006, you are dreaming. He's still very good, and I would've preferred us to keep him and trade Schneider before this whole debacle went down, as you well know, but to say that he hasn't declined at all since his arrival is just not accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waivers? Dregger is a mouthpiece for the Leafs. He's brother in law to Nonis. Dregger is losing credibility by the day. Don't pay attention to anything he says regarding Lu or the Leafs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Bjugstad, like I said before, the Cancucks drafted Gaunce and Mallet - I wouldn't be surprised if they are no longer so interested in Bjugstad (and only you would compare him to Lindros on someone else's behalf.) Short term thinking and short term memory loss king. And on a similar note, it's funny how you speak for Provost / try to rope them into your claim that a Lecavalier trade would win a cup for Vancouver, "which this would do".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest - I wouldn't take Tim Connolly off waivers. Lombardi, likewise.

They might make even less sense than Kadri, but that doesn't mean Kadri makes sense. The Canucks do not need Kadri.

You may have a point that Kadri might belong on the Leafs roster - but he doesn't belong on the Canucks roster.

Part of the Leafs problem is that the have nearly 5 million in cap space tied up in Connolly and another 3.5 in Lombardi.

To put them in the press box... The Leafs may not be mistreating him as much as waiting until he commands the ice time - and attempting to get more of a work ethic out of him in the process before rewarding him with a roster spot.

Connolly and Lombardi are likely very difficult contracts to move, but you could probably bet the Leafs tried. In any event they'll both be UFA next year...

Anyway I'm not going to argue that Kadri's not as good as those guys. What I will point out is that where the Leafs have Connolly the Canucks have Kesler. Where they have Lombardi at 3.5, the Canucks have Lapierre at 1 million. And where Kadri might fit in (imo a misfit), the Canucks already have Schroeder (and Mallet and Gaunce on the way).

You make a good point for him staying in Toronto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is where we differ.

I do agree we could use a top 6 forward. Who couldn't? But I also believe we can win physical battles we could not previously having added Kassian, so it's not as big a need as it once was. It would also appear a lot less pressing, if we had seen a healthy not injured Kesler the last two play off years. I also call for a big bastard depth defender. But, it's also not quite so demanding a need with us just having signed Garrison. On these two I do agree, it's just not our biggest need which u have missed.

Further, depth D and forwards are generally available at the deadline.

Our biggest shortfall is an absolute premium top shelf D. Hamhuis is great, our best IMO, but 1 category below that elite level. Virtually every cup winning team has had a Norris winner (at some point in their career) still in their prime on the team. And if done by committee (see Carolina), they had a defensive stalwart like Hamhuis and a guy who could lug the puck. They are one of very few who have won with a by committee approach as we employ. And we still don't have a puck carrying defender who can rush the puck against pressure.

Chara, Weber and Pronger types lug the puck against pressure by putting guys on their elbow and protecting the puck with their size, attracting the double team and passing. The Letang or Niedermeyer types, also Pietrangelo and Doughty, simply have too much speed and ability to handle the puck (which seperates them from Edler at the other end of the spectrum) and can break pressure. It also allows them to gain the zone on the PP, rushing the puck. Either is fine?

But we cannot do without to be a truly elite team. Carolina's window was very short and Boston and L.A. remain cup favourites because they have a Norris candidate.

Investing in Lecavalier is the wrong direction!

Yep... I am no part of his claim. I do think Lecavalier would be a definite upgrade on Raymond on the 2nd line... but the point of my posts was that the possible changes to the CBA could completely open up the market for Luongo and give us lots of possibilities. Tampa being just one example of a deal that didn't work under the old rules, and might under the new ones.

Bjugstad is also a possibility, amongst several others... I don't think that having Gaunce or Mallet change the desirability of having him at all. Neither of them is near the prospect he is, and I think his worst case potential is an Arnott type player... his best case is a bigger, meaner version of Getzlaf. Neither one is anything to sneeze at. If they all reached close to their potential a Jensen-Bjugstad-Kassian line could anchor our roster for a decade after the Sedins are gone.

I think most can agree on the needs of the team, and I am sure MG is going to be able to fill them with the best deal available:

1x top 6 forward

The top 6 forward is hardest to fill, especially since we ideally need a big/tough/playmaking guy to complement our existing core.

1x bottom 6 forward

For a bottom 6 guy, we could even get a cheap option like Arnott to fill in for a year, or see if one of our guys like Pinizotto/Volpatti can make the jump. I am not as convinced that we need a 3rd line centre as some people... if Malhotra is recovered, then he and Lapierre are a pretty decent duo. Ebbett is fine for injury backup in an emergency situation. More centres are always good though, MG seems to love guys who can play all three positions.

1x bruising stay at home 3rd pairing defenceman

#6/7 defencemen aren't too hard to find... an Alberts type who is also good at punching people in the face and making sure no one runs Tanev or our smaller forwards would be handy.

1x veteran backup goalie (assuming Luongo is traded)

Veteran backups are a dime a dozen at minimum wage.... whoever we trade Luongo to will probably even want to unload one to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've been arguing all along that the Canucks should have traded Schneider and kept the "declining" Luongo.

Your logic gets more and more convincing with each post.

Corey Perry

2010/11 98 points

2011/12 60 points

St Louis 99, 74

Ovechin 85, 65

Zetteberg 80, 69

Brad Richards 77, 66

Sound the alarms!!!! The stars of the NHL are in decline!!!

The opposite could be said about Spezza, Kovalchuk, Malkin... stars on the rise!!!

Your short term one year signs of decline are simplistic king.

Two of the last three Hart trophies = decline haha.

Lecavalier - now there is your sign of steady decline - 55% over 6 years.

Keep on derping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our biggest shortfall is an absolute premium top shelf D. Hamhuis is great, our best IMO, but 1 category below that elite level. Virtually every cup winning team has had a Norris winner (at some point in their career) still in their prime on the team. And if done by committee (see Carolina), they had a defensive stalwart like Hamhuis and a guy who could lug the puck. They are one of very few who have won with a by committee approach as we employ. And we still don't have a puck carrying defender who can rush the puck against pressure.

Chara, Weber and Pronger types lug the puck against pressure by putting guys on their elbow and protecting the puck with their size, attracting the double team and passing. The Letang or Niedermeyer types, also Pietrangelo and Doughty, simply have too much speed and ability to handle the puck (which seperates them from Edler at the other end of the spectrum) and can break pressure. It also allows them to gain the zone on the PP, rushing the puck. Either is fine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've been arguing all along that the Canucks should have traded Schneider and kept the "declining" Luongo.

Your logic gets more and more convincing with each post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TO just makes sense as Burke knows the value of game changing players. Has been in obvious discussions and usually gets his man. He also is under intense pressure to field a playoff team.

1st rd 2013

Tyler Bozak

Matt Lombardi (cap reasons)

Cody Franson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic is that we could've gotten a king's ransom for Schneider, and Luongo is still very good - as I've said this whole time.

Goaltending here remains stable, and even though Luongo is not the same 27 year-old who carried this team on his back, he's still a top-10 guy who has matured incredibly in his time here.

So the equation comes down to:

-2011/12 Vancouver Canucks minus a backup goaltender plus whatever Schneider yields us

Instead of:

-2011/12 Vancouver Canucks minus a starting goaltender plus whatever Luongo yields us

Where/how is this logic flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.