Archived

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

Templeton Peck

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0

3,003 posts in this topic

I know that GM's are not allowed to conduct trade talks during the lockout so the comments made by John McKlein on Hockeycentral this morning about as many as five teams being interested in Lou is obviously wild speculation, but just out of curiosity; Did anyone happen to catch who the five teams happened to be?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a way we can have one of the mods start up a King's corner where the King of the AS....I mean, ES can stay and await CDCers looking for an argument and subsequent headache?

It's worth a thought. You'd like that, wouldn't you King? A place to call your own.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's Ballard in the deal, Tanev goes to the AHL. If Tanev's in the deal, Ballard is either the 6th/7th D, with Alberts.

It improves our team because we immediately get Nick Leddy, a 21 year-old who had 37 points last year. He becomes the new Christian Ehrhoff. "He gets pushed around very easily" - OK - Tanev doesn't?

Chris Tanev has really not proven anything. Are you aware that in the last 127 games of professional hockey that Chris Tanev has played (AHL & NHL), he has 1 goal? If you're that tiny, you better produce offense, which Chris Tanev has not shown an ability to do - unlike Nick Leddy.

I've taken all of this into account. Frolik did have an atrocious year last season, but he was pretty good the year before, he's shown flashes in the past, and he was very good in the playoffs against us. He's still pretty young, and still has a pretty high ceiling, I would say.

We're not going to get any of the guys that you've suggested.

Montador is included in the original deal because I'm a lot more confident with him on the bottom-pairing than I am with Chris Tanev. He would be a nice addition. Solid player.

If Dale Weise, Guillaume Desbiens, Mike Duco, Byron Bitz, etc., can play on our fourth line, Kyle Beach can, too. And his potential is amazing. A fourth line with both Beach & Kassian on it would be very, very exciting - and no longer a line where careers go to die. And yes, I agree that something would need to be done with either Higgins or Hansen - preferrably Higgins - to make room for this to happen, and for Hansen to move up to the 3rd line.

Well, let's see your proposal.

You're again hinting at a very likely gross overvaluing of Roberto Luongo, who is effectively a cap dump from our perspective, and other team's know this. If Gillis can walk away with Nick Leddy, Michael Frolik, and Kyle Beach, I think he's making out like a bandit, in relation to the value that we'll receive from Luongo by being our backup goaltender.

And how is Leddy not a good fit? Who do we have that can run our PP? We don't have a defenceman with his instincts for offense. Yes, that includes your hero Jason Garrison.

If you're holding out for a guy like Patrick Kane or Marian Hossa, Roberto's going to be our backup, at $5.2M per year, until 2022.

But anyway, like I said earlier, IT'S YOUR TURN. Where's your Luongo proposal?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To repeat - your proposal is a fail because you seem oblivious to the fact that the Canucks positions of interest are top six RW and third line center. The centerpiece should either address one of those, or be a prospect.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already been explained to you that a deal including Ballard, as you proposed, would not work - it's called cap space.

To repeat - your proposal is a fail because you seem oblivious to the fact that the Canucks positions of interest are top six RW and third line center. The centerpiece should either address one of those, or be a prospect.

The Canucks don't need Nick Leddy - spare me the nonsense that he'd step in above Garrison - that is ludicrous. Garrison has some things Leddy doesn't and never will have - size, shut down ability, and a extremely big shot - he also moves the puck just fine - and has a complete game - he's a two way., legitimate top-pairing blueliner. Chicago's blueline once you get beyond Seabrook and Keith, is very shallow. You have a weak second pairing of Leddy and Hjalmarsson (who they shopped like Schenn), and then a serious rag tag crew of depth journeymen - I mean this is a team that dressed the biggest pylon in the NHL.

The fact you complain about Tanev's lack of goals (not his role) and then suggest the Leddy's 3 goals would supplant Garrison's 16 is a joke. Waste of valuable assets to make room for a guy who is a misfit on the third pairing. A bad fit (as is capdump Frolik who'd get outhit by Raymond). A Luongo deal where the centerpiece is a soft, little 'offensive' depth defenseman is a non-starter.

Beach isn't ready for the NHL - not a bad third piece to include in a deal, but simply not ready. Move Higgins or Hansen to make room for him ? Get real. That is ridiculous. He'll be back in the AHL.

Which guys did I suggest king? That is your m.o. to put words in people's mouths. I don't think a deal with Chicago is going to happen, and would consider them the least likely destination of those teams that have been speculated about. My proposal was with Florida, you already argued with it / been done to overkill here already mr. short-term memory. If I had to deal with Chicago (who are shallow up the middle) I'd be more interested in guys like Stahlberg, Bickell and Hayes.

Here is the glaring irony for me - you've been the king of arguing that Gillis messed up and the Canucks are fighting for table scraps, and now here you are proposing a deal for three Hawks that you are selling as such great assets. Can you smell the contradiction? Two roster players and one of their better prospects is more than what I was expecting king. Thanks for convincing me that I've been underselling Luongo haha.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh...youth and backup goalie

Luongo to...

Florida - Bjugstad + Clemmensen

Tampa Bay - Connolly + Garon

Columbus - Murray + Mason

Toronto - Rielly + Scrivens

Washington - Forsberg + Neuvirth

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh...youth and backup goalie

Luongo to...

Florida - Bjugstad + Clemmensen

Tampa Bay - Connolly + Garon

Columbus - Murray + Mason

Toronto - Rielly + Scrivens

Washington - Forsberg + Neuvirth

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your talking a need a C and RW. 3rd line C is a need no doubt. If Burrows stays with the Twins and Booth on the 2nd line with Hanson possibly pushing in that slot where does the RW need come from. I am more concerned with the 2nd line LW. Raymond is a gamble and I don't see Higgins as a fulltime 2nd liner even tho he did well last year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're stuck with Lapierre & Malhotra for this year, anyway, so unless they're going somewhere else, it makes no sense to acquire a 3rd line C. If Mason Raymond is a top-six forward on this team, Michael Frolik also certainly has a chance to be. And is Kyle Beach not a prospect? You keep forgetting about his inclusion in this.

Sure, just completely ignore the fact that along with those 3 goals, Leddy had 34 assists. A mere 11X times more than Tanev's career totals of 3 assists in 54 NHL games played. See the difference yet? How about the fact that Leddy's also 2 years younger than Tanev. Registering yet?

Sure he is. He's ready. He's better than Dale Weise, that I can assure you of. He happens to be on Chicago, where they have an embarrassment of young forward riches. But even HF has said that they wouldn't be surprised to see him in the NHL this year, mostly due to his extremely rare skillset.

Shawn Matthias? That's who you're suggesting? Please, refresh my memory. Just post your proposal again. This is the 5th time I've asked.

I'm not selling them as "great" assets at all. If you look at Chicago's cap, the reality is that they probably don't have room for Leddy, who's due for a big raise next year. Seabrook, Keith, Hjalmarsson, Oduya, and Montador are all signed to pretty significant, multi-year deals. Leddy becomes expendable to them, because, really, Duncan Keith is their PP QB anyway.

Michael Frolik is not a "great" asset; he's a boom-or-bust type. I liked very much what I saw of him in the 2011 playoffs, but then he went on to completely vanish this year. He's a gamble. And again, with Shaw, Saad, Smith, Kruger, etc., they are very robust in the category of offensively capable prospects that could replace him.

Kyle Beach is somebody that a lot of people have already written-off. "Great" asset? Probably not. Intriguing potential? Sure. I doubt that Chicago would want to trade him, to be honest, just due to the rarity of his skillset. But I'm just a huge fan, so I included him as it is possible that he's fallen out of favour with them.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem was the first two pieces you proposed. Frolik? Hard to believe that he is the answer you come up with for the top 6? Pullllease king. Frolik would be a complete misfit - imagine him playing with Kesler - which presumably is what the Canucks are looking for.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that as much as I love Hansen, for some reason I don't see moving him to the second line as a great option - I love the way he and Higgins play the game, particularly together, and if he were to move to the second line, there would remain the need for a third line RW. I'm not a Raymond hater - I like his speed and backcheck more than most people here, but he's a natural left wing and things weren't working so well with him on the Rwing with Keslera and Booth - nor do I really see him as a third line type player, although that may not be such a bad idea if a Luongo deal brings back assets other than a 2nd line RW.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that Frolik is going to come in and light the world on fire. But does he have more potential on line two than Mason Raymond does? I would say yes. He's 24 years old, has had prior NHL success, and was a high draft pick. Good potential still exists. And Leddy is really the key piece to the deal I proposed; getting rid of Frolik would be value for Chicago, balancing out the trade more.

Fine, but you've gotta think that Florida isn't interested in that deal, or else it would've already been done months ago. And I don't see how this helps the Canucks more than mine does. Two total gambles.

I would agree with this. Upshall would be a reasonable piece to want/take back to offset some salary for the Panthers.

Here's where I disagree with you. I know that you don't think that the concept of a "window" is valid, but I certainly think that is. There should be urgency to add pieces, and there should be urgency to make the trade, so all parties can move on, and distractions can be minimized.

And then, of course, there's the fact that there's no possible direction for Luongo's value to go in but DOWN, as he transitions to our backup.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that his value may go down. Many sources (Bob Mackenzie, John Mcklein to name a couple) have reported that as many as five teams have expressed keen interest in Lou. I know they are not allowed to discuss players and any kind of trades but we all know back door discussions are taking place. If these rumors are true, it will only add to his value as a bidding war could begin once the lockout is over.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your talking a need a C and RW. 3rd line C is a need no doubt. If Burrows stays with the Twins and Booth on the 2nd line with Hanson possibly pushing in that slot where does the RW need come from. I am more concerned with the 2nd line LW. Raymond is a gamble and I don't see Higgins as a fulltime 2nd liner even tho he did well last year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that Frolik is going to come in and light the world on fire. But does he have more potential on line two than Mason Raymond does? I would say yes. He's 24 years old, has had prior NHL success, and was a high draft pick. Good potential still exists. And Leddy is really the key piece to the deal I proposed; getting rid of Frolik would be value for Chicago, balancing out the trade more.

Fine, but you've gotta think that Florida isn't interested in that deal, or else it would've already been done months ago. And I don't see how this helps the Canucks more than mine does. Two total gambles.

I would agree with this. Upshall would be a reasonable piece to want/take back to offset some salary for the Panthers.

Here's where I disagree with you. I know that you don't think that the concept of a "window" is valid, but I certainly think that is. There should be urgency to add pieces, and there should be urgency to make the trade, so all parties can move on, and distractions can be minimized.

And then, of course, there's the fact that there's no possible direction for Luongo's value to go in but DOWN, as he transitions to our backup.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I wasn't clear. My assumption going into the season (If there is one) was that Burrows is 1st line RW and that Booth is 2nd line RW. I thru Hanson in as a challenger for the 2nd line RW only becuase of his quasi breakout year last season. My point with Raymond was his play on the 2nd line LW which was questionable at times. I therefore questioned the RW need when the LW seemed more the weaker.

I also like Raymond and often wondered if his game could be rebuilt around a 3rd line role with a PK specialty. His speed could be an offensive threat and his backcheck is usually very good. His biggest drawback will be his physical play. There again what would his game look like if he put on 10 - 12 pounds? This lockout might be his undoing in Van as his window of opportunity is closing fast.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, but you've gotta think that Florida isn't interested in that deal, or else it would've already been done months ago. And I don't see how this helps the Canucks more than mine does. Two total gambles.

2

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.