Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3002 replies to this topic

#271 Kassian's Face

Kassian's Face

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 11

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:51 PM

It doesn't appear that their proposal calls for a rollback in the current value of contracts and their cap hits... it will basically just be taken care of in escrow.

Also... yes it would be easy to find a trading partner for Luongo if we were able and willing to take on some of his cap hit, but the question is why would WE do that? We are a cap ceiling team so don't look for US to take on extra cap hits.

The clause where we would be on the hook for his whole cap hit when he stops playing is ludicrous and would mean we can't afford to move him.

Assuming the above clause doesn't make it to the final agreement though, AND the ability to retain up to 50% of the actual salary or cap hit of a contract in a trade goes in... then no question we are able to trade Luongo and his value goes up substantially. Not because we are willing to retain his cap hit, but because we are willing to retain some of his salary.

A trade for Lecavalier becomes a good proposition for example if Tampa kept half of his cap hit but we paid his full salary... and we kept a few bucks of Luongo's salary but none of his cap hit.


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.

http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643572

And second, do we want the cup? We are in the unique position under new CBA rules to "buy a cup". Under their proposal we will have 11 million in extra cap space BEFORE a Luongo trade for one year! Trade Luo, keep 1 million or so salary, we have then close to 15 million in cap space. We could grab some big players. Win the cup. Trade em away for picks. 5 years from now, we are a contender again.

Why do people say they want to get rid of Raymond and then say they want Kadri in a trade? You guys know that Kadri and Raymond are very similar right? There is lots of videos of Kadri's play. He is a fast skater who can create opportunities but has no physical play and sucks defensively. A line with both Kadri and Raymond would be a scary line. But there is no point in trading away Raymond to get another Raymond.
  • 0

#272 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 20 October 2012 - 04:04 PM

No to Kadri he came into camp fat after training with Roberts in the off season amd was called out by Eakins, said he was at the bottom of the team in fitness..no to this prima donna.


He's been called out time and time again and has battled through it, and has played fine in the NHL, and played better than alot of there regulars, everyone there is burying him and treating him poorly.

If he came here we would work with him and treat him right. It seems like there they dont want to give him to make the team, they never give him chances, here we would be able too and with good players he would breakout. then toronto would look stupid again.
  • 0

zackass.png


#273 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 20 October 2012 - 04:08 PM

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.

http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643572

And second, do we want the cup? We are in the unique position under new CBA rules to "buy a cup". Under their proposal we will have 11 million in extra cap space BEFORE a Luongo trade for one year! Trade Luo, keep 1 million or so salary, we have then close to 15 million in cap space. We could grab some big players. Win the cup. Trade em away for picks. 5 years from now, we are a contender again.


I haven't been following the CBA arguement here, but to me there are close. Just gotta decide when they are gunna get to 50/50.

Although I do think the Owner's should have to respect they contracts they signed since they wanted them.

Why do people say they want to get rid of Raymond and then say they want Kadri in a trade? You guys know that Kadri and Raymond are very similar right? There is lots of videos of Kadri's play. He is a fast skater who can create opportunities but has no physical play and sucks defensively. A line with both Kadri and Raymond would be a scary line. But there is no point in trading away Raymond to get another Raymond.


I dont think they are all that Similar. Maybe a little bit.

When Kadri went up last year he was a + on there terrible team, so it seems like he is fine to be used 5 on 5 and on the PP, He has better offensive ability than Raymond IMO, he can actually finish, and make play, he doesn't just screw everything up offensively like Raymond seems to do.
  • 0

zackass.png


#274 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,381 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 20 October 2012 - 04:13 PM

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.

http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643572

And second, do we want the cup? We are in the unique position under new CBA rules to "buy a cup". Under their proposal we will have 11 million in extra cap space BEFORE a Luongo trade for one year! Trade Luo, keep 1 million or so salary, we have then close to 15 million in cap space. We could grab some big players. Win the cup. Trade em away for picks. 5 years from now, we are a contender again.

Why do people say they want to get rid of Raymond and then say they want Kadri in a trade? You guys know that Kadri and Raymond are very similar right? There is lots of videos of Kadri's play. He is a fast skater who can create opportunities but has no physical play and sucks defensively. A line with both Kadri and Raymond would be a scary line. But there is no point in trading away Raymond to get another Raymond.

11 or 15 million in cap space?? Man, we could pick up guys like Corey Perry and Nathan Horton with that kind of money, maybe even a depth D man or two.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#275 Wolf smell

Wolf smell

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined: 25-August 12

Posted 20 October 2012 - 04:21 PM

I think Kadri has more upside.

I wouldnt mind giving Lappy a shot but other than a 3rd like center and prospects/picks im not really sure what else we need back in return for Lu, so why not get a young kid like that with some good skill & good upside, plus Lappy could always be used well in a 4th line role, and then we could finally have a 4th line that could maybe do something in the playoffs.


Kadri may have more upside but I think he has a higher bust probability as well. I wouldn't be terribly upset if kadri was part of a deal but I like the idea of colburne due to his size. kadri is not that big of a guy and we have a fair amount of that already. I'd say we could use a 2 line right wing (not that to has much to offer) but even a guy like kulemin. I think I'd be ok with something in return like kulemin, kadri/colburn and franson.
  • 0

#276 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 20 October 2012 - 04:32 PM

Kadri may have more upside but I think he has a higher bust probability as well. I wouldn't be terribly upset if kadri was part of a deal but I like the idea of colburne due to his size. kadri is not that big of a guy and we have a fair amount of that already. I'd say we could use a 2 line right wing (not that to has much to offer) but even a guy like kulemin. I think I'd be ok with something in return like kulemin, kadri/colburn and franson.


Ya I would like that too.

I think Colbourne won't turn out to be much to be honest, I think he has more bust potential than Kadri, although niether are sure things.

We could also go for another guy like Ashton or Frattin.

Im watching the Marlies game and Kadri got an assist on the opening goal, but right now Kenny Ryan has 2 goals, maybe he wouldn't be bad to get in it. he was a 2nd round pick of them in 09 I think.
  • 0

zackass.png


#277 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,968 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 20 October 2012 - 04:35 PM

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?

I think you are missing the distinct difference between cap space and actual dollars and that is the entire point of my post. Tampa Bay is not a cap team and is unlikely to ever be a cap team.... so how much cap space they devote to goaltending or any other position is largely irrelevant.

What IS relevant is the actual cash spent. Spending less than $4.5 million on the goaltending position and getting an all-star veteran and one of the better young future prospects as your duo would be a stellar deal for them in terms of value for dollar spent.

Add to that they get to offload the Lecavalier contract (the actual dollars but only half the cap hit) which would save them $55 million over the course of it's life... there is no question in my mind that TBL would jump on that deal in a heartbeat.

That retaining cap space/salary clause would do wonders for the trade market and really allow rich and poor teams to make deals that benefit them both.


  • 1

#278 Wolf smell

Wolf smell

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined: 25-August 12

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:06 PM

Ya I would like that too.

I think Colbourne won't turn out to be much to be honest, I think he has more bust potential than Kadri, although niether are sure things.

We could also go for another guy like Ashton or Frattin.

Im watching the Marlies game and Kadri got an assist on the opening goal, but right now Kenny Ryan has 2 goals, maybe he wouldn't be bad to get in it. he was a 2nd round pick of them in 09 I think.


I could see colbourne being a project more than anything. The nucks have been fairly good in developing players over time. It'll probably happen with kass. I like that as an organization guys aren't rushed into service ( i suppose because of where we draft the guys need time) I think the idea of frattin or ashton would be good as well. We're in a pretty enviable position at the moment. we have some amazing players that still have some good years left and some players on the way out to bring in more prospects. Many non canuck fans seem to think we're on a path to not reaching the playoffs. I'd disagree we have a good few years left in our core players and some pretty decent prospects waiting in the wings to start replacing aging players. I do think we could still use more forward prospects (namely a future 1st line center)
  • 0

#279 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,502 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:13 PM

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.

Edited by oldnews, 20 October 2012 - 08:31 PM.

  • 4

#280 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:17 PM

I could see colbourne being a project more than anything. The nucks have been fairly good in developing players over time. It'll probably happen with kass. I like that as an organization guys aren't rushed into service ( i suppose because of where we draft the guys need time) I think the idea of frattin or ashton would be good as well. We're in a pretty enviable position at the moment. we have some amazing players that still have some good years left and some players on the way out to bring in more prospects. Many non canuck fans seem to think we're on a path to not reaching the playoffs. I'd disagree we have a good few years left in our core players and some pretty decent prospects waiting in the wings to start replacing aging players. I do think we could still use more forward prospects (namely a future 1st line center)


Yeah I dont really see that in anyone Toronto has, that's gunna be a tough thing to get, were just gunna have to hold onto Kesler once the Sedins retire, so that we still have one for the time being.
  • 0

zackass.png


#281 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,968 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:47 PM

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.

Edited by Canuck Surfer, 20 October 2012 - 05:51 PM.

  • 0

#282 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 20 October 2012 - 11:22 PM

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.


I understand the offers... part one one of my previous posts explained it a little better.

The league has said in their last proposal that there will be no rollbacks, if you read the link you included it actually shows the title of the last clause as "No Rollback"

What it is is complete semantics though, they say they won't roll back contracts... but they will use escrow to effectively do the same thing. They will pay the entire value of the contract, but put a larger share into the escrow fund to be held until the end of the season. Because of their expected reduction to a 50/50 split they would certainly take back virtually all that money (around 13% of the contract value).

Fehr's response is as it has been for several months... whether you call it a rollback or escrow hold back.... it is effectively the same thing as it takes money back from the players.

My post was in reference to one saying that Luongo's cap hit will go down to $4.7 million. His cap hit will stay at the $5.3 from what it appears in the NHL most recent proposal... he just won't receive as much in actual dollars as he would at a 57% split.

Edited by Provost, 20 October 2012 - 11:25 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#283 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 20 October 2012 - 11:32 PM

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?


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.

Edited by Provost, 20 October 2012 - 11:57 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#284 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:04 AM

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.


So do you want Lecavalier or not?

I don't.
  • 0

zackass.png


#285 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:11 AM

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.


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.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 21 October 2012 - 01:12 AM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#286 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:16 AM

So do you want Lecavalier or not?

I don't.


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.

Edited by Provost, 21 October 2012 - 01:17 AM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#287 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:19 AM

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.


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.

But honestly I think a deal will be done with Toronto unless Florida wants him bad enough to give us Bjugstad, to me the only teams that are realistic for him to go to are either the Panthers or the Leafs, I trust Yzerman when he said he wasn't interested.
  • 0

zackass.png


#288 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,598 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:04 AM

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."


We'll get practically nothing or a bad contract in return anyway. Put him on waivers and lose him for nothing? What's the difference?
  • 0

#289 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,598 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:07 AM

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.


Get with the program. Schneider is not on the table anymore.
  • 0

#290 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,208 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 21 October 2012 - 08:58 AM

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.

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.
  • 0

#291 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:10 AM

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


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.
  • 0

#292 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:55 AM

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.


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.

Edited by Provost, 21 October 2012 - 10:00 AM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#293 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,502 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 10:41 AM

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.


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.

Edited by oldnews, 21 October 2012 - 11:34 AM.

  • 0

#294 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,502 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:01 AM

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.


That's crap - pure and simple.
Nothing in Luongo's numbers indicate any sort of decline.
Have argued this at length with Smurf in the past few pages.

To repeat (you always seem to need to review things numerous times)
Luongo's last two seasons:

.928 sv%, 38 wins, 15 losses, 2.11 gaa
.919 sv%, 31 wins, 14 losses, 2.41 gaa

Lifetime averages
.919 sv %, 34 wins, 28 losses, 2.52 gaa

If you look at last season, which wasn't as good as two years ago, but still as good or better than his career average, he had a few minor injuries, and lost games to Schneider who earned/commanded more starts. Luongo, who is notorious for getting on a roll after the first 8 weeks of the season, simply didn't get as many games to drive his numbers up over the last 3/4 of the season, but still wound up with better than career average numbers.

Spare me the shelf-life nonsense - your opinion doesn't over-ride facts - the evidence clearly shows the opposite, whereas with Lecavalier, the evidence clearly indicates decline.
It's also laughable that you suggest that Vinny is a "reasonable idea" after I've heard you suggest many times that the Sedins are in decline, leading to your cup window panic... Again, same point as above. Henrik and Daniel are a mere five months younger than Lecavalier - try a fact based comparison - there has been nothing resembling the 90, 67, 70, 54, 49 dropoff of Lecavalier. For Henrik, 76, 82, 112, 94, 81 - for Daniel 74, 82, 85 (in 63 games), 104, 67 (in 72 games).
Derp.

Edited by oldnews, 21 October 2012 - 11:27 AM.

  • 0

#295 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:31 AM

That's crap - pure and simple.
Nothing in Luongo's numbers indicate any sort of decline.


OK, so if it's all numbers, I assume that you think the Sedin's are well into a decline?

Henrik
-2009-10: 82 GP, 29 G, 112 P
-2010-11: 82 GP, 19 G, 94 P
-2011-12: 82 GP, 11 G, 81 P

Daniel
-2010-11: 82 GP, 41 G, 104 P
-2011-12: 72 GP, 30 G, 67 P

And BTW, numbers aside, Roberto Luongo IS NOT the same goaltender as he was when we acquired him in '06, and he put this team on his back for the first two years. Back then, he was dominant; today, not so much. I still like him, he's still very good, but he's not the same guy that he was in 2006.

Spare me the shelf-life nonsense - your opinion doesn't over-ride facts - the evidence clearly shows the opposite, whereas with Lecavalier, the evidence clearly indicates decline.
It's also laughable that you suggest that Vinny is a "reasonable idea" after I've heard you suggest many times that the Sedins are in decline... Again, same point as above. Henrik and Daniel are a mere five months younger - try a fact based comparison - there has been nothing resembling the 90, 67, 70, 54, 49 dropoff of Lecavalier. For Henrik, 76, 82, 112, 94, 81 - for Daniel 74, 82, 85 (in 63 games), 104, 67 (in 72 games).


Hilarious - you've gone and referenced the Sedin's later in your post. Is that not the definition of a decline? 112...94...81...; 104...67...see a pattern here?

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.

Edited by King of the ES, 21 October 2012 - 11:34 AM.

  • 0

#296 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:40 AM

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)


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.

Edited by King of the ES, 21 October 2012 - 11:41 AM.

  • 0

#297 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,502 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:48 AM

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.


That is a truly pathetic attempt king

Luongo also went from .931 to .914 in 2003/4/5. Oh, decline!!!

The same logic applies to your silly claims about year to year production of the Sedins.

Your ridiculous arguments rest on the basis of one year - which you claim indicates "decline".

Again, Luongo - BETTER THAN CAREER AVERAGE NUMBERS LAST YEAR.

Chart the same kind of rankings for Lecavalier and get back to us.

DERP!

Edited by oldnews, 21 October 2012 - 11:52 AM.

  • 0

#298 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,502 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 12:26 PM

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.


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".

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.

Edited by oldnews, 21 October 2012 - 01:56 PM.

  • 1

#299 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:40 PM

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.


Thanx for sharing.

I think it's pretty much common knowledge that Burke made an offer. The question is whether or not the offer has been been accepted as the latest rumors suggest.

Should have asked him what he thought of The Kessel trade. Possibly one if the worst trades in history, especially if Kessel walks at end of next season.

Edited by WHL rocks, 21 October 2012 - 01:48 PM.

  • 0

#300 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:50 PM

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.


Yeah that's a good point.
  • 0

zackass.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.