Pears Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Colborne, Gardiner, and a 1st. for Luongo, Tanev, and a 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I personally do not believe Lou is leaving because fans have put him under the microscope. - Lou did not sit on the bench when Schneider started game 6 in Chicago 2010/11 first round. I Believe he was pouting. - Lou threw up the "nobodies pumping my tires" charade in Boston, then lost all games in Boston Badly. Mentally fragile? - Lou said the right things, but seems to have asked for a trade as soon as Schneider started some more playoff games. Pouting ? All of these things happened outside the fans noticing it. But of course we have. Maybe you should as well. Let him go... Side note; we just signed a BIG stay at home defenceman. Just sayin...? I do believe we could use another big top 6 winger, but a puck rushing (right side) D not the stay at home guy. I.ve, personally been a fan of the Canucks since I was old enough to understand hockey. I,ve cheered for them through all the years of disappointment and remain a devoted fan to this day. My loyalty is anything but fickle. Now, back to the issue at hand. Maybe fans are a bit critical of our team but, to me, this just emphasizes the love we have for our Canucks. One thing players have to know is that hockey in BC is almost a religion of it's own. We want so badly for them to win that sometimes their short comings over shadow their successes. There is little question that we have the best team Vancouver management has been able to assemble and I feel that a couple of key additions will put us over the top. To me, our biggest needs are a winger to bring our second line into the elite category and provide consistent second line offense and a big, " stay at home," defenseman that provides stability in the defensive zone and can be counted on to police the front of the net, thus limiting second chances. To make it perfectly clear, I do not place all the blame on goaltending. The team as whole needs to take responsibility for it's inability to rise to the occasion and achieve it,s ulimate goal; a Stanley Cup. That being said, however, we do have an abundance of assets in goal and could use one to acquire the needed pieces. I believe both Schneids and Lou can get us there and it is irrelevant as to which one is kept. The key may lie in the length of the lock out. With NHL players sitting, waiting for a new CBA to be made, it is the AHLers that get a chance to shine. Eddie Lack is proving himself to be quite a good goaltender and is only getting better. This could be of significance because it may provide more options for Gillis to explore. If Lack puts together great games in Chicago, MG may become more accepting to offers for Schneider. This would be key as Schneider would bring better returns and open doors for more bidding wars. A play for a Bobby Ryan may become a possibility. I believe Lou can get us there. It's whether or not the fans will accept him back in the number one role. I know the fans do not run the team, but in a way they kind of assist in decisions. No player wants to be booedon a nightly basis and be kept under a microscope on a nightly basis. The pressure becomes immense and sooner or later it becomes too much. I believe this is what has happened to Lou. I say we get behind this team no matter what the circumstances and give them our full support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Have nothing to benefit? It's a complete dis-incentive for signing any long term, big dollar, contract. It does not take rocket science to realize it will keep salaries down. I think that's what the owners want? It's one of the most bizarre clauses I've ever seen, this coming from a negotiator whose seen many stupid clauses. The owners have nothing to gain from this clause, it's purely a punishment mechanism. I can't see them going to the wall for it when it benefits no one, but the players get screwed by dead cap space. It's Burkes clause, he's steering that ship behind closed doors. He also has the salary/trade clause. I'd like to know where Aquilini is, he should be flexing some muscle. I know it's evil, but I'd love for Gillis to screw Burke one last time by trading him elsewhere. Send him a vase of flowers with card saying "Thanks for driving up the price. Good luck with the search. Until next time....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 A big young centreman and a puck rushing D? Sign me up! That would be an amazing trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunningWild Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Have nothing to benefit? It's a complete dis-incentive for signing any long term, big dollar, contract. It does not take rocket science to realize it will keep salaries down. I think that's what the owners want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Please explain. We were talking about; First: max 5 year contracts 2Knd: clause 5 ; which has the cap hit of a retiring player attributed to the team who signed him; regardless if he had been traded to a new team. You may call that a Burke punishment clause; I suggest it is a specific point designed to keep teams from offering expensive contracts. Just cuz BB has whinged about such contracts does not mean its him? From the TSN notes on NHL offer (not B Burkes rage web site); 5. Cap Accounting: - Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses. - All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term. We're talking about 2 different clauses. The 'Burke Clause', the one I am talking about, proposes to go back and punish teams who have given Luongo type contracts. It doesn't eliminate them from happening in the future. It's a retroactive punishment that doesn't benefit the owners. There is a different clause that prohibits contract length, with a strict yr over yr %. This is the clause that you are talking about where owners benefit. It completely eliminates any Luongo type contract for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane42 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Breathe, folks. The clause about the original signing team being stuck with the cap if the player retires prematurely is NEVER happening. Philly has inked more of these than anyone, and stands to get fracked utterly if it passes. Their owner and Bettman are as tight as a pair of coconuts. The thing is in there for the sole purpose to be negotiated away so that NHLPA can claim partially victory and NHL can give ground there while holding firm elsewhere. This works for both players and those owners that are willing to pay for them. Fehr will go after clauses that can stretch the zero sum game aspect of a hard cap and this is an easy one to attack. No way will he allow for a system where rich teams cannot spend to the limit because their caps are impacted by players long gone. Length of terms, assignment to minors with salary not counting toward cap, and 50-50 split itself, is where the real battleground is at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunningWild Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Please explain. We were talking about; First: max 5 year contracts 2Knd: clause 5 ; which has the cap hit of a retiring player attributed to the team who signed him; regardless if he had been traded to a new team. You may call that a Burke punishment clause; I suggest it is a specific point designed to keep teams from offering expensive contracts. Just cuz BB has whinged about such contracts does not mean its him? From the TSN notes on NHL offer (not B Burkes rage web site); 5. Cap Accounting: - Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses. - All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 FWIW - John Shannon on Hockey Central today claiming that he thinks there is a deal in place between the Canucks and Leafs - just waiting for the CBA to be announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 If Calgary was as terrible as some of you guys claim they were last year, they must of been really lucky to of finished 5 points out of the playoffs. So lucky to have 247 man games missed which was good enough for 6th highest in the league. Only Pits had more injuries and still made the playoffs. They had a very tough season and had a legit shot to make the 8th seed, adding 1 legit top 6 forward (Hudler- I don't care who he played with last season he is still a top 6 guy), 2 potential top 6 guys in Cervenka and Baertschi and Wideman, who yes is overpaid and mostly offensive but is a proven NHLer who will score goals and improve the powerplay. The flames have improved from last year and are generally a hardworking grinding team with great goaltending. The biggest weakness last year was injuries and lack of scoring which one is luck and the other they addressed IMO. Also I think Garrison is total risk, he is being billed as a reliable shutdown guy with a great shot.....kinda like Ballard was being billed minus the great shot but with offensive abilities. He could also turn out to be like Bieksa who got a late start in the NHL but turned out to be one of our best dman over the last few season. No guarantees either way as he just does not have enough experience in the NHL to know for sure. To be claiming that he was signed to a good contract is a little premature, I think was a calculated risk by Gillis who I do trust but its a risk all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 FWIW - John Shannon on Hockey Central today claiming that he thinks there is a deal in place between the Canucks and Leafs - just waiting for the CBA to be announced. I personally don't find him very believable, but he seems to believe himself haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Lu Raymond 3rd For Rielly Colbourne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Lu Raymond 3rd For O'Reilly Colbourne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanev Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Most likely Reimer is involved, seeing as he was spotted practicing with the some Canucks at UBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Either that or he's just here for the practice. It's not like Burke would have already told him he's traded for Luongo so he could come here ahead of time, no deal would be finalized until they know what the new CBA holds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Most likely Reimer is involved, seeing as he was spotted practicing with the some Canucks at UBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Guys on the Leafs board said the reason he is in Vancouver is because his girlfreind is from there..something about visiting her parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunningWild Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 http://www.theprovin..._medium=twitter Just posted in other thread, very interesting read by Botch: - Says that on top of the teams already interested, Edm made an offer and another 'mystery team'. - John Shannon apparently said last night that the Leafs/Nucks have an AiP in place to trade Lu once lockout ends. Gillis basically denies those reports. - Talks about draft day and how Lu almost went to Tor, but 'allegedly' nixed it cause he wanted Fla. Apparently Gillis wanted Gardiner ++. Botch thinks Fla is now out, and Lu understands he won't be going there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Go MG, play that hardball! Really hope Tyler Bozak comes back as part of the deal as well, he'd be great for the 3rd line and can give the team even more depth up the middle (he can make plays, hit, kill penalties and possesses a pretty quick snap shot from right in front) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Ryan O'Reilly does not play for the Leafs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.