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

#61 komodo1970

komodo1970

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 11

Posted 09 October 2012 - 11:58 AM

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

#62 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 09 October 2012 - 12:05 PM

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
Posted Image

#63 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,831 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 09 October 2012 - 06:58 PM

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?


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.

Edited by oldnews, 09 October 2012 - 08:05 PM.

  • 3

#64 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:01 AM

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.


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.

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.


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?

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

Edited by King of the ES, 10 October 2012 - 04:04 AM.

  • 0

#65 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,232 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 10 October 2012 - 08:45 AM

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.

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

#66 canucks_dynasty

canucks_dynasty

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:47 AM

Meh...youth and backup goalie

Luongo to...

Florida - Bjugstad + Clemmensen
Tampa Bay - Connolly + Garon
Columbus - Murray + Mason
Toronto - Rielly + Scrivens
Washington - Forsberg + Neuvirth
  • 0

#67 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:16 AM

Meh...youth and backup goalie

Luongo to...

Florida - Bjugstad + Clemmensen
Tampa Bay - Connolly + Garon
Columbus - Murray + Mason
Toronto - Rielly + Scrivens
Washington - Forsberg + Neuvirth


The only 1/5 that might have a snowball's chance in hell of occurring is the deal to Florida, and you've gotta think that if that was available to Gillis, he'd have taken it by now. Since we still have Luongo, that's probably not an offer that's available for Gillis to select.
  • 0

#68 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,831 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:55 PM

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.


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

#69 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,831 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 10 October 2012 - 09:01 PM

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.


Your first attempt at arguing that there is no sense acquiring a third line C is an utter fail - we were "stuck" with Malhotra and Lapierre last year, and together on the fourth line they formed a defensive zone start/shutdown specialist line - the fact that Lapierre was there to take face-offs in the event Malhotra is waived (and provide the additional defensive responsibility a center is supposed to) is just another ingredient that made that line very difficult to play against. You are one of the biggest Hodgson fanboys on CDC and here you are arguing there's no need to add a 3rd line center. Isn't that ironic. I'd agree to an extent - I think Schroeder will be as good as Hodgson (a more balanced player with additional speed, grit, and defensively more responsible) and a better fit for the third line between Higgins and Hansen.. However, next to RW, it's pretty obvious that center is the position the Canucks could stand more depth, particularly in the short run (given Kesler's injury and the youth of their prospects).

You can give up the Leddy sales kick. Doesn't make sense king. The Canucks acquired Garrison - you are just going to have to accept that and put your negative expectations (and desire to see Gillis fail) on delay until you see what happens - imo Garrison has far more balance to his game, is a much better two-way player (which will enable Edler in ways Leddy never could) and is a much better fit in Vancouver. Luongo for a depth/ third pairing pushover of a blueliner is not my idea of a good idea.

Not going to argue about Beach - good prospect to take a risk on - but not NHL ready, so can't agree with you pencilling him into the roster - and if I were looking for a toss in prospect from Chicago I'd also look at Hayes because he's a RW, not a LW like Beach.

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.

You have gone on about how soft the Canucks are, and then you propose Leddy and Frolik after all that? Try again King. That is just not a deal worth making. Two very soft players.

A deal with Chicago doesn't really pan out. The only deal I would be willing to make with Chicago would be an unlikely hockey trade for Hossa (who contract mirrors Luongo's) and I'm not about to argue that that is going to happen.

King - we've argued this before (do you know how to use the search feature?), but I will repeat - I proposed -originally - a Luongo deal to Florida for Bjugstad and Petrovic - four or five months ago - before free agency started. I also wanted to see the Canucks pursue Doan but didn't think they'd come as close to landing him as it appeared, and I wanted to sign Garrison and re-sign Salo if possible. The fact that Doan went back to Phoenix changes the possibilities of taking salary in return, and Sami got a payday he deserved and the Canucks couldn't offer.

With the cap space that moving Luongo for prospects like Bjugstad and Petrovic would create, I'd also be willing to take salary in the form of a guy like Scottie Upshall, who is a 3.5 million cap hit, has had a lot of injury problems, hasn't produced as he is capable, but I love his game if/when he is healthy, and Florida and Tallon operating the way they do might like to move his salary (if he waived his ntc). Upshall, if he were healthy, imo would be a good roster addition at 2nd or 3rd line RW.
The reason I chose Petrovic is because he's a big, adept, mean, right handed/side blueliner with a huge shot - I consider that the exact type of skillset that would fit nicely with the Canucks makeup on the blueline in the near future (not to mention that the Canucks have a very different type of blueline prospect in Connauton).
Florida - all the reasons are beyond obvious.
Bjugstad - the reasoning is obvious, as is the Panthers depth and youth at center (Weiss, Goc, Matthias / Huberdeau, Grimaldi, Bjustad). Likewise with their youth on the blueline (Gudbranson, Kulikov, Ellerby, Robak, Matheson, Petrovic). They could afford to move a few prospects like Bjugstad and Petrovic and moving some salary would make it viable. Upshall imo is a good risk - and if his injuries persist - his cap hit can be used elsewhere / is not a 35+ contract issue.
Things change. The Canucks drafted Gaunce and Mallet. Bjugstad may not be considered as important at this point. I don't doubt Schroeder can be as successful as Hodgson was playing between Hansen and Higgins. I don't doubt Kassian will develop into a good 2nd or 3rd line RW in the very near future. I don't see any urgency to add any pieces, (nor do I see Gillis or Tallon as being in any hurry - Toronto is but don't have as many viable pieces) - those were/are the directions I was leaning back when hockey and trades and such were actual possibilities...

Edited by oldnews, 10 October 2012 - 09:11 PM.

  • 1

#70 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 11 October 2012 - 03:53 AM

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.


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.

King - we've argued this before (do you know how to use the search feature?), but I will repeat - I proposed -originally - a Luongo deal to Florida for Bjugstad and Petrovic - four or five months ago - before free agency started.


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.

With the cap space that moving Luongo for prospects like Bjugstad and Petrovic would create, I'd also be willing to take salary in the form of a guy like Scottie Upshall, who is a 3.5 million cap hit, has had a lot of injury problems, hasn't produced as he is capable, but I love his game if/when he is healthy, and Florida and Tallon operating the way they do might like to move his salary (if he waived his ntc). Upshall, if he were healthy, imo would be a good roster addition at 2nd or 3rd line RW.


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

I don't see any urgency to add any pieces, (nor do I see Gillis or Tallon as being in any hurry - Toronto is but don't have as many viable pieces) - those were/are the directions I was leaning back when hockey and trades and such were actual possibilities...


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

#71 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:02 AM


  • 1
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#72 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,232 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:05 AM

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.

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

#73 komodo1970

komodo1970

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:10 AM

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.


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

#74 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,281 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:15 AM

I miss Hockey. :(


Move to Toronto, live in a bubble, and pretend you're going to win a cup.

I envy Leafs fans a bit. I'm sure in Toronto nothing has changed and a couple games into the season they figure they're cup bound again. In fact they're off to a terrific start again ... tied for first.

<_<

Dang, I miss hockey too!

:sadno:

Edited by Dogbyte, 12 October 2012 - 08:15 AM.

  • 1

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#75 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:30 AM

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.


Well, Darren Dreger also reported that the Canucks have thought about simply waiving him, so maybe those teams that have expressed interest have offered nothing more than their own cap casualties.

The other thing to remember is that Luongo controls his own destiny, so, like I've said before, NYI can offer Tavares, CBJ can offer Murray, he probably ain't going to either place. I'm also personally skeptical that he'd agree on a trade to Toronto - which is an even bigger bubble than it is here. I think his "logical fit" comments about the Panthers last month were pretty revealing, as it relates to where he wants to go. Whether or not he'd be stubborn enough to hold off until he got it is in question, but it's possible.

And again, step back from the situation for a minute and ask yourself how a soon-to-be 34 year-old goaltender's value will increase playing backup to a first-time NHL starter's. It won't.
  • 0

#76 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,281 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:47 AM

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.


Hansen on the second, get real, we are missing a second line RW plain, and. simple. While we're at it Burrows shouldn't be on the first line. Our top 6 is a mess. Booth is the second line LW, you just mentioned him.


Raymond is a joke.

And Higgins is no second liner, you got that right.

Edited by Dogbyte, 12 October 2012 - 08:15 AM.

  • 0

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#77 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,281 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:55 AM

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.


We have far too many possible options for the second line. Bringing in another border line piece of crap for AV to EFF with would be beyond useless. If we're not going to bring in a real player we might as well plug in one of the plugs, Higgins, Hansen, Raymond, or Shroeder, hell might as well put Weise in there while we're at it.
  • 1

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#78 riffraff

riffraff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,122 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:16 PM



+1

Finally!
  • 0
Posted Image


CanucksSayEh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:
When the playoffs come around, nobody is scared of getting in a fight, but every night, they get their mom to check under the bed for Raffi Torres.

#79 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,831 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:13 PM

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.


Burrows is the first line RW, but he was moved to the right side because he plays so well with the twins, and because Daniel is also a natural left wing.
Booth plays left wing - when Raymond played on the second line this year with Kesler and Booth, he was the guy who moves to his off side (RW). The top RW who is a actually a natural RW on the Canucks is Hansen, which is one of the reasons the Canucks made such a bid to land Doan. That's also part of the reason I think the Kassian deal made so much sense - because of the lack of RW on the roster and in the system. That move, and drafting Jensen may remedy the imbalance in the near future, but another RW roster player wouldn't hurt - Daniel, Burrows, Booth, Raymond, Higgins - all natural left wings...
If the Canucks don't add any roster RW right away, there is the option to move Hansen to the second line as you suggested - he could be an interesting guy to try with Kesler and Booth but I don't see that as a solution and love him and Higgins together on the third line. As things stand, a third line of Higgins, Schroeder, and Raymond would have an interesting balance of two way players, lots of speed, but would not be particularly physical, and hard to say if it would be viable. With Kassian and Jensen though, the depth is developing... I don't see any real urgency at any position, but if there is any, it could be argued that an upgrade on RW, certainly relative to other positions, would be it. In terms of what could be added for Luongo, I think a sizable, physical two-way RW for Kesler would be preferable.

Edited by oldnews, 11 October 2012 - 06:45 PM.

  • 0

#80 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,831 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:46 PM

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.


No I don't gotta think that. I think there is no urgency to make a deal - and in addition there was the draft, and then there was free agency, and then there was/is the CBA negotiations and lockout - all those things add uncertainty. What players would be acquired in the draft, what players would be lost and signed in free agency, what will happen with the salary cap and floor? If Garrison had re-signed in Florida, that would effect if and what young blueliners they might consider moving. For all we know, Gillis may be holding out for Gudbranson, while Tallon is willing to move Bjugstad. These guys simply don't apprise "insiders" of what deals they are negotiating, particularly not distant guys unrelated to their teams in any serious way - and by that, I mean that Dreger is an outsider who knows shat about what Gillis and Tallon are up to (why would he feed real information to a Leafs insider?) If anything Tallon would posture that he is offering nothing or next to in order to keep the Leafs from countering with offers that run the bidding up.
Anyhow - your deal in my opinion hurts the Canucks - I'd consider Frolik a waste of cap space. Perhaps if you'd like to propose a deal of Frolik for Raymond straight up it might make a little sense, given Frolik is a RW and they have similar cap hits (but no, Frolik and his 5 goals, 10 assists and -10 in 63 games is not better than Raymond). What's the point of adding Frolik and still needing to upgrade (with more dead cap space)? Leddy in my opinion is not needed (not going to repeat the reasons why) but in addition he is an RFA who will be looking for a significant raise on his 1.1 million cap hit, and the timing couldn't really be worse, considering Edler has to be accommodated this year. Leddy would be a distant, distant second to Edler and would require making another move. No you can't throw Ballard in the Luongo deal - Chicago can't absorb both cap hits. Tanev belongs here (yes, we really need him), his cap hit will remain sensible for a while and I think you are underestimating him. Leddy doesn't make sense and in taking him and Frolk, you'd leave very little cap room to work with. I'd much rather have a couple very solid prospects and a guy with huge upside at RW - Upshall - whose cap space, if he is injured, can be used. I wouldn't be surprised if Frolik winds up on waivers in the near future anyhow. Luongo on the other hand... that is just a plain cheap-shot on the part of Dreger - has absolutely no credibility.

Edited by oldnews, 11 October 2012 - 06:52 PM.

  • 2

#81 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,232 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:13 AM

No I don't gotta think that. I think there is no urgency to make a deal - and in addition there was the draft, and then there was free agency, and then there was/is the CBA negotiations and lockout - all those things add uncertainty. What players would be acquired in the draft, what players would be lost and signed in free agency, what will happen with the salary cap and floor? If Garrison had re-signed in Florida, that would effect if and what young blueliners they might consider moving. For all we know, Gillis may be holding out for Gudbranson, while Tallon is willing to move Bjugstad. These guys simply don't apprise "insiders" of what deals they are negotiating, particularly not distant guys unrelated to their teams in any serious way - and by that, I mean that Dreger is an outsider who knows shat about what Gillis and Tallon are up to (why would he feed real information to a Leafs insider?) If anything Tallon would posture that he is offering nothing or next to in order to keep the Leafs from countering with offers that run the bidding up.
Anyhow - your deal in my opinion hurts the Canucks - I'd consider Frolik a waste of cap space. Perhaps if you'd like to propose a deal of Frolik for Raymond straight up it might make a little sense, given Frolik is a RW and they have similar cap hits (but no, Frolik and his 5 goals, 10 assists and -10 in 63 games is not better than Raymond). What's the point of adding Frolik and still needing to upgrade (with more dead cap space)? Leddy in my opinion is not needed (not going to repeat the reasons why) but in addition he is an RFA who will be looking for a significant raise on his 1.1 million cap hit, and the timing couldn't really be worse, considering Edler has to be accommodated this year. Leddy would be a distant, distant second to Edler and would require making another move. No you can't throw Ballard in the Luongo deal - Chicago can't absorb both cap hits. Tanev belongs here (yes, we really need him), his cap hit will remain sensible for a while and I think you are underestimating him. Leddy doesn't make sense and in taking him and Frolk, you'd leave very little cap room to work with. I'd much rather have a couple very solid prospects and a guy with huge upside at RW - Upshall - whose cap space, if he is injured, can be used. I wouldn't be surprised if Frolik winds up on waivers in the near future anyhow. Luongo on the other hand... that is just a plain cheap-shot on the part of Dreger - has absolutely no credibility.

Dreger, like most sports anaylist, struggles to stay relevant. Especially tough during a lockout.
  • 0

#82 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,281 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:26 AM

If indeed we were offered Schenn for Luongo and didn't take it, that was a mistake on MG's part IMO. But in all fairness I can see him not wanting to jump at the first offer. Unfortuatnely, that offer is now off the table. As a result, we are probably better holding on to Lou and tandeming the goalies until something better can be done, like at the trade deadline or in the off season before next year's season.
  • 0

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#83 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:33 AM

No I don't gotta think that. I think there is no urgency to make a deal - and in addition there was the draft, and then there was free agency, and then there was/is the CBA negotiations and lockout - all those things add uncertainty. What players would be acquired in the draft, what players would be lost and signed in free agency, what will happen with the salary cap and floor? If Garrison had re-signed in Florida, that would effect if and what young blueliners they might consider moving. For all we know, Gillis may be holding out for Gudbranson, while Tallon is willing to move Bjugstad. These guys simply don't apprise "insiders" of what deals they are negotiating, particularly not distant guys unrelated to their teams in any serious way - and by that, I mean that Dreger is an outsider who knows shat about what Gillis and Tallon are up to (why would he feed real information to a Leafs insider?) If anything Tallon would posture that he is offering nothing or next to in order to keep the Leafs from countering with offers that run the bidding up.


I just can't see any scenario where Luongo's value increases as he continues to be with our team, so I don't know how Mike Gillis could reasonably be "holding out" for Gudbranson, or, really, anybody. The longer that he's our backup (if/when hockey starts), the lower his value gets. There should be urgency, before NHL fans/teams become comfortable with the notion that Luongo is an NHL backup. It will hurt his value. It actually might be better if they just sent him home.

Anyhow - your deal in my opinion hurts the Canucks - I'd consider Frolik a waste of cap space. Perhaps if you'd like to propose a deal of Frolik for Raymond straight up it might make a little sense, given Frolik is a RW and they have similar cap hits (but no, Frolik and his 5 goals, 10 assists and -10 in 63 games is not better than Raymond). What's the point of adding Frolik and still needing to upgrade (with more dead cap space)?


Frolik's 22 years old. Last season was a disaster, and even the previous one was not very encouraging. However, he did have consecutive 21-goal years in his first two years in the league. He can produce. I actually am nowhere near as bearish towards Raymond as most people are on this site, and I think signing him for $2M or whatever it was was probably Gillis' best move of the summer.

But Frolik's interesting. Not a lot of risk, tons of reward potential.
  • 0

#84 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,401 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:10 PM

Wow. Bjugstad and Canucks, interesting read:

http://www.startribu...11.html?refer=y


Into June, Bjugstad started to lean toward returning to school. Then, in late June, Bjugstad got wind that the Vancouver Canucks were pursuing him in a trade for goalie Roberto Luongo contingent upon signing Cory Schneider long-term. The trade talk came directly from the Canucks' brass, who wanted to know if Bjugstad planned to leave school. Panthers General Manager Dale Tallon heard about it and made clear to Bjugstad that the Panthers were not trading him.

"Draft day, I was driving and I heard the talk that I might be getting traded to Vancouver, which was really random to me," Bjugstad said. "It didn't go through, but it showed me ... it's a business. My uncle [former Gopher and North Star Scott Bjugstad] talks about it all the time. College hockey, you're playing with your buddies. ... Get to the NHL, and it's a business. It's not a bad business by any means, so I can't complain if it's my job someday."
By late June, Bjugstad essentially decided he would return to school.


Canucks brass were asking someone in the Gophers org is Bjugstad was returning? Guess the rumors were true.

Edited by RunningWild, 12 October 2012 - 07:13 PM.

  • 0

#85 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,831 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:41 PM

I just can't see any scenario where Luongo's value increases as he continues to be with our team, so I don't know how Mike Gillis could reasonably be "holding out" for Gudbranson, or, really, anybody. The longer that he's our backup (if/when hockey starts), the lower his value gets. There should be urgency, before NHL fans/teams become comfortable with the notion that Luongo is an NHL backup. It will hurt his value. It actually might be better if they just sent him home.



Frolik's 22 years old. Last season was a disaster, and even the previous one was not very encouraging. However, he did have consecutive 21-goal years in his first two years in the league. He can produce. I actually am nowhere near as bearish towards Raymond as most people are on this site, and I think signing him for $2M or whatever it was was probably Gillis' best move of the summer.

But Frolik's interesting. Not a lot of risk, tons of reward potential.


As dramatic as usual king. Luongo's value isn't rising (no one is suggesting that Luongo is a bottle of wine), his value isn't dropping - he's not a volatile stock. He's not the Canucks backup. The offseason hasn't even ended. Your sense of urgency serves absolutely nothing except to evidence your inexperienced mindset. There should be patience. Nervous nellies on a hair-trigger would make gawd awful GMs.

You have a good sense of humour though. Little risk, tons of reward potential? Only you could continue to maintain such fantasy. Of course there is a risk - first, wasting asset value on Frolik, then there is the waste of cap space, and let's not forget the waste of time. Not to mention the whining that would ensue on CDC because all Gillis got us was a soft winger who might make the Wolves second line - which is where Frolik is headed, the AHL (or another league) You need to ask yourself why Frolik has been a "disaster" and "not very encouraging" - which, by the way, is a horrible sales kick on your part. He has no grit - he is soft - he gets outworked - he would make an absolutely terrible fit for Kesler's line.

Here is what a fairly savvy GM thought of him...

Panthers Give Up On Michael Frolik, Acquire Jack Skille


Updated: February 12, 2011 at 9:24 am by Alexander Monaghan
Fantasy Advice
Posted Image
Florida Panthers GM Dale Tallon felt his team needed a change. Constantly out-hit and struggling to score goals, the Cats won only two of their last 10 games forcing a move.
In only the first year of his tenure with the team, Tallon needs to establish who “his players” are. Coming from the Western Conference, Tallon wanted to build an honest team, capable of outworking and out-hitting the competition.
Clearly, the talented Michael Frolik did not fit that mold."

That was after they saw his one-dimensional upside - which just wasn't enough to want to keep him around. Since then, obviously, straight downhill - clearly they had seen what Frolik had to offer. That is the fate of players who have a very narrow skill set and their strength is not particularly outstanding. You are notorious for running down Canucks, and here you are still trying to sell Frolik as the answer? Try rethinking that one king.
  • 1

#86 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,831 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:55 PM

Dreger, like most sports anaylist, struggles to stay relevant. Especially tough during a lockout.


He also has an axe to grind with Aquilini...

"Leading up to the NHL trade deadline, it became clear to the former Canucks general manager that he and his boss Francesco Aquilini weren't on the same page.
Nonis also said he wouldn't take short cuts to make the playoffs, emphasizing, "I did it the right way."
At least some of his peers agree and commend his work. One manager says the Roberto Luongo trade will go down as one of the most significant deals in league history, while another Western Conference rival GM stated, "without Luongo, the Vancouver Canucks would have been forced to live with being bottom feeders for years."
Both men also supported Nonis's assertion that the team's foundation of superstar goaltending, a highly regarded blueline, a quality stable of prospects and cap space is a winning one."

http://www.tsn.ca/co...eger/?id=234470

Dreger understandably is loyal to his cousin Nonis and not terribly fond of Aquilini as a result.
The irony in the comments above is the utter love-o-rama for Luongo.
Today, the same Luongo is referred to by Dreger in sentences that contain words like waivers, cap dump or Mike Komisarek. King - can you smell the contradictions? The same Nonis, however, can be heard referring to the need to acquire a legitimate veteran goaltender. I wonder who he might have in mind? The Leafs - forced to live with being bottom feeders for years.
King doesn't seem to understand the game of poker. He would have folded his hand long ago, and these guys would be laughing all the way to the Luongo reception at the airport. Calling a bluff King - that is what Gillis is doing - rejecting patented low-balls - and in case you haven't noticed, Gillis is the guy holding the cards. The urgency will increase, but it won't be Gillis feeling the real pressure. He'll have some half-wits from the Province nipping at his heels; the Leafs management however would be so lucky - and don't be surprised if Tallon pays a reasonable price when the chips are down.

Edited by oldnews, 13 October 2012 - 12:02 PM.

  • 0

#87 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,142 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 13 October 2012 - 03:18 PM

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.


What do you mean "we're stuck with" them?
  • 0

/=S=/


#88 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 13 October 2012 - 04:40 PM

What do you mean "we're stuck with" them?

Stuck with them is ES way of stirring up controversy ! He loves the attention it brings. Its his freakin life !!
  • 0

#89 jagori78

jagori78

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 09

Posted 13 October 2012 - 06:30 PM

Im currently watching the MSU vs. MINN college game on the Score right now. Been watching Bjugstad the whole game, and I can't see what is so special about him. He does stand out with his size; yet it doesn't seem like it will translate to anything all that special at a pro level, perhaps the AHL though.

He reminds me of Jason Bonsignore, not sure if that is good or bad.

-Jagori
  • 0

#90 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 13 October 2012 - 07:14 PM

As dramatic as usual king. Luongo's value isn't rising (no one is suggesting that Luongo is a bottle of wine), his value isn't dropping - he's not a volatile stock. He's not the Canucks backup. The offseason hasn't even ended. Your sense of urgency serves absolutely nothing except to evidence your inexperienced mindset. There should be patience. Nervous nellies on a hair-trigger would make gawd awful GMs.


What you're saying is technically correct, that the offseason hasn't ended. But once it does, oh boy, do we have a major issue on our hands that will follow us until the very second that he leaves.

Little risk, tons of reward potential? Only you could continue to maintain such fantasy. Of course there is a risk - first, wasting asset value on Frolik, then there is the waste of cap space, and let's not forget the waste of time. Not to mention the whining that would ensue on CDC because all Gillis got us was a soft winger who might make the Wolves second line - which is where Frolik is headed, the AHL (or another league) You need to ask yourself why Frolik has been a "disaster" and "not very encouraging" - which, by the way, is a horrible sales kick on your part. He has no grit - he is soft - he gets outworked - he would make an absolutely terrible fit for Kesler's line.


The risk is small, yes. $2.3M is his cap hit I believe? The reward potential is high - if he can be counted on to score 20 goals, annually, it would be considered an excellent return. Speaking of "disasters", Raymond was a disaster last year, and you could even say that Kesler was, too. Do we also need to ask ourselves "why", or do we just default to the "durr, they were injured" excuse?

Here is what a fairly savvy GM thought of him...

Panthers Give Up On Michael Frolik, Acquire Jack Skill

Tallon wanted to build an honest team, capable of outworking and out-hitting the competition.
Clearly, the talented Michael Frolik did not fit that mold."


I recall a fairly "savvy" GM giving up on Michael Grabner, too. Does Tallon giving up on Frolik indicate that he's a write-off? Hope not, or else what have we ended up with in Jason Garrison?

That was after they saw his one-dimensional upside - which just wasn't enough to want to keep him around. Since then, obviously, straight downhill - clearly they had seen what Frolik had to offer. That is the fate of players who have a very narrow skill set and their strength is not particularly outstanding. You are notorious for running down Canucks, and here you are still trying to sell Frolik as the answer? Try rethinking that one king.


"The answer", no. An element of the deal, yes. Very different.
  • 0




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.