King of the ES Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I've been asked to propose a solution for Luongo. The way I see it, the ideal trade partner is the Chicago Blackhawks. Without further ado... To CHICAGO: -Roberto Luongo -Chris Tanev To VANCOUVER: -Nick Leddy -Michael Frolik -Kyle Beach NEW LINES: Sedin/Sedin/Burrows Booth/Kesler/Frolik Higgins/Malhotra/Raymond Beach/Lapierre/Hansen Edler/Hamhuis Bieksa/Leddy Garrison/Alberts Schneider/Backup EDIT: adjusted for Chicago's cap constraints. ORIGINAL: To CHICAGO: -Luongo -Ballard To VANCOUVER: -Leddy -Montador -Beach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Nick Leddy for Luongo as the centerpieces of a deal makes sense, in fact I proposed the same thing. However, the Blackhawks are adding around 6 million in salary, when they would only be able to add about 2-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Take out Ballard and Montador and get it done MG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 No thanks. Chicago doesn't want Ballard under any circumstances. As the other poster pointed out a lot more salary need to go back to Vancouver for any (highly unlikely) deal between Chicago and Vancouver for Luongo. This deal may work for Vancouver but it doesn't work for Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Chicago wouldn't/couldn't make this trade. They would have to shed a lot of salary to be able to take on both Ballard and Lu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLahey Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 The problem with dealing with Chicago, is that they probably aren't willing to move any of Seabrook, Keith, Toews, Kane, Hossa, Bolland or Sharp. So what Chicago is willing to offer doesn't address our main weak point (top six winger). So I personally wouldn't deal with Chicago unless we improve in areas we need to improve, which as it stands, is not our defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 No thanks. Chicago doesn't want Ballard under any circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLahey Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 And RE: salary, they can make other moves to accommodate. The above deal is fair. If Ballard must be taken out, then Montador also must and Mike Frolik must be added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-52 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 A far better trade would be Lu+ for kane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 A far better trade would be Lu+ for kane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpush Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I would do it if Beach was replaced for a different prospect like Smith, Hayes, Danault or a draft pick. I think Leddy has more upside than Tanev right now but really hard to tell what Tanev will develop into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 I would do it if Beach was replaced for a different prospect like Smith, Hayes, Danault or a draft pick. I think Leddy has more upside than Tanev right now but really hard to tell what Tanev will develop into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Wow. Hear that, Canuck fans? Can I ask why you say that, though? The only thing missing on Chicago is goaltending. How does it not work for Chicago? And RE: salary, I've made adjustments in the original for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Wow. Hear that, Canuck fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 2. Why doesn't the trade work - part of the issue with goaltending was the team's defense. An improved defense combined with a bounce back year from Crawford then goaltending is not an issue. Sure, it's not certain Crawford will bounce back, but the talent is there (see 2010/2011) be there are lots of goalies that bounce back after poor 2nd year. So all things considered giving Crawford another shot and keeping a top forward is the better way to go. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Luongo fan but I don't think a deal can be made between Chicago and Vancouver that will realistically satisfy each team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Interesting take. You're a Hawks fan, I take it? The only thing that I would ask is why was there an issue with the team's D? That's pretty difficult to believe, given who they've got. And in addition, like you, I was very high on Corey Crawford's hopes after the 2010-11 season. He badly outplayed Luongo in our playoff series. But this past season was a pretty significant pullback, which should be pretty discouraging for Hawks fans. The guy practically lost them the series against Phoenix. His numbers were worse than any goalie who started > 50 games. And this isn't a young guy going through a sophomore slump, this is a 28 year-old who was very clearly the weak link on this team. You might be right, that it's too early to give up on him, but this might be Chicago's only shot at getting a goalie like Luongo, so they might want to act. I do agree that Gillis would be reluctant to move him to Chicago, for obvious reasons, but I think it's both the most logical destination for Luongo, and that Chicago has the most logical assets for the Canucks to be interested in. The potential is there, if these two factions can put the egos aside and realize that they're each other's ideal partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 I hear you on your comments about Crawford and I don't disagree, but I don't think it's worth giving up a key roster player to get Luongo. When we won the cup in 2010 it was due to our incredible depth, which was torn apart during the great purge in the summer of 2010. While Niemi had some solid moments he wasn't a super star by any means, if we can win with Niemi we can win with Crawford if he gets close to his 2010/2011 form. As an organization we're just starting to rebuild the depth with lost, the "core" player (Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Bolland, Keith and Seabrook) aren't going anywhere and neither are the next wave of potentially great forwards we have in the pipeline - Teravainen, McNeill, Danault, and Saad (to name a few). Frolik, Hayes, Leddy and to a lesser extend Kruger could be available but that's probably not what Vancouver is looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Kruger is another guy that I'd be interested in, though not as much as Beach. Kruger's a good player, though it's difficult to see where he'd fit in on this team (though he may well be better than Schroeder, in the long run). Like I said, I get to see a fair bit of Ice Hog games, and the amount of promising youth that Chicago has at the moment is sickening. Kruger, Shaw, Leddy, all have been very, very impressive when I've seen them play in the AHL. I see Leddy as an ideal fit for this team, and I think Frolik's a nice swing-for-the-fences play in light of a cool market for Luongo's services. Kyle Beach, too, who I'm obviously very high on, and who may be presently lost in the rich shuffle that is Chicago's young prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 OP, where is Kassian in your lineup for Vancouver? Zack provides what Kyle Beach does so getting him from Chicago could be redundant; I'd rather get Kruger, since he used to play on the 2nd line for the Hawks if I'm not mistaken. He can slot in very well as the 3rd line center for us and if Kes isn't back when the season starts Marcus can also slot up into the Top 6. I also wouldn't mind the idea of Frolik, who could fill a Top 6 skilled winger role as well if he plays up to his potential (he could be another David Booth-type acquisition, who prices himself out in another market and can succeed given the right minutes; he's scored at an average of nearly a half-point per game during his career). Even at $2.3M he's not that expensive as a project player (though I'd really only want him of Kass or Hansen don't make it into the Top 6). Just hope that if somehow this trade does happen Lu doesn't come back to burn his former team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 Where would Kruger fit in? He'd be a perfect 3rd line centre for the Canucks, he's far better than another other option you have right now (although that could change in the future with Gaunce). There's been a lot of discussion amongst Blackhawks fans about moving Bolland to the 2nd line and Kruger to the 3rd, but I think Bolland is just too good centre the checking line so that leaves Kruger for the 2nd or 4th line. I don't think he's ready (yet) for the 2nd line, and he's far better thana 4th line centre. He might end up on the wing with Bolland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.