Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Luongo Trade Theory 101


  • Please log in to reply
418 replies to this topic

#1 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 13 October 2012 - 10:58 PM

There are lots of proposal with Luongo going to every team but several variables are ignored.

1. The Market

- There aren't many goalie openings in the NHL, approximately 60. Of those 60, 30 of them are starting positions and since Luongo gets starter money, his openings are cut in half.

- Of the 30 starting positions, most are already occupied. Here is a list of teams possibly in the market for a goalie: Chicago, Columbus, Edmonton, Florida, New Jersey, NYI, Philadelphia, Tampa Bay, Toronto.

- Now down to 9 teams, how many of those teams would Luongo waive his NTC to go to? The ones he wouldn't go to IMO are Columbus, the NYI and Toronto.

- The remaining 6 teams are Chicago, Edmonton, Florida, New Jersey, Philadelphia and Tampa Bay. Some of these teams are not financially strong enough to handle Luongo's contract. That scratches Tampa Bay, New Jersey and Florida unless Gillis is willing to take equal money (contract dollar value, not cap value) in return. Luongo's has 43.666 million towards him for the next 7 years. Canucks would need to take something similar to that back to trade with one of these smaller market teams.

- Are there teams Gillis would refuse to trade Luongo to? Chicago and Edmonton maybe?

- Would Philadelphia buyout a big contract in Bryzgalov's and then trade for a big one in Luongo's?

2. Assessing Value

- Value is determined by the highest bidding team. With that being said, every team would be offering the least possible return. Potential Luongo trading partners are going to see a limited market combined with a likely lowering and Luongo's big contract as Luongo being a burden.

- What would Gillis being looking for? Would he want to strengthen the Canucks team now or get cap relief with assets that are future based?

3. Other Canuck Assets

- Just because the Canucks have disposable assets (ie Ballard, Raymond, Booth, etc) it doesn't mean that other teams want them and it especially doesn't mean that it adds value to the trade.

- Adding other assets to any Luongo trade over complicate the trade and makes it less likely.

In Conclusion

Keep all the other variables in mind when proposing Luongo trades.
  • 2

#2 Where's Wellwood

Where's Wellwood

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,146 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 10

Posted 13 October 2012 - 11:15 PM

There are lots of proposal with Luongo going to every team but several variables are ignored.

1. The Market

- There aren't many goalie openings in the NHL, approximately 60. Of those 60, 30 of them are starting positions and since Luongo gets starter money, his openings are cut in half.

- Of the 30 starting positions, most are already occupied. Here is a list of teams possibly in the market for a goalie: Chicago, Columbus, Edmonton, Florida, New Jersey, NYI, Philadelphia, Tampa Bay, Toronto.

- Now down to 9 teams, how many of those teams would Luongo waive his NTC to go to? The ones he wouldn't go to IMO are Columbus, the NYI and Toronto.

I wouldn't be so quick to scratch Toronto off the list.

- The remaining 6 teams are Chicago, Edmonton, Florida, New Jersey, Philadelphia and Tampa Bay. Some of these teams are not financially strong enough to handle Luongo's contract. That scratches Tampa Bay, New Jersey and Florida unless Gillis is willing to take equal money (contract dollar value, not cap value) in return. Luongo's has 43.666 million towards him for the next 7 years. Canucks would need to take something similar to that back to trade with one of these smaller market teams.

- Are there teams Gillis would refuse to trade Luongo to? Chicago and Edmonton maybe?

Gillis might refuse Edmonton b/c they're in the same division but Chicago would still be a possibility. Theoretically. IRL Chicago doesn't want him.

- Would Philadelphia buyout a big contract in Bryzgalov's and then trade for a big one in Luongo's?

I wouldn't even put Philly as one of the teams in the market for a goalie b/c of the Bryzgalov situation. They just can't afford it.

2. Assessing Value

- Value is determined by the highest bidding team. With that being said, every team would be offering the least possible return. Potential Luongo trading partners are going to see a limited market combined with a likely lowering and Luongo's big contract as Luongo being a burden.

- What would Gillis being looking for? Would he want to strengthen the Canucks team now or get cap relief with assets that are future based?

I think Gillis would want a high end prospect and a player that fits into a hole in our roster now.

3. Other Canuck Assets

- Just because the Canucks have disposable assets (ie Ballard, Raymond, Booth, etc) it doesn't mean that other teams want them and it especially doesn't mean that it adds value to the trade.

So true.

- Adding other assets to any Luongo trade over complicate the trade and makes it less likely.

Exactly. People propose these huge three team, 8 player trades. Those will never happen.

In Conclusion

Keep all the other variables in mind when proposing Luongo trades.


  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to khalifawiz501 for the sig.
My old sig: http://tinypic.com/v...=5#.UlSrrlAWJ7U

#3 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:17 AM

*
POPULAR

Sadly, there is no way to convince all the haters who just want him gone.

Some people undervalue Lu so much it's embarrassing.
  • 6

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#4 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,236 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:22 AM

Sadly, there is no way to convince all the haters who just want him gone.

Some people undervalue Lu so much it's embarrassing.

I've always believed wherever Luongo got traded to, he could bring a top six forward back to Vancouver.
  • 1

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


#5 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:38 AM

I've always believed wherever Luongo got traded to, he could bring a top six forward back to Vancouver.


He definitely could. That's probably the only thing MG will trade him for too.
  • 1

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#6 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:45 AM

My "theory" is that: We can't trade him till there's a new CBA so we need to get a new CBA right now so that...

A. He can move on

B. Life can continue normally with Canucks hockey

C. I can actually care about proposals

This isn't really a theory or anything, I dont even know what I'm saying I just want the season to start :( Badly


But now seriously, we have to get fair value in return, or else no deal, no way this is a "cap dump" or anything like that.
  • 1

zackass.png


#7 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:37 AM

Sadly, there is no way to convince all the haters who just want him gone.

Some people undervalue Lu so much it's embarrassing.

I've always believed wherever Luongo got traded to, he could bring a top six forward back to Vancouver.

He definitely could. That's probably the only thing MG will trade him for too.

But now seriously, we have to get fair value in return, or else no deal, no way this is a "cap dump" or anything like that.


Luongo's value will be known as soon as the new CBA is in place. If there is no cap reduction or cap reduction with equal rollback then most teams interested in Luongo could afford him and Gillis won't "need" to trade him for cap reasons.

If there is a drop in the cap without a similar drop in player salaries, that will significantly cut the market and put Gillis and the Canucks in a position where they will have to trade him and not take much salary back.
  • 0

#8 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:00 AM

Luongo's value will be known as soon as the new CBA is in place. If there is no cap reduction or cap reduction with equal rollback then most teams interested in Luongo could afford him and Gillis won't "need" to trade him for cap reasons.

If there is a drop in the cap without a similar drop in player salaries, that will significantly cut the market and put Gillis and the Canucks in a position where they will have to trade him and not take much salary back.


I don't think this will be the case. If we are better off with keeping Lu, then we'll keep him.

I really don't think a cap drop will happen, but if it does, we're better off trading players like Malhotra, Ballard, Raymond, and even Schneider than we are to trade Lu. (In Schneider's case it would be because of the greater return)
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#9 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 03:21 AM

If there is a cap drop without the corresponding rollback, there would be little to no interest in Malhotra, Ballard, Raymond or Booth.

As far as trading Schnieder and keeping Luongo, the Canucks and Luongo may have passed the point of no return since Luongo requested a trade.
  • 0

#10 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 03:35 AM

I wouldn't be so quick to scratch Toronto off the list.


Maybe. The Leafs have a connection to Luongo through Nonis but in the end, Luongo couldn't handle the pressure of playing in Vancouver so Toronto wouldn't be an upgrade in that sense. Frying pan - fire?

Gillis might refuse Edmonton b/c they're in the same division but Chicago would still be a possibility. Theoretically. IRL Chicago doesn't want him


IMO Chicago would love to acquire Luongo if the price was right, like most teams. If Edmonton were looking at Luongo, one would think Gillis would have to at least keep his options open.

I wouldn't even put Philly as one of the teams in the market for a goalie b/c of the Bryzgalov situation. They just can't afford it.


I wouldn't usually but Philadelphia is backed by a huge company called Comcast. They are a TV broadcaster and media giant netting over 10 billion dollars a year. They can afford to buyout Bryzgalov if there was such a clause in the new CBA. The question is would they then jump at another big goalie contract after the last one?

I think Gillis would want a high end prospect and a player that fits into a hole in our roster now


IMO he doesn't get both. He gets either a high end prospect and or picks with a cap dump or decent player in a hockey trade. The thing to remember is the Luongo market is a buyers market.
  • 0

#11 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:34 PM

Sadly, there is no way to convince all the haters who just want him gone.

Some people undervalue Lu so much it's embarrassing.


Um, do you realize that the OPs post was trying to convince people that the return from Luongo should not be expected to be very high?

Limited buyers = limited return.
  • 0

#12 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:47 PM

Um, do you realize that the OPs post was trying to convince people that the return from Luongo should not be expected to be very high?

Limited buyers = limited return.


Op didn't say to trade him for peanuts like most CDCer's do.

If that limited return doesn't equal what Lu is actually worth and how much he would help his team, then it is foolish to trade him.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#13 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:50 PM

If there is a cap drop without the corresponding rollback, there would be little to no interest in Malhotra, Ballard, Raymond or Booth.

As far as trading Schnieder and keeping Luongo, the Canucks and Luongo may have passed the point of no return since Luongo requested a trade.


Again, the cap drop is just so unlikely to happen. But we are better off trading those 3 guys for little return than we are trading Lu for little return.

Many believe that that point has passed, myself included. However it would be better for the team to trade Cory instead of Lu. It won't happen, but it would benefit us.

And apparently you also didn't hear Lu's latest comments.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#14 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:19 PM

If that limited return doesn't equal what Lu is actually worth and how much he would help his team, then it is foolish to trade him.


Except that his value will not do anything but drop. Then the return will be even worse.
  • 0

#15 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 03:14 PM

Except that his value will not do anything but drop. Then the return will be even worse.


If Gillis were to allow Luongo to sit around for a year or two, then potentially his value would drop. However, I suspect that Luongo has a better shelf life than a litre of milk. There isn't any great rush in trading him.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#16 babych

babych

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,186 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 08

Posted 14 October 2012 - 03:43 PM

I wouldn't usually but Philadelphia is backed by a huge company called Comcast. They are a TV broadcaster and media giant netting over 10 billion dollars a year. They can afford to buyout Bryzgalov if there was such a clause in the new CBA. The question is would they then jump at another big goalie contract after the last one?


They can afford to but it makes no sense from a hockey standpoint unless there is a drastic change in how buyouts work under the new CBA. If they use the same rules as the old one the buyout is gets really messy due to the contract being front-loaded.

Here are the numbers, assuming Bryz gets bought out at the end of this "season".

Ilya Bryzgalov buyout from CapGeek.com
  • 2013-14: -$690,476
  • 2014-15: $1,309,524
  • 2015-16: $1,309,524
  • 2016-17: $1,809,524
  • 2017-18: $1,809,524
  • 2018-19: $5,059,524
  • 2019-20: $6,059,524
  • 2020-21: $1,642,857
  • 2021-22: $1,642,857
  • 2022-23: $1,642,857
  • 2023-24: $1,642,857
  • 2024-25: $1,642,857
  • 2025-26: $1,642,857
  • 2026-27: $1,642,857

Note the cap hit for the 2018-2020 seasons, which correspond to the last 2 seasons of Bryzgalov's current contract. Again, this is due to the fact that the contract is front-loaded.


There's no way that Phiily would be willing to do this.

  • 0
QUOTE
(shiznak@Jun 17 2008, 08:00 PM)
Kesler was lucky to score 20 this year since the injury to Morrison allowed him to do so.

I doubt Kesler would ever break 15 goals in his career again.

#17 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 04:45 PM

They can afford to but it makes no sense from a hockey standpoint unless there is a drastic change in how buyouts work under the new CBA. If they use the same rules as the old one the buyout is gets really messy due to the contract being front-loaded.

Here are the numbers, assuming Bryz gets bought out at the end of this "season".

Ilya Bryzgalov buyout from CapGeek.com

  • 2013-14: -$690,476
  • 2014-15: $1,309,524
  • 2015-16: $1,309,524
  • 2016-17: $1,809,524
  • 2017-18: $1,809,524
  • 2018-19: $5,059,524
  • 2019-20: $6,059,524
  • 2020-21: $1,642,857
  • 2021-22: $1,642,857
  • 2022-23: $1,642,857
  • 2023-24: $1,642,857
  • 2024-25: $1,642,857
  • 2025-26: $1,642,857
  • 2026-27: $1,642,857
Note the cap hit for the 2018-2020 seasons, which correspond to the last 2 seasons of Bryzgalov's current contract. Again, this is due to the fact that the contract is front-loaded.

There's no way that Phiily would be willing to do this.


The would only buy him out if there were a free buyout clause.
  • 0

#18 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 05:13 PM

Except that his value will not do anything but drop. Then the return will be even worse.


All the more reason not to trade him them eh?
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#19 babych

babych

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,186 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 08

Posted 15 October 2012 - 05:58 AM

The would only buy him out if there were a free buyout clause.

Exactly. So unless the rules for the buyout of player salaries change drastically with the new CBA then Philly is off the list of potential destinations for Luongo.
  • 0
QUOTE
(shiznak@Jun 17 2008, 08:00 PM)
Kesler was lucky to score 20 this year since the injury to Morrison allowed him to do so.

I doubt Kesler would ever break 15 goals in his career again.

#20 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:18 AM

Exactly. So unless the rules for the buyout of player salaries change drastically with the new CBA then Philly is off the list of potential destinations for Luongo.

Fair enough. I'm not even sure if I want to see Philadelphia as a candidate because then a bunch of people are going to think Schenn, Couturier, + FOR Luongo is realistic.
  • 0

#21 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 16 October 2012 - 03:28 AM

All the more reason not to trade him them eh?


Uh, no, all the more reason to cut your losses and get rid of him.

You see no problems with paying $5.2M to your backup goaltender, eh?
  • 0

#22 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,434 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 16 October 2012 - 03:35 AM

Op didn't say to trade him for peanuts like most CDCer's do.

If that limited return doesn't equal what Lu is actually worth and how much he would help his team, then it is foolish to trade him.


Allow me to clarify for KingofES. He has stated in the past that he can't wait to see the "table scraps we get for Luongo."

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 16 October 2012 - 04:55 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#23 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:36 AM

Allow me to clarify for the OP. He has stated in the past that he can't wait to see the "table scraps we get for Luongo."


I'm not the OP - presuming that this was addressed to me.

You and BUREV simply do not understand market dynamics. Waivers has been discussed for Luongo, according to Dreger. The fact that that's even being considered as an option should give you an indication of the type of offers that we've received.

But, you can also put your head in the sand and ignore that, or claim that Dreger has a vendetta against the Canucks, like others have. Whatever makes you feel better.
  • 0

#24 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,434 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:52 AM

I'm not the OP - presuming that this was addressed to me.

You and BUREV simply do not understand market dynamics. Waivers has been discussed for Luongo, according to Dreger. The fact that that's even being considered as an option should give you an indication of the type of offers that we've received.

But, you can also put your head in the sand and ignore that, or claim that Dreger has a vendetta against the Canucks, like others have. Whatever makes you feel better.

Well you said it so obviously it's about you; not addressed to you however. I will edit out that I called you the OP; that was a mistake.

That's right we disagree with you so we simply don't understand. I have also never claimed Dreger has a vendetta against the canucks. That is simply false. What I have said is that I put as much stock in Dreger as I do any other sports "reporter"; which is slightly higher than Eklund. Some have proven more credible than others but essentially they are all entertainers trying to keep their jobs. I don't really care what they say I care what is actually happening.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 16 October 2012 - 04:54 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#25 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 01:30 PM

How does the Luongo Trading Theory 101 change if the salary cap end up around $64-$65 million? Do you still think you'll get a top 6 forward in return?

Also, it looks like for players with existing contracts over 5 years the players cap hit will apply even if they retire. So Luongo's cap hit stays the same for the duration of his contract. If this part of the CBA stands up it becomes 100 times more difficult to deal Luongo unless its for a similar contract (which would be difficult). Please, no Hossa for Luongo rumors, it's not happening.

Edited by Darth Kane, 16 October 2012 - 09:41 PM.

  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#26 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:52 PM

How does the Luongo Trading Theory 101 change if the salary cap end up around $64-$65 million? Do you still think you'll get a top 6 forward in return?

Also, it looks like for players with existing contracts over 5 years the players cap hit will apply even if they retire. So Luongo's cap hit stays the same for the duration of his contract. If this part of the CBA stands up it becomes 100 times more difficult to deal Luongo unless its for a similar contract (which would be difficult). Please, no Hossa for Luongo rumors, it's not happening.

If what you say happens, there would be no value coming to the Canucks in exchange for Luongo.

I remember hearing earlier in the off season that Luongo was thinking about retiring in 6 or 7 years. That would leave a team paying for Luongo at a cap hit of 5.33 two years after he retires.
  • 0

#27 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:52 PM

If what you say happens, there would be no value coming to the Canucks in exchange for Luongo.

I remember hearing earlier in the off season that Luongo was thinking about retiring in 6 or 7 years. That would leave a team paying for Luongo at a cap hit of 5.33 two years after he retires.


I wonder what will happen to the buyouts? Maybe a team buys out a player like Luongo instead of letting him retire (assuming he isn't too far from retirement). If this clause goes through both Vancouver and Chicago stand to lose big time. But if Hossa remains relatively healthy he can be the next Selanne (different style) and play into his 40s. Maybe Luongo would be the next Broduer?
  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#28 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:23 PM

Uh, no, all the more reason to cut your losses and get rid of him.

You see no problems with paying $5.2M to your backup goaltender, eh?


Cut what losses? We haven't lost anything.

And yea paying that much for a backup could be a problem. But this isn't Huet we're talking about. This is a guy who will win a majority of his games. If we keep both goalies, they would split the games.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#29 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:27 PM

Allow me to clarify for KingofES. He has stated in the past that he can't wait to see the "table scraps we get for Luongo."


That doesn't surprise me at all. :lol:
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#30 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:32 PM

I'm not the OP - presuming that this was addressed to me.

You and BUREV simply do not understand market dynamics. Waivers has been discussed for Luongo, according to Dreger. The fact that that's even being considered as an option should give you an indication of the type of offers that we've received.

But, you can also put your head in the sand and ignore that, or claim that Dreger has a vendetta against the Canucks, like others have. Whatever makes you feel better.


You believe what Lu said 6 months ago, tell me not to believe what he said just one month ago, and now your telling me I should believe what a reporter has to say. See the logical fallacy in that?

Either way, if MG declined a Lu for Schenn deal, he certainly wouldn't just waive Lu. He will either wait for the right deal, or just not trade him. There's no harm in keeping him on the team.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 





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.