Pears Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 And I believe if either Florida played for the Canucks, they would /could have done as well as Lou and would Lou have had success with Florida. We each have our own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Who's better? Luongo, Clemmensen or Theodore? Which one of those is a proven, star #1 goalie, and which other 2 are average starters/backups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Once again, if Luongo has a bad contract, how would getting him for even a low grade prospect (a contract for a contract trade) do anything to off-set all of these negatives? You acknowledge that Luongo is a good player, but that is not the point to which I am seeking an answer from you. You talk about the cap hit, the actual salary payments, the term remaining on the deal, Luongo's age, heck, we could even toss in that he got the Canucks to game 7 of the finals and didn't win the Cup. All of that stuff makes Luongo not a desirable guy to pick up. Assume Tallon said he'd give a guy who was the Panthers 9th round pick from 4 years ago for Luongo, and Gillis said yes. Does Luongo's term get shorter? Does his cap hit go down? Does Luongo get younger? Does his take home pay shrink? How does Tallon trying to get Luongo at a fire sale price reduce the impact of all of these negatives? And frankly, just because they wouldn't have to give up much of anything to get him isn't a very good answer. Do you have any others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 On the other hand, you talk about how viable these guys are - Florida has Theodore and Clemmenson - they don't really need Luongo - so clearly a guy who is 36 years old is a reasonable starter, and probably will be for another few years, when he'll be 38. Undermines your insistance that Luongo's age and term is such a problem, doesn't it. Luongo in 5 years will be 38, and at the end of his real contract / into the cap circumvention years - when his salary drops off to 3.3, 1.6, 1.0 and 1.0 million... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Because there's a price at which anybody becomes valuable. Simple. Florida has made it clear that at a cost of Nick Bjugstad, Roberto Luongo has low value, and they're thus not willing to trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Because there's a price at which anybody becomes valuable. Simple. Florida has made it clear that at a cost of Nick Bjugstad, Roberto Luongo has low value, and they're thus not willing to trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Nope. Not buying that argument. You infer that Luongo and his contract are so terrible, that trading for him would be a mistake by any franchise. None of those negatives go away, whether the price is Nick Bjugstad or RJ Boyd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 That's hard to say. On one hand, Theodore and Clemmensen backstopped the Panthers into the playoffs, something which Luongo couldn't do. On the other hand, Luongo has far more impressive regular season stats in his career. Theodore is past his prime and Clemmenson is pretty much a career backup. I think Luongo is better than both of them but Theodore has a much more impressive trophy case. If Theodore played for the Canucks over the last couple of years I think he could post Luongoesque statistics, and maybe better in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Where did I say that Luongo was "terrible"? Let's see some evidence, CSI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 They also have that Jakob Markstrom guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 You however do not seem to understand, or are just unwilling to provide an answer to my point: If Luongo's contract is so bad, and it has so many risks, why would any team be interested in acquiring Luongo, regardless of the price tag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Ah, I'll take that as "uncle" and thus, changing the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 You're saying that Markstrom's not a factor? A very highly-touted goaltending prospect might affect their desire/need to pick up a 34 year-old with 9 years left on his deal, I would think. Not changing the subject at all, merely uncovering more information for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 The answer is the same as my last post's; everybody is attractive at a certain price point. Who's the worst contract in the league? Bryzgalov? Leafs might have interest if Philly would take Komisarek or Connolly in exchange, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 The answer is the same as my last post's; everybody is attractive at a certain price point. Who's the worst contract in the league? Bryzgalov? Leafs might have interest if Philly would take Komisarek or Connolly in exchange, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 "Unfortunately, it requires Philadelphia to trade an untradeable contract. If you think Toronto, or anyone else, would even take a whiff of Bryzgalov, you are dreaming." King of ES. Another King sized contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 The "certain price point" for Florida could include Bjugstad. The reason the trade hasn't been completed already might be a combination of Tallon (or other rival GM's) waiting to see what happens with the new CBA, and whether he can sweat Gillis into giving them a fire sale price for Luongo (something I do not see happening). It is only your stubborn inability to acknowledge this possibility (and perhaps a belief on your part that, since you would not do this, therefore no one else would do this) which keeps you harping on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Tallon called Bjugstad and told him that he wasn't getting traded - a quote from Bjugstad himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Tallon called Bjugstad and told him that he wasn't getting traded - a quote from Bjugstad himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Did you notice how I said "might" in my post? If Komisarek/Connolly were going to Philly and maybe if TOR were getting something else in addition (say, Matt Read), that might put Bryz at good value for them. Like I said, at a certain price point, anyone has value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.