King of the ES Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 His deal is better than your deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Keith Aulie is no where near a 'high-end D prospect'. You're just saying that to push the argument in your favour. He's a good D prospect, not high-end. You'd think Toronto would've kept him if he was what you say he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Of course it is, from the Canucks' perspective. The problem is that it would never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Nothing, if the goal is to have a distracted, thoroughly annoyed locker room, and two disgruntled goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 And once again, you do not know how anyone on the team will react to the situation should Luongo remain with the team for a an extended period of time. You are making an assumption. Your assumptions are not facts. Further, you assume that Luongo will *not* be traded in a timely fashion. I think he will be gone fairly soon after the new CBA is signed. And even if he were not traded by the deadline, how the team is performing would help shape how they feel about the situation. If the Canucks were bumped from the playoffs (or missed the playoffs entirely), with Luongo still here and not contributing, then there could be an argument made for your point of view. On the other hand, what if the team went all the way through and won the Cup, with Luongo being the "back-up" and providing a valuable contribution? You continue to under value what Luongo will bring back in a trade. This being said, my proposals are a more valid starting point for Gillis and another GM to discuss a deal, rather than, "Here's some old socks. Give us Luongo." And what is to be gained from trading Luongo for next to nothing? Maybe a bit of cap space after the cap dump contract moves on in a few years, and a happy locker room, assuming the guys on the team are still happy with the worthless acquisitions you suggest Gillis will get for Luongo. It's also ironic that you demand that Gillis should trade Luongo as quickly as possible, yet you claim that Gillis will not be able to get anything of significant value for Luongo, which will mean that he will not be traded. And so the cycle goes around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 You accuse others of assuming and having unrealistic trade proposals while your proposals and assumptions are exactly the same except much to far in the Canucks' favor. Your sole reasoning on your proposals is Gillis's wish list to Santa and that Luongo would be happy as Schneider's backup indefinitely. What if I told you that Brian Burke said the most he would trade for Luongo is Komisarek, a cap dump for a cap dump? You would completely dismiss this idea even if every other GM in the league was saying that's what they would offer for Luongo. Your logic is circular and one sided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 You accuse others of assuming and having unrealistic trade proposals while your proposals and assumptions are exactly the same except much to far in the Canucks' favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 I thought that deal of Luongo, Ballard FOR Paajarvi was off. The Oilers would be taking 9.5 mil in salary back and what is considered two bad contracts for Paajarvi. It doesn't take a rocket scientist? Tell me using logic and reason why Gollumps deal makes more sense. Gollumps has said several times that Luongo would be fine as being a backup to Schneider. You're mistaken on Luongo's value compared to salary. Luongo is being paid as a difference maker goaltender, has he ever brought the Canucks to a level higher than they were? Look at Kiprusoff in Calgary, he makes a difference. Without Kiprusoff, Calgary would have likely been a lottery team. If anything, Luongo's shakyness has lessened the success the Canucks should have gotten. Luongo could not stop the puck when he needed to in the playoffs. So teams see this goalie on the Canucks who is shaky. Since been in the NHL he never really brought a team to the next level, carrying them on his back. They also see attached to this shaky goalie a big contract. Teams are going to have to commit to a a goalie who gets paid like a difference maker for the next 10 years. Whatever team taking him on is taking a big risk. The best I've ever seen Luongo play was in the WJC. Canada only got 2nd that year but he was unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I thought that deal of Luongo, Ballard FOR Paajarvi was off. The Oilers would be taking 9.5 mil in salary back and what is considered two bad contracts for Paajarvi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 29th overall pick, yeah Ashton is a real gem too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 And once again, you do not know how anyone on the team will react to the situation should Luongo remain with the team for a an extended period of time. You are making an assumption. Your assumptions are not facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Gollumpus's proposals are pretty much what Luongo should easily get. Your proposals on the other hand, are absolute crap and are almost insulting to a goalie of Lu's calibre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Okay which of these two deals is more slanted in either teams favour King of ES's deal: Luongo + Ballard for Paajarvi Gollumpus's deal: Purcell + Aulie + 1st for Luongo + Sauve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 You think the only reason why that atrocious deal is off because the Oilers would be taking back $9.5 million of salary??? You are either A) a troll B ) retarded C) A Luongo hater D) All of the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 The deal above was something that I wrote in passing. Still reasonable, IMO. However, my actual Luongo proposal was Luongo + Tanev to Chicago for Leddy + Frolik + Beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Is Nick Jensen a real gem? 29th overall pick in 2011. Something tells me that you'll think he's far better and far more valuable than Ashton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 The deal above was something that I wrote in passing. Still reasonable, IMO. However, my actual Luongo proposal was Luongo + Tanev to Chicago for Leddy + Frolik + Beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 And you are also making an assumption that there wouldn't be any of these locker room problems that I've mentioned. So, yes, we're both making assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 Actually he's not making any assumptions, only you are. Because Cory and Lu are good friends, and we already seen first hand that it can work without issue if it has too, not to mention everyone in the room likes both. As Mike Gillis said, it can work because we have seen it work, what better proof is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Why if Schneider and Luongo are such good friends did Luongo ask for a trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.