King of the ES Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 All the more reason not to trade him them eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 There will definitely be locker room tension if Luongo stays on the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 They haven't had any so far that we know of, so why should that start now? They're team players, they'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 He asked for a trade after the team offically made Schnieder the starter. Luongo doesn't want to be in Vancouver anymore and his team mates are going to know that and they won't want him there. It'll snowball from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 There will definitely be locker room tension if Luongo stays on the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 He asked for a trade after the team offically made Schnieder the starter. Luongo doesn't want to be in Vancouver anymore and his team mates are going to know that and they won't want him there. It'll snowball from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Oh, and I'm sure that they'd just be thrilled with that arrangement. Kind-of, sort-of NHL starters, kind-of, sort-of NHL backups. Sounds like one hell of an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 The team didn't "officially" make Schneider starter. Therefore, there is no tension. Instead, it just means each goalie will really have to earn their games. The rest of the team won't have a problem with Lu staying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.