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

#31 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:41 PM

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?

IMO Luongo has a better chance of playing every year of his contract than Hossa.

Hossa plays to rugged a game to last long. Selanne is more of a finnese player.
  • 0

#32 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:43 PM

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.

There will definitely be locker room tension if Luongo stays on the Canucks.
  • 0

#33 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:10 AM

There will definitely be locker room tension if Luongo stays on the Canucks.


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.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#34 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:50 AM

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.

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.
  • 0

#35 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:08 AM

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.


I normally don't like it when players express and interest in leaving a city, but Luongo is starting towards the end of his career and te Canucks have made it clear that Scheider is their man. The only reason Luongo wants out of Vancouver is because he knows the Canucks don't want him. Regarding his teammates, I bet they fully support Luongo and if he stayed they wouldn't have a problem with that.
  • 0

#36 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,817 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:53 AM

There will definitely be locker room tension if Luongo stays on the Canucks.


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.


Were this to drag out for an extended period of time (a couple of months) then sure, there'd be a big problem. Luongo would want to be playing with his new team (or just playing), ownership would want him off the payroll, and the rest of the team will be feeling bad about the situation in general. As it sits right now, the problem is small.

The problem will be exasperated by the constant reminders from the media and fans who will be continually asking, "So, is there any tension in the locker room with Luongo still being here?"

Get someone to ask you that, at least a dozen times a day for a couple of months and even you, who aren't part of the team will start giving snarky answers. :)

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

#37 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:24 AM

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.


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.

Edited by King of the ES, 17 October 2012 - 10:24 AM.

  • 0

#38 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 11:41 PM

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.


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.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#39 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 11:45 PM

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.


If it meant a better shot at the cup then yea, they would be on board with it. Either way, it beats trading Lu for scraps.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#40 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 19 October 2012 - 03:55 AM

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.


You are in serious denial.

The team's not going to hold a press conference to announce that Cory Schneider's their new starter. Mike Gillis, of course, is going to say what he says on the radio, which is mostly meaningless, vague, political content. Read any article on the situation. Cory Schneider is our new starter. Cory Schneider is our new starter. Cory Schneider is our new starter. Accept it. It is reality. Roberto Luongo wants to start, so he wants out, and he is being traded - a deal may already be in place.
  • 0

#41 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 19 October 2012 - 11:00 AM

You are in serious denial.

The team's not going to hold a press conference to announce that Cory Schneider's their new starter. Mike Gillis, of course, is going to say what he says on the radio, which is mostly meaningless, vague, political content. Read any article on the situation. Cory Schneider is our new starter. Cory Schneider is our new starter. Cory Schneider is our new starter. Accept it. It is reality. Roberto Luongo wants to start, so he wants out, and he is being traded - a deal may already be in place.


Why would I believe what some article has to say that was written by someone with just as much knowledge on the situation as anybody else?

As it stands, yes, Cory Schneider is our starter, and so is Luongo. If we have both of them, they will certainly split the games. Why would you think that we wouldn't do that? You really want to exhaust Cory before the playoffs? He'll definitely need some rest if he's going to be our starter that you keep claiming him to be.

And where's this tension in the locker room you speak of? The only ones that will feel any heat are the goalies. No player will complain about always having a great goalie in net.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#42 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:43 PM

As it stands, yes, Cory Schneider is our starter, and so is Luongo. If we have both of them, they will certainly split the games. Why would you think that we wouldn't do that? You really want to exhaust Cory before the playoffs? He'll definitely need some rest if he's going to be our starter that you keep claiming him to be.


Some rest, sure. Lou might get 20 - 25% of the games, not unlike what Schneider's gotten for the last 2 years. It wouldn't be a 50/50 thing, though.

And you also expose yourself to a potentially disastrous situation, that of Schneider being badly outplayed by Luongo. If that happened, do you:

A) Trade Luongo, still, and keep the guy who's not playing well, likely infuriating the fanbase?
B) Trade Schneider, instead, and keep the guy who's asked out?

And where's this tension in the locker room you speak of? The only ones that will feel any heat are the goalies. No player will complain about always having a great goalie in net.


It'd be a huuuuuuge distraction! How can you not see this? Jesus, it's front page news when Willie Mitchell and Ryan Kesler get into a minor tussle during practice. Every player would be berated with the same question, about goalies, 24/7. It would be a massive nuisance and would not be ideal.
  • 0

#43 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,817 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:54 PM

Some rest, sure. Lou might get 20 - 25% of the games, not unlike what Schneider's gotten for the last 2 years. It wouldn't be a 50/50 thing, though.

And you also expose yourself to a potentially disastrous situation, that of Schneider being badly outplayed by Luongo. If that happened, do you:

A) Trade Luongo, still, and keep the guy who's not playing well, likely infuriating the fanbase?
B) Trade Schneider, instead, and keep the guy who's asked out?


Trade Luongo. If Schneider plays poorly enough that Luongo looks that much better, then Luongo's trade value will improve that more and Gillis will be able to get that much more for him, which should improve the overall play of the team. :)


It'd be a huuuuuuge distraction! How can you not see this? Jesus, it's front page news when Willie Mitchell and Ryan Kesler get into a minor tussle during practice. Every player would be berated with the same question, about goalies, 24/7. It would be a massive nuisance and would not be ideal.


True, it would be a distraction, and it would be a "huuuuuuge distraction!" if Gillis allowed it to go on for the entire season. However, right now it is a small distraction, one which will likely be gone fairly soon after the new CBA is signed. Considering that nothing (officially) can be done about the matter for the present... MEH!!!

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

#44 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 19 October 2012 - 04:01 PM

Some rest, sure. Lou might get 20 - 25% of the games, not unlike what Schneider's gotten for the last 2 years. It wouldn't be a 50/50 thing, though.

And you also expose yourself to a potentially disastrous situation, that of Schneider being badly outplayed by Luongo. If that happened, do you:

A) Trade Luongo, still, and keep the guy who's not playing well, likely infuriating the fanbase?
B) Trade Schneider, instead, and keep the guy who's asked out?



It'd be a huuuuuuge distraction! How can you not see this? Jesus, it's front page news when Willie Mitchell and Ryan Kesler get into a minor tussle during practice. Every player would be berated with the same question, about goalies, 24/7. It would be a massive nuisance and would not be ideal.


It would be a lot closer to 50/50 than 80/20. MG does want both goalies to play to increase trade value if he's planning on making a trade soon.

In that scenario, both options are good. We either have raised Lu's value and will now get a good return. Or we keep a goalie that's playing well. It's a win-win.

And it can't be a nuisance unless one of the goalies publicly complains about it. I doubt either of them would do that though if they did want to be traded. If say, Lu was unhappy half way through the season, he would likely privately ask MG to trade him so that MG has a better chance of trading him.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#45 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 19 October 2012 - 04:58 PM

In that scenario, both options are good. We either have raised Lu's value and will now get a good return. Or we keep a goalie that's playing well. It's a win-win.


How is that a win-win? On a contending team, is it not quite hard to justify trading the goalie who's playing better?

Here's another scenario - what if this 50/50 proposal gets enacted, and Luongo wets the bed? What if he just plays terrible? Then what? An equal opportunity exists for his value to decline, does it not? The thing to do - as soon as the CBA is resolved - is to get rid of him. Sounds like this is perhaps already done - and if not done, it's probably close.
  • 0

#46 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:37 PM

How is that a win-win? On a contending team, is it not quite hard to justify trading the goalie who's playing better?

Here's another scenario - what if this 50/50 proposal gets enacted, and Luongo wets the bed? What if he just plays terrible? Then what? An equal opportunity exists for his value to decline, does it not? The thing to do - as soon as the CBA is resolved - is to get rid of him. Sounds like this is perhaps already done - and if not done, it's probably close.


We would justify it by making the team better. And that entire scenario could happen to Schneider as well. Either way it will be a gamble. It's just less of a gamble to keep Lu because we know for certain that he can handle a full regular season.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#47 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 21 October 2012 - 10:09 PM

Updating Luongo Trade Theory 101 (Proposed cap implications)

1. If Luongo retire anytime within the next 10 years, the Canucks will be on the hook for the cap hit.

- This is very interesting to me. I doubt the NHLPA is going to fight hard against this and the NHL wants this to punnish cap circumventing teams. IMO this effects trading Luongo in two ways. 1. It will slightly increase his trade value because the team getting his cap hit won't have to worry about the cap hit staying the length of the contract. 2. Gillis would be even more reluctant to trade him to a team in the same division and or conference. If Luongo was traded to one of these teams, the team might put additional pressure/perks for Luongo to retire before the end of his 10 year contract leaving the Canucks to pay his cap hit for the remainder of his contract.

2. The Cap falling to 59 million

- This was proposed by the NHL. With this proposal, there was a cap rollback. The NHLPA's version had the 59 mil cap but no rollback. There would have to be a mechanism for teams to get under the cap ie buyouts, cap space trading but this would lower Luongo's value if Gillis was looking to trade him without taking salary back.

3. Salary/Cap Space Retention/Trading

- This would increase the market for Luongo. The Canucks could absorb some of his salary and trade him to a smaller market team. Gillis would probably more reluctant to keep some of his cap hit but if he did, that would greatly enhance his value to a cap team.
  • 0

#48 erkayloomeh

erkayloomeh

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 926 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:55 PM

i would trade Luo to edmonton in a heartbeat(or any other division rival) if the player coming back was an acceptable value. that player could just as easily burn the oilers as lou could burn us.
But lou will only accept a trade to edmonton if prongers wife goes with him
  • 0
GOD BE PRAISED

#49 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 11:20 PM

The Leafs will not trade any of these peices for Luongo: Rielly, Gardiner, 2013 1st
  • 0

#50 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,817 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 07:15 PM

The Leafs will not trade any of these peices for Luongo: Rielly, Gardiner, 2013 1st


If you wanted you could also add: Kessel, Grabovski, Van Riemsdyk and Lupul. And I'd be okay with Burke taking things off the table for discussion, because for every guy he takes off the table, Gillis will put someone else on the table.

Gillis has said he wants an impact roster player (thought to be a top-6 forward), a top prospect, and a 1st. If Burke wants to deny Gillis some of those assets then he has to give up something else of value. (And yes, he does have to if he wants to make this deal.)

I figure one of MacArthur or Kulemin will be in this trade. I think I'd prefer MacArthur although he does have the bigger cap hit of the two. Gunnarsson is another option. Because neither of these guys are what could be considered a top-6 forward, Burke will have to look at adding some value to his offer. And as he is not including the 1st (as you suggest), he also has to look at compensating the Canucks for that missing asset.

I figure the prospects on the table are: Ashton, Biggs and Colborne. I believe two of these guys will be coming here, perhaps even all three when the deal is done. All three is highly unlikely, but it would be nice.

The widcard in this could be Franson. He could be included in this deal (maybe as a throw in assuming Vancouver only gets two of the above listed prospects), however he could view his future in Vancouver as being similar to what he doesn't like about his situation with the Leafs, and he might then stay in Europe for the rest of the year and become a UFA. I'd be inclined to take a gamble on him wanting to play here, and if he doesn't then his rights could be traded at the deadline to a team which could use some defensive help for the playoffs (Franson does have an out clause), or perhaps the Canucks could claim a pick from the Leafs should Franson not sign here.

Vancouver is potentially taking 3 - 4 contracts in this deal. Gillis will want to send back at least one additional contract out with Luongo.

So, the deal would be:

to Toronto: Luongo + (1 mid-level prospect) + maybe a 3rd

to Vancouver: one of MacArthur/Kulemin + at least two of Ashton/Biggs/Colborne + one of Ashton/Biggs/Colborne or rights to Franson (with permission to talk to him first, or perhaps a pick to Vancouver if Franson doesn't sign here)


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

#51 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 29 October 2012 - 11:38 PM

If you wanted you could also add: Kessel, Grabovski, Van Riemsdyk and Lupul. And I'd be okay with Burke taking things off the table for discussion, because for every guy he takes off the table, Gillis will put someone else on the table.

Gillis has said he wants an impact roster player (thought to be a top-6 forward), a top prospect, and a 1st. If Burke wants to deny Gillis some of those assets then he has to give up something else of value. (And yes, he does have to if he wants to make this deal.)

I figure one of MacArthur or Kulemin will be in this trade. I think I'd prefer MacArthur although he does have the bigger cap hit of the two. Gunnarsson is another option. Because neither of these guys are what could be considered a top-6 forward, Burke will have to look at adding some value to his offer. And as he is not including the 1st (as you suggest), he also has to look at compensating the Canucks for that missing asset.

I figure the prospects on the table are: Ashton, Biggs and Colborne. I believe two of these guys will be coming here, perhaps even all three when the deal is done. All three is highly unlikely, but it would be nice.

The widcard in this could be Franson. He could be included in this deal (maybe as a throw in assuming Vancouver only gets two of the above listed prospects), however he could view his future in Vancouver as being similar to what he doesn't like about his situation with the Leafs, and he might then stay in Europe for the rest of the year and become a UFA. I'd be inclined to take a gamble on him wanting to play here, and if he doesn't then his rights could be traded at the deadline to a team which could use some defensive help for the playoffs (Franson does have an out clause), or perhaps the Canucks could claim a pick from the Leafs should Franson not sign here.

Vancouver is potentially taking 3 - 4 contracts in this deal. Gillis will want to send back at least one additional contract out with Luongo.

So, the deal would be:

to Toronto: Luongo + (1 mid-level prospect) + maybe a 3rd

to Vancouver: one of MacArthur/Kulemin + at least two of Ashton/Biggs/Colborne + one of Ashton/Biggs/Colborne or rights to Franson (with permission to talk to him first, or perhaps a pick to Vancouver if Franson doesn't sign here)


regards,
G.


Burke only has to offer the best deal for Luongo. If Burke just offers Kulemin straight up while other teams are offering cap dumps, Gillis has the choice of improving his forwards or having a 5.3 million dollar backup. You can say that he can wait for a better deal but id a better deal doesn't show up, he's going to have to take less than what he thinks he can get, if you don't believe me ask Howson.

The Canucks aren't going to get two prospects with a a decent top 6 forward and a defenceman.

If the Canucks want to talk to Franson they would have to get permission from the Swedish team he signed with. RFAs can talk to any team.
  • 0

#52 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,534 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:41 AM

Burke only has to offer the best deal for Luongo. If Burke just offers Kulemin straight up while other teams are offering cap dumps, Gillis has the choice of improving his forwards or having a 5.3 million dollar backup. You can say that he can wait for a better deal but id a better deal doesn't show up, he's going to have to take less than what he thinks he can get, if you don't believe me ask Howson.

Or you know, keep Luongo instead of getting crap in return for him. Again, why not keep one of the best tandem's in the league together if we can't find a good deal?
  • 0

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


#53 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:56 AM

Or you know, keep Luongo instead of getting crap in return for him. Again, why not keep one of the best tandem's in the league together if we can't find a good deal?


That's not a bad idea, but Luongo's cap hit could be utilized to address other issues with the team. $5.33 million in cap space could be used to improve the depth at centre or find a physical forward (in addition to another back-up goalie).
  • 0

#54 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:48 AM

Or you know, keep Luongo instead of getting crap in return for him. Again, why not keep one of the best tandem's in the league together if we can't find a good deal?

You think Luongo and Schnieder are going to be pleased with that situation?
  • 0

#55 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,534 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:25 PM

You think Luongo and Schnieder are going to be pleased with that situation?

And you think MG doesn't want to keep two #1 goalies?
  • 0

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


#56 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,817 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:06 PM

If the Canucks want to talk to Franson they would have to get permission from the Swedish team he signed with. RFAs can talk to any team.


Yeah, I was perhaps a bit unclear in what I wrote. Thanks for providing that clarification. :)


The Canucks aren't going to get two prospects with a a decent top 6 forward and a defenceman.


Actually, I specified two "top" prospects, a decent 2/3 forward and either the rights to a d-man (with maybe a pick if he doesn't sign here) or a third top prospect. Geez, get it right. :P


Burke only has to offer the best deal for Luongo. If Burke just offers Kulemin straight up while other teams are offering cap dumps, Gillis has the choice of improving his forwards or having a 5.3 million dollar backup. You can say that he can wait for a better deal but id a better deal doesn't show up, he's going to have to take less than what he thinks he can get, if you don't believe me ask Howson.


1.) Just because Burke (or any other GM) might have made the "best" offer by a certain date doesn't mean that Gillis has to agree to hand Luongo over. This is the kind of fire-sale panic thinking that would have seen Luongo traded out of here back at the draft for a return of something like Komisarek and Lombardi.

2.) Just because Luongo was not traded by a general deadline which you have set, does not mean that there has only been cap dumps and other bits of gomi being offered for Luongo.

Maybe Gillis has asked for MacArthur, but Burke would rather move Kulemin, so Gillis is holding out.

Maybe Gillis has asked for Colborne, not just because he is a big center but because he is closer to be being NHL ready, while Burke has offered Biggs. As Biggs is perhaps 4 - 5 years away from being NHL ready, he is a less desirable prospect for the Canucks, so the teams are at an impasse.

Gillis has asked for a 1st round pick. Burke may have agreed to this, but he may have offered the 2014 1st rather than the 2013 pick. As the 2013 is supposedly a deep draft, Gillis might want that pick more than one from the year after, and Burke does not want to surrender it.

Other than your "belief" that the Canucks can only hope for cap dumps and other trash for Luongo, who is to say that what I have outlined here is not where they currently sit in negotiations?

3.) Once again, while having Luongo here for an extended period of time might not be the best scenario possible, it is not going to be the huge problem which you anticipate. How do I know this? By the very same means that you know that it will be a problem.

Whether or not Gillis gets a better offer than those which he has already received is purely a matter of conjecture. You may be willing to bet that the best he can get might be Kulemin. I'm thinking it will be somewhat better.

4.) I was unaware that Howson is well versed in the intricacies of the upcoming Luongo deal.

As it sits, he got for Nash what will probably be a low 1st, and three young guys who are probably going to be roster players for Columbus. As I noted in a previous post, the individual parts will not be as good as the best player, but combined they can make a good contribution.

The other part of the Nash deal is that: a.) his contract was far worse than Luongo's with regard to a cap hit, which eliminated several teams right away, and b.) Nash made it pretty clear that there were a lot of teams to which he would not accept a trade, something which Luongo has not done. The way these two players have handled themselves and their respective situations is drastically different. Nash handcuffed Columbus and a lot of people here have wrongly assumed that Luongo has done the same thing, which is not the case.

5.) I was also outlining that Burke has to be flexible in his negotiations. If he does not want to make certain assets available then he will have to improve his offer in other areas.

To Toronto: Luongo, a mid-lvl prospect, maybe a 3rd or lower pick

To Vancouver: MacArthur, Colborne, a 1st. If the 1st is for 2014, then the Canucks also get Franson. If the Leafs want to keep Colborne then the Canucks get Ashton and Biggs in his stead.

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

#57 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:08 PM

And you think MG doesn't want to keep two #1 goalies?

He doesn't to spend to have two #1 goalies not does he want to have one or both of them unhappy being on the team. Maybe Luongo sticks around too long and Schnieder requests a trade.
  • 0

#58 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:36 PM

Yeah, I was perhaps a bit unclear in what I wrote. Thanks for providing that clarification. :)

No problem

Actually, I specified two "top" prospects, a decent 2/3 forward and either the rights to a d-man (with maybe a pick if he doesn't sign here) or a third top prospect. Geez, get it right. :P

I wasn't sure what you were getting at the first time. You're saying: top 9 forward, top 6 defenceman, two "top" prospects.

This is possible if one of both of the forward and defencemen are cap dumps. If these were valued players then you're expecting an unrealitic return on Luongo.

1.) Just because Burke (or any other GM) might have made the "best" offer by a certain date doesn't mean that Gillis has to agree to hand Luongo over. This is the kind of fire-sale panic thinking that would have seen Luongo traded out of here back at the draft for a return of something like Komisarek and Lombardi.

I didn't say there was a deadline. I'm saying that the longer this drags out into the regular season, the worse off it will be on the Canucks locker room.

2.) Just because Luongo was not traded by a general deadline which you have set, does not mean that there has only been cap dumps and other bits of gomi being offered for Luongo.

I didn't say there were just cap dump offers but that might actually be the case since the only team in play until recently was Florida. I was being hypothical saying if every other offer was a cap dump except for one, Gillis would have to consider the non cap dump offer even if it was far less than the value he wanted to get for Luongo.

Maybe Gillis has asked for MacArthur, but Burke would rather move Kulemin, so Gillis is holding out.

Is this hypothical?

Maybe Gillis has asked for Colborne, not just because he is a big center but because he is closer to be being NHL ready, while Burke has offered Biggs. As Biggs is perhaps 4 - 5 years away from being NHL ready, he is a less desirable prospect for the Canucks, so the teams are at an impasse.

Possibly.

Gillis has asked for a 1st round pick. Burke may have agreed to this, but he may have offered the 2014 1st rather than the 2013 pick. As the 2013 is supposedly a deep draft, Gillis might want that pick more than one from the year after, and Burke does not want to surrender it.

This draft is not as deep as once thought. I heard a scout on the radio say it's better than 2012 and 2011 but 2010 was deeper.

Other than your "belief" that the Canucks can only hope for cap dumps and other trash for Luongo, who is to say that what I have outlined here is not where they currently sit in negotiations?

My intent was saying that no matter what Gillis and Canuck fans think what they should get for Luongo, it's the market that dictates the price. If the market's best offer was substanially less than what Gillis thought he should get, he will either have to hold on to two goalies or consider the offer. I don't know what the best offer is for Luongo. I have a feeling it's a lot less than what Gillis and a majority of Canucks fans think they'll get.

3.) Once again, while having Luongo here for an extended period of time might not be the best scenario possible, it is not going to be the huge problem which you anticipate. How do I know this? By the very same means that you know that it will be a problem.

I don't know how the impact of the scenario will play out but I know that one or both goalies will be not pleased with the current situation. I also know that every player in the locker room will know that Luongo isn't there for the long term. What these occurences would manifest into I do not know.

Whether or not Gillis gets a better offer than those which he has already received is purely a matter of conjecture. You may be willing to bet that the best he can get might be Kulemin. I'm thinking it will be somewhat better.

I didn't say Kulemin straight up is the best he could get, I was using that as an example. We'll see what he gets.

4.) I was unaware that Howson is well versed in the intricacies of the upcoming Luongo deal.

Howson is well versed in getting far less than what he thinks his star player who recently requested a trade is worth.

As it sits, he got for Nash what will probably be a low 1st, and three young guys who are probably going to be roster players for Columbus. As I noted in a previous post, the individual parts will not be as good as the best player, but combined they can make a good contribution.

The point is he thought he would get more.

The other part of the Nash deal is that: a.) his contract was far worse than Luongo's with regard to a cap hit, which eliminated several teams right away, and b.) Nash made it pretty clear that there were a lot of teams to which he would not accept a trade, something which Luongo has not done. The way these two players have handled themselves and their respective situations is drastically different. Nash handcuffed Columbus and a lot of people here have wrongly assumed that Luongo has done the same thing, which is not the case.

a.) Luongo's contract is much longer. b.) There seems to be even less teams that Luongo would accept a trade to. At least Nash provided a list.

Both players requested a trade and the request became public. What else did Nash do that handcuffed the Jackets that the Canucks haven't had to deal with with Luongo?

5.) I was also outlining that Burke has to be flexible in his negotiations. If he does not want to make certain assets available then he will have to improve his offer in other areas.

To Toronto: Luongo, a mid-lvl prospect, maybe a 3rd or lower pick

To Vancouver: MacArthur, Colborne, a 1st. If the 1st is for 2014, then the Canucks also get Franson. If the Leafs want to keep Colborne then the Canucks get Ashton and Biggs in his stead.

regards,
G.

You are guilty as other people on the boards of trying to slightly improve the Canucks' offer to get a much bigger return. Toronto doesn't need the Canucks' 3rd rounder or mid level prospect. They aren't going to trade their 1st for Luongo. The only thing I see Burke trading his 1st for would be a #1 centre. The return for Luongo isn't going to be close to what you think it will be.


Edited by ConnorFutureGM, 30 October 2012 - 02:18 PM.

  • 0

#59 RonMexico

RonMexico

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 12

Posted 30 October 2012 - 02:09 PM

This is all MG's fault. He has no leverage and no hope of getting anything worthwhile. I hope this costs him his job.
  • 1

#60 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:31 PM

Or you know, keep Luongo instead of getting crap in return for him. Again, why not keep one of the best tandem's in the league together if we can't find a good deal?


And his value will just magically increase while getting a year older and establishing himself as an NHL backup?

Seriously, remove Canuck-blinders before posting, please. This is not a good situation.
  • 0




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.