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

#121 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:38 PM

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.


Others are assuming what will happen should Luongo not be traded in a timely fashion. They do not know how the team will react in this situation. They do not know, or chose to ignore the previous history these team mates have with one another. Rather, they just assume that the team will go to hell if Luongo isn't moved within a minute of the new CBA being signed (yes, that's an exaggeration). Have there been teams which have had a situation similar to Luongo's? Sure. Have some of those situations turned ugly? Sure. Have all of them been bad experiences? Not to my knowledge, and those who disagree with my position do not know either.

The bad one's tend to get remembered rather more than those where results are amicable.

I am assuming anything it is no where near as much as others. I've looked at the relationships on this team, and they have been very good from what we've seen. I acknowledged that there could be a problem if things dragged on for too long, but also noted that how the team handled the situation depended upon their results during the season. The better the results, the easier the relationships would likely be .

Am I assuming? Perhaps. I prefer to think of my position as one of informed opinion.


Your sole reasoning on your proposals is Gillis's wish list to Santa and that Luongo would be happy as Schneider's backup indefinitely.


My proposals do favor the Canucks more than some others. This being said, they are not blindly in favor of the Canucks. I started at Gillis' suggested return in the deal (aka "Santa's wish list"), accepted that the other team had assets which they would not want to move, and looked for alternatives which would still give a good return for Luongo.

Further, as noted previously, I do not suggest that Luongo would be happy as the back-up for an indefinite period of time. I suggest that he would likely be traded much sooner rather than later, however, should he remain with the team for an extended period then the results of the team would mitigate the feelings about his presence. If the team was doing well, and Luongo was contributing, then there would likely be little to no griping to be heard.


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.


As has been noted by Smashian Kassian, I'd want to know how you knew about such an offer. And you would be correct, I would dismiss this offer. Luongo is worth his "bad" contract, while komisarek is very overpaid for the value he provides. also, were this the only return the Canucks could hope to get for Luongo, then it would be far more beneficial to keep Luongo and wait until someone was willing to drastically overpay to get him.

A top-6 forward, a top prospect and a 1st might be a good start...


Your logic is circular and one sided.


Not sure how my logic is circular or one-sided. As noted, I've looked at both team's needs and what they would want to give up in the deal. Does it provide the Canucks with more of a return than a bucket of used pucks? Yup.

What I would like to see is someone do a break down of why they believe Luongo will bring back such a bad return. The top "reasons" look to be:

1.) Luongo has asked to be traded - I don't recall that he has.

2.) Luongo's "bad" contract - I don't believe that it is.

3.) Gillis must dump him quickly for peace in the locker room - likely would only a problem if the situation were to linger for an extended period of time, *and* the team's performance was poor.

4.) ????

And what I'd like to see would be a trade proposal (Luongo for ?), how you came to the conclusion that Luongo is worth such a low return, and how that lousy return would benefit the team.


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

#122 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:09 AM

It doesn't take a rocket scientist? Tell me using logic and reason why Gollumps deal makes more sense.


I laid out a starting point, deleted options which might be considered untouchable, and provided a list of assets and why they should be included. The only thing missing is a negative value of Luongo's worth from which you and others proceed.


Gollumps has said several times that Luongo would be fine as being a backup to Schneider.


You are behaving a bit unfairly here. I suggested that should Luongo not be trading in a timely fashion that he would be okay with continuing to be a Canuck. You are making it sound like Luongo would be okay with taking a diminished role regardless of the situation.


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.


And you think that the Canucks would have been a better team without Luongo? Certainly they have had far better results over the regular season with him here, and they did get to the SCF with him.

Did he have some bad playoff games? Yup. He also had two shutouts in the finals against Boston. The Canucks had far more more of an issue with injuries than the Bruins, plus the fact that the team had problems with scoring, getting results of: 1, 3 (ot), 1, 0, 1, 2 and 0, while having 23 goals scored against them.

One would think that Luongo could have chipped in with a goal or two to help in his own cause.


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.


Yeah, you make a lot of sense. I guess this means that the Canucks are lucky that Burke must be so stupid as to trade the top-6 forward, the top prospect and 1st he'll be sending to the Canucks for Luongo.


The best I've ever seen Luongo play was in the WJC. Canada only got 2nd that year but he was unbelievable.


So, you don't get cable?


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

#123 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:12 AM

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. :lol:


So you are agreeing that Ashton would be okay as part of the Luongo deal...

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

#124 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:39 AM

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.


The difference is, I do not see that there will be a problem if Luongo has not been traded by one minute after the new CBA being signed. You appear to assume that the players are already at each others throats over this situation. Do you always panic so quickly in every situation? Give it a couple of months, and if Luongo is still here, maybe then start in with the doom and gloom.


Not really. The point is that Gillis really doesn't have a choice. He has to move Luongo - whether it's the day of the new CBA, whether it's the summer of 2013, he has to move him. Because of this fact, the idea of bringing back a return of Purcell, Aulie, and a 1st is nothing more than a pipe dream.


Can you go on and explain why the fact that Gillis has to move Luongo will result in less that a fair return? You state this as a self evident reason, and I do not see it. Feel free to include Luongo's contract if feel the need. Give us a specific reason or two.

1.) Cap reasons, perhaps? The team currently has about $2.5 million in cap space available. More when the Luongo deal is completed.

2.) Locker room tensions? Do you really see this team dissolving if Luongo is still here by the trade deadline?

3.) Luongo's value will be less because because the other team "knows" that you want to trade the asset they are seeking from you? Gee, as soon as another GM agrees to talk about a particular player in any trade talks, does that player's value drop through the floor with the team which is looking to acquire him? This is what you are suggesting is the case with Luongo.

Got any others?

I'm Gillis. Convince me that your offer of a bucket of used pucks is worth Luongo. :)


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

#125 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,165 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:43 AM

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.


We get a player in his prime that can help us right now (Purcell), a decent young dman who is NHL ready now but will be better down the road (Aulie), and a 1st in a deep draft. Now, Tampa probably won't do it, but the base to a deal is there.

As for the other deal.

We get another young player who has upside but can't crack the line-up on the worst team in the league, has been quite inconsistent and is a huge minus, right now he is a 3rd liner at best and that's just not what we need, we have enough 3rd liners, and also his upside is only a 2nd liner, that might not even pan out. Plus we already have Kassian and Jensen who are two players that are pretty much at the same spot he is at, or close to it. He doesn't really add all that much.


Gollumps has said several times that Luongo would be fine as being a backup to Schneider.


No he never did, he said they could co-exist as a tandem, Lu wouldn't be a back-up if we couldn't move him, they would continue to be a tandem.

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.


No I think you are mistaken, a star goalie only making 5.2 on the cap, that's a good deal.

And he is a difference maker, if you even watched our 2011 playoff run you can't argue that he wasn't he came up huge ton's of times (Game 7 against the Hawks, Game 6 against Nashville, All throughtout the SJ series, games 1,2, and 5 in the SCF. Just to name a few).

And yes he did stop the puck when he needed too, if he didn't we would have been out in the 1st round in 2011, and he was our best player in the games he started in 2012, he held our team in the games as long as he could but our team was just being outplayed so badly that it was just a matter of time before they would score and win.

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.


06-07? We dont make the playoffs without him.

2010-11 and 2011-12 season's? We don't win the presidents trophy in either year without him.

2011 Playoffs? We wouldn't have made it out of the 1st round without him.


And you can't say they are taking a big risk because we don't know what is in the CBA, he could retire and the contract would just end, or we could take on his salary or they could, we just don't know so any comments on that is strictly speculation since the rules of the CBA are a mystery right now.


Not to mention the points you made about Luongo's "shakeyness" and so-on weren't backed up well, and not nearly as well as the points I just made, so really it's just more of your anti Lu opinion and speculation.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 06 November 2012 - 12:46 AM.

  • 1

zackass.png


#126 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:55 AM

Gillis can spout off any value he wants for Luongo but the market dictates the price. If Gillis doesn't like the price the market offers, he can hold on to Luongo. The longer Luongo plays backup, the uglier it's going to get.

I didn't bring up a major factor in the market, other goalies.

What teams would be in on Luongo? Toronto, Florida, Edmonton, Chicago are more likely destinations.

Florida and Edmonton don't NEED Luongo. Chicago is closer to Edmonton than they are to Toronto who actually needs a goalie but I think Burke will investigate other options like any good GM would.

Lets use your absurd value of impact player, top prospect, 1st.

Leafs could land Backstrom out of Minnesota for much less than that. The Wild already re-signed Harding and they have a good goalie prospect in Hackett who is ready to at least be an NHL backup. The Wild also need to get cap space. They could probably get Backstrom for just a 1st rounder if that and oh yeah, he doesn't have 10 more years left on his contract.

Then there's this goalie you might have heard of named Tim Thomas. He could be picked up off of waivers and he showed that he is a better goalie than Luongo.

Miller was rumoured to be available for a time last season. The thought was he wanted to move out west but I'm sure Burke could play his Yankee card to play in Toronto. The price would be similar to that of Luongo but he has looked more solid and has a better contract.

St.Louis has two goalies both putting up good numbers. If there is one thing you don't need when your coach is Ken Hitchcock it's a high paid goalie. The Blues have been looking for a defenceman to play with Pietrangelo. If the Leafs offered Gunnarsson and something else they could get in the market for Halak.

A goalie who hasn't proven much but could be had for much cheaper than your Luongo price is Bernier.

You claim that if teams don't offer enough for Luongo Gillis would refuse to trade him and eventually a team will get desperate enough. What if no team is willing to get close enough to Gillis's offer? Gillis will be the one getting desperate.

As you can see, there are other options out there for goalies at a far cheaper rate than what you think the Canucks will get for Luongo.
  • 0

#127 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:58 AM

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.


You. Are. Dreaming. if you think that Chicago would do this deal.

Why Frolik on his own is worth a bucket of used pucks, and you want to trade away the rest of those guys as well? :P


Why if Schneider and Luongo are such good friends did Luongo ask for a trade?


I don't recall hearing Luongo actually say that he wanted to be traded. Yes, we all accept the situation as it sits and that a trade is inevitable.

I do recall him making comments that should a trade be worked out then he'd be open to considering the opportunity before him. He has also said he'd be good with staying here.


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

#128 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,165 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:24 AM

Gillis can spout off any value he wants for Luongo but the market dictates the price. If Gillis doesn't like the price the market offers, he can hold on to Luongo. The longer Luongo plays backup, the uglier it's going to get.

I didn't bring up a major factor in the market, other goalies.

What teams would be in on Luongo? Toronto, Florida, Edmonton, Chicago are more likely destinations.

Florida and Edmonton don't NEED Luongo. Chicago is closer to Edmonton than they are to Toronto who actually needs a goalie but I think Burke will investigate other options like any good GM would.


Actually to me the only likely destinations are Toronto and Florida, They both need him to make the playoffs, why Toronto needs him is obvious, and Florida needs him so that in the subsquent years when there young players start to enter the line-up & the veteran's start to leave they can still remain competitive since those players won't be ready to carry there team right away. Cause they don't want all these young players that they have went through alot of pain and trouble to get to start accepting losing again like there last era of young players did.


Lets use your absurd value of impact player, top prospect, 1st.

Leafs could land Backstrom out of Minnesota for much less than that. The Wild already re-signed Harding and they have a good goalie prospect in Hackett who is ready to at least be an NHL backup. The Wild also need to get cap space. They could probably get Backstrom for just a 1st rounder if that and oh yeah, he doesn't have 10 more years left on his contract.


You think they haven't talk to minnesota about one of those two?

Minnesota doesn't want to trade them, they realize after seeing St.Louis and us that having two great goaltenders is a great luxury, and with there history with goalies getting injured over the past few season's it is something they need.

If they were willing to move one, they wouldn't have re-sign Harding, or else they would have already traded him at the deadline.

Then there's this goalie you might have heard of named Tim Thomas. He could be picked up off of waivers and he showed that he is a better goalie than Luongo.

Miller was rumoured to be available for a time last season. The thought was he wanted to move out west but I'm sure Burke could play his Yankee card to play in Toronto. The price would be similar to that of Luongo but he has looked more solid and has a better contract.

St.Louis has two goalies both putting up good numbers. If there is one thing you don't need when your coach is Ken Hitchcock it's a high paid goalie. The Blues have been looking for a defenceman to play with Pietrangelo. If the Leafs offered Gunnarsson and something else they could get in the market for Halak.


Thomas:
So you think they should just take 5+ million dollars off the Bruins cap for no reason? He isn't going to play this season, even if he does go to Toronto, and by the time he gets back (if he ever does) how do you know he will be the same, no reason to waste asset's on such a mystery like that.

Miller:
So the leafs go after a goalie who is the same age as Luongo, has a higher cap hit, and will command a much higher price, doesn't make alot of sense to me, not to mention those rumours were stupid and most only mentioned him being available to Chicago for Kane, but Buffalo isn't going to trade him either way, for a team that has underachevied so much, trading him makes no sense right now, they trade him and they miss the playoffs for the next 3+ years, I guarentee it, and they already struggle to make it with him.

So for both sides this doesn't make sense.

Halak:
Lol at your Gunnarsson proposal, it will take more than that, and there not trading Halak, if anything it would be Elliot, Halak is there guy, they gave up assets to get him and he has been better than Elliot, the reason they didn't have a chance against LA is because Halak got hurt, this one really doesn't make sense either. The Blues would ask for Gardiner+ or else they wouldn't do it, and the Leafs won't pay the price.

A goalie who hasn't proven much but could be had for much cheaper than your Luongo price is Bernier.


They have the exact same thing in James Riemer, why go out and get another James Riemer? That's not what they need.

You claim that if teams don't offer enough for Luongo Gillis would refuse to trade him and eventually a team will get desperate enough. What if no team is willing to get close enough to Gillis's offer? Gillis will be the one getting desperate.

As you can see, there are other options out there for goalies at a far cheaper rate than what you think the Canucks will get for Luongo.


None of your other option's are likely at all, as you can see.

And we don't have to get a homerun on this deal (and we won't) it just has to be something that makes us better and isn't throwing Luongo away for significantly less value than we get. And yes time is a concern but it more important that we get the right deal, rather than bow into the pressure and throw him away for nothing.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 06 November 2012 - 01:26 AM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#129 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:26 AM

I don't recall hearing Luongo actually say that he wanted to be traded. Yes, we all accept the situation as it sits and that a trade is inevitable.

I do recall him making comments that should a trade be worked out then he'd be open to considering the opportunity before him. He has also said he'd be good with staying here.

You KNOW that Luongo wants to go to another team. Everyone knows it. I have never heard one hockey analyst even utter the possibility that Luongo might want to stay in Vancouver. There wouldnèt be any trade talk if he didn't want out. You are only using this as a weak attempt to disregard the fact that Luongo would not be happy staying in Vancouver.
  • 0

#130 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:50 AM

Actually to me the only likely destinations are Toronto and Florida, They both need him to make the playoffs, why Toronto needs him is obvious, and Florida needs him so that in the subsquent years when there young players start to enter the line-up & the veteran's start to leave they can still remain competitive since those players won't be ready to carry there team right away. Cause they don't want all these young players that they have went through alot of pain and trouble to get to start accepting losing again like there last era of young players did.

Florida needs him? They must have had a horrible season last year without him.

You think they haven't talk to minnesota about one of those two?

Minnesota doesn't want to trade them, they realize after seeing St.Louis and us that having two great goaltenders is a great luxury, and with there history with goalies getting injured over the past few season's it is something they need.

If they were willing to move one, they wouldn't have re-sign Harding, or else they would have already traded him at the deadline.

After I read that I realized that you are a person who does not use reason at all, you come to conclusions based on nothing to support a weak arguement.

The truth is you have not idea what Minnesota plans to do with Backstrom. The common though before the off season was Harding was going to be one of the top UFA goaltenders and would get a starting job somewhere. He decided to re-sign in Minnesota. That could leave one to conclude he either thinks he has a good chance of the starting job in Minnesota or he really likes it there. Either way, Hackett played well despite not doing great in the win column. Minnesota can afford to trade one of Harding or Backstrom and have a good young goalie play backup for a few seasons.

What you last said there makes absolutely no sense. "If they were willing to move one, they wouldn't have re-sign Harding, or else they would have already traded him at the deadline." Signing Harding makes one of them expendable.

So you think they should just take 5+ million dollars off the Bruins cap for no reason? He isn't going to play this season, even if he does go to Toronto, and by the time he gets back (if he ever does) how do you know he will be the same, no reason to waste asset's on such a mystery like that.

Thomas wanted to take time off for the start of the season, some coming holocaust or something. Mackenzie said that it was believed Thomas may want to come back midway through the season. I'm sure if the lights are still on come December 22, Thomas will want to get back to playing since he wanted to play in the next Olympics. Thomas is on Team USA, right? Who's the GM of Team USA again?

So the leafs go after a goalie who is the same age as Luongo, has a higher cap hit, and will command a much higher price, doesn't make alot of sense to me, not to mention those rumours were stupid and most only mentioned him being available to Chicago for Kane, but Buffalo isn't going to trade him either way, for a team that has underachevied so much, trading him makes no sense right now, they trade him and they miss the playoffs for the next 3+ years, I guarentee it, and they already struggle to make it with him.

Enroth is the heir to Miller. If Buffalo could get the right return for for Miller I wouldn't doubt he gets traded but I admit this is less likely.


Lol at your Gunnarsson proposal, it will take more than that, and there not trading Halak, if anything it would be Elliot, Halak is there guy, they gave up assets to get him and he has been better than Elliot, the reason they didn't have a chance against LA is because Halak got hurt, this one really doesn't make sense either. The Blues would ask for Gardiner+ or else they wouldn't do it, and the Leafs won't pay the price.

Do you know what Halak got traded for to go from Montreal to St,Louis? Look it up.... Gunnarsson and another asset doesn't look so bad now.

None of your other option's are likely at all, as you can see.

And we don't have to get a homerun on this deal (and we won't) it just has to be something that makes us better and isn't throwing Luongo away for significantly less value than we get. And yes time is a concern but it more important that we get the right deal, rather than bow into the pressure and throw him away for nothing.

It isn't the pressure of trading him as soon as the Canucks can that will give what is deemed a poor return. It will be that no GM in the league will want to take the Luongo for 10 years when the cap might drop 10 million from this coming season to the next.
  • 0

#131 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:16 AM

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?


That's an assumption right there. How do you know that they're such good friends? You really consume the crap that Gillis et. al. feeds you through the media like it's gospel, don't you?

You are simply clueless if you think that the two goalies would be OK with an arrangement like this.
  • 0

#132 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,553 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:39 AM

Well, he is a better goalie than either of the two guys currently in Florida. He has been injury free for his career. He keeps himself in shape. And as an elite goalie, I'd say he is "still" in his prime.


regards,
G.


Luongo's groin begs to differ and his "elite" status may be a little generous as of right now.
  • 0

#133 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,008 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 11:05 AM

Gillis can spout off any value he wants for Luongo but the market dictates the price. If Gillis doesn't like the price the market offers, he can hold on to Luongo. The longer Luongo plays backup, the uglier it's going to get.

I didn't bring up a major factor in the market, other goalies.

What teams would be in on Luongo? Toronto, Florida, Edmonton, Chicago are more likely destinations.

Florida and Edmonton don't NEED Luongo. Chicago is closer to Edmonton than they are to Toronto who actually needs a goalie but I think Burke will investigate other options like any good GM would.

Lets use your absurd value of impact player, top prospect, 1st.

Leafs could land Backstrom out of Minnesota for much less than that. The Wild already re-signed Harding and they have a good goalie prospect in Hackett who is ready to at least be an NHL backup. The Wild also need to get cap space. They could probably get Backstrom for just a 1st rounder if that and oh yeah, he doesn't have 10 more years left on his contract.

Then there's this goalie you might have heard of named Tim Thomas. He could be picked up off of waivers and he showed that he is a better goalie than Luongo.

Miller was rumoured to be available for a time last season. The thought was he wanted to move out west but I'm sure Burke could play his Yankee card to play in Toronto. The price would be similar to that of Luongo but he has looked more solid and has a better contract.

St.Louis has two goalies both putting up good numbers. If there is one thing you don't need when your coach is Ken Hitchcock it's a high paid goalie. The Blues have been looking for a defenceman to play with Pietrangelo. If the Leafs offered Gunnarsson and something else they could get in the market for Halak.

A goalie who hasn't proven much but could be had for much cheaper than your Luongo price is Bernier.

You claim that if teams don't offer enough for Luongo Gillis would refuse to trade him and eventually a team will get desperate enough. What if no team is willing to get close enough to Gillis's offer? Gillis will be the one getting desperate.

As you can see, there are other options out there for goalies at a far cheaper rate than what you think the Canucks will get for Luongo.

I'm pretty sure the Leafs would much rather pay a 1st for Luongo instead of Backstrom.

1) Gunnarsson is NOT a top 4 defenseman, let alone a top 2. He's a top six

2) Gunnarsson + something else for Jaroslav Halak? Are you insane?? Unless that something else is Phaneuf and a 1st St. Louis laughs at Burke and blocks Toronto's number
  • 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


#134 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,553 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 11:07 AM

We get a player in his prime that can help us right now (Purcell), a decent young dman who is NHL ready now but will be better down the road (Aulie), and a 1st in a deep draft. Now, Tampa probably won't do it, but the base to a deal is there.

As for the other deal.

We get another young player who has upside but can't crack the line-up on the worst team in the league, has been quite inconsistent and is a huge minus, right now he is a 3rd liner at best and that's just not what we need, we have enough 3rd liners, and also his upside is only a 2nd liner, that might not even pan out. Plus we already have Kassian and Jensen who are two players that are pretty much at the same spot he is at, or close to it. He doesn't really add all that much.




No he never did, he said they could co-exist as a tandem, Lu wouldn't be a back-up if we couldn't move him, they would continue to be a tandem.



No I think you are mistaken, a star goalie only making 5.2 on the cap, that's a good deal.

And he is a difference maker, if you even watched our 2011 playoff run you can't argue that he wasn't he came up huge ton's of times (Game 7 against the Hawks, Game 6 against Nashville, All throughtout the SJ series, games 1,2, and 5 in the SCF. Just to name a few).

And yes he did stop the puck when he needed too, if he didn't we would have been out in the 1st round in 2011, and he was our best player in the games he started in 2012, he held our team in the games as long as he could but our team was just being outplayed so badly that it was just a matter of time before they would score and win.



06-07? We dont make the playoffs without him.

2010-11 and 2011-12 season's? We don't win the presidents trophy in either year without him.

2011 Playoffs? We wouldn't have made it out of the 1st round without him.


And you can't say they are taking a big risk because we don't know what is in the CBA, he could retire and the contract would just end, or we could take on his salary or they could, we just don't know so any comments on that is strictly speculation since the rules of the CBA are a mystery right now.


Not to mention the points you made about Luongo's "shakeyness" and so-on weren't backed up well, and not nearly as well as the points I just made, so really it's just more of your anti Lu opinion and speculation.


Luongo is shaky in the playoffs and even the most blind fanboy should be able to see that.
You referenced round 1 against Chicago in 2011 a couple times. Did you forget about our 3-0 series lead? There was no way that series should've gone 7 games. You say without Luongo that we would've been out in that very same 1st round, we were one goal away from that and it was largely due to Luongo's annually shaky playoff performance.

Chances are we dont make the playoffs in '07 without Luongo, however he did benefit from AV's strictly defense first system.
With Schneider on the team in '11 and '12, whether or not we win the PT is debatable. In '11 we did win by a landslide.
Again with 2011, we almost didn't make it out of round 1 in large part because of Luongo.

Edited by Riviera82, 06 November 2012 - 11:10 AM.

  • 0

#135 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:02 PM

You KNOW that Luongo wants to go to another team. Everyone knows it. I have never heard one hockey analyst even utter the possibility that Luongo might want to stay in Vancouver. There wouldnèt be any trade talk if he didn't want out. You are only using this as a weak attempt to disregard the fact that Luongo would not be happy staying in Vancouver.


Sure, we all *"KNOW"* that he will likely be traded, and he may even want to be traded, however, the question I asked was:

I don't recall hearing Luongo actually say that he wanted to be traded. Yes, we all accept the situation as it sits and that a trade is inevitable.

I do recall him making comments that should a trade be worked out then he'd be open to considering the opportunity before him. He has also said he'd be good with staying here.


There could be trade talk if he was okay with being traded, but this is a far cry from him doing a Nash and demanding to be traded.

And I did not bring up the matter as a "weak attempt to disregard the fact that Luongo would not be happy staying in Vancouver." I mentioned this with regard to comments made by folks who keep insisting that Luongo has asked to be traded, something which is apparently not the case.

My question has nothing to do with whether Luongo would be happy staying here. It has everything to do with the fan perception of how this will unfold.

Otherwise, way to jump to the wrong/negative conclusion as to my motivation. :)


Luongo's groin begs to differ and his "elite" status may be a little generous as of right now.


Yeah, typo issue. I answered a similar question earlier with pretty much the same response, only it went, "He has been injury free for most of his career." Mad haste to post before going out the door = making mistakes made and things left out.

Mea culpa.


Luongo is shaky in the playoffs and even the most blind fanboy should be able to see that.
You referenced round 1 against Chicago in 2011 a couple times. Did you forget about our 3-0 series lead? There was no way that series should've gone 7 games. You say without Luongo that we would've been out in that very same 1st round, we were one goal away from that and it was largely due to Luongo's annually shaky playoff performance.

Chances are we dont make the playoffs in '07 without Luongo, however he did benefit from AV's strictly defense first system.
With Schneider on the team in '11 and '12, whether or not we win the PT is debatable. In '11 we did win by a landslide.
Again with 2011, we almost didn't make it out of round 1 in large part because of Luongo.


Yeah, and I really hated how he didn't score, and failed at backchecking all five of the men he had to cover.

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 06 November 2012 - 06:45 PM.

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

#136 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:12 PM

Can you go on and explain why the fact that Gillis has to move Luongo will result in less that a fair return? You state this as a self evident reason, and I do not see it. Feel free to include Luongo's contract if feel the need. Give us a specific reason or two.


One of the most fundamental truths of negotiations is that he who cares less, wins. Mike Gillis will be a lot more eager to get rid of Luongo than anybody will be to acquire him. This puts him in a terrible position. He can put on a front that he's happy to keep both 'tenders, but other GMs just aren't that stupid. There is simply no chance in hell that Gillis/Vancouver will want to allocate $5.3M of cap space to their backup goaltender - and, no, they're not going to split the duty 50/50. In football, if you have two QB's, you have none. Not much different in hockey with goaltenders. This would just create two justifiably disgruntled goalies. Awful idea.

2.) Locker room tensions? Do you really see this team dissolving if Luongo is still here by the trade deadline?


I'm sure the team would be annoyed, yes. Don't you remember "Sundin Watch" back in 2008? Will Mats waive his NTC? Will he do what's best for the Leafs? It'd be a massive distraction that would hurt the team. It's also a very awful way to "ease" Cory Schneider into his new position as starter. You just can't bring Luongo back.
  • 0

#137 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:14 PM

Can you go on and explain why the fact that Gillis has to move Luongo will result in less that a fair return? You state this as a self evident reason, and I do not see it. Feel free to include Luongo's contract if feel the need. Give us a specific reason or two.

1.) Cap reasons, perhaps? The team currently has about $2.5 million in cap space available. More when the Luongo deal is completed.

2.) Locker room tensions? Do you really see this team dissolving if Luongo is still here by the trade deadline?

3.) Luongo's value will be less because because the other team "knows" that you want to trade the asset they are seeking from you? Gee, as soon as another GM agrees to talk about a particular player in any trade talks, does that player's value drop through the floor with the team which is looking to acquire him? This is what you are suggesting is the case with Luongo.

Got any others?

I'm Gillis. Convince me that your offer of a bucket of used pucks is worth Luongo. :)



Still waiting on someone to provide a trade proposal that would convince Gillis to accept a bucket of used pucks for Luongo. If you believe Gillis can't get anything of value back then pick a team, pick the assets and then explain why you think Gillis would accept this deal. The most common reasons I've listed above, and they're all trash (IMO).

Connor did something similar earlier, but didn't really do a break down as to why Gillis would accept any of those stinker deals.


Ok, Gollumpus

Lets try to find his value.

Gillis has said he wants a top 6 forward, a prospect and a 1st. IMO that is the absolute high point. He's not going to ask for less than what he really wants and the market isn't hot enough for Luongo to start an all out bidding war.

What teams are legitimately in play for Luongo? To me it's Toronto and Florida with maybe Chicago and Edmonton.

Now each team is going to want to pay the least amount possible.

Florida does not need Luongo. They know he wants to go there but they have the best goalie prospect in the league in Markstrom and they got good, cheap goaltending from Theodore and Clemmensen. Florida is also a budget team so anything coming in has to have equal dollars going out. What value would they get from acquring Luongo? Not much since they already have decent goaltending and a potential franchise goalie in the making. What it gives them is a "big" trade to gain fan interest, that's about it.

Florida offers a cap dump and a B level prospect. Anything more would not be worth it to them.

Toronto headed by Burke has been a disaster. They have been unable to find players to fill key positions like #1 centre, #1 goaltender and #1 defenceman. The Leafs need a goaltender and Luongo would fit that bill but Burke has also been quite outspoken against long term contracts. i see Burke having interest in Luongo if he feels he's getting him at a bargain price. With that being said, Burke's need to get the Leafs into the playoffs will likely make him the highest bidder.

Toronto offers Franson, Bozak, Kadri/Colborne, 2nd, Lomardi. Burke will need to send a bad contract back to receive what he deems a bad contract. You can take out Lombardi but then also take out Kadri/Colborne or the 2nd.

Chicago's goaltending was shkay last season after having solid goaltending from Crawford the year before. Crawford still has two more seasons before he becomes a UFA. Chicago is a team with a model that doesn't spend a lot on goaltending and they won a cup with that model. Their defence is relatively deep along with their forwards. With the rivalry both teams will not want to lose this deal.

Chicago offers Frolik, Beach, 1st. Might be a conditional 1st on this year or the next.

Edmonton has been in the basement for a few seasons but are looking to get back into the playoff mix. They have loads of talent but aren't going to be selling the future at the for the present. They have Dubnyk who has been improving every season and whose numbers weren't fall off Luongo's last season. They would like to add more stability in net but not at a major cost of the future.

Horcoff, Omark, 2014 1st FOR Luongo


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

#138 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:15 PM

Gillis can spout off any value he wants for Luongo but the market dictates the price. If Gillis doesn't like the price the market offers, he can hold on to Luongo. The longer Luongo plays backup, the uglier it's going to get.


Bingo.

I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. Another fundamental truth about sales, right there. Look at what Pittsburgh was able to get for Staal. The quicker that you can dispose of an asset that becomes available, the higher a return that you'll get. For proof, put your house on the market and see what kind of offers you'll get at the 6 or 8-week point.
  • 0

#139 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:16 PM

I don't recall hearing Luongo actually say that he wanted to be traded. Yes, we all accept the situation as it sits and that a trade is inevitable.

I do recall him making comments that should a trade be worked out then he'd be open to considering the opportunity before him. He has also said he'd be good with staying here.


Look at his Twitter avatar. No signal there, eh?

Denial is a river in Africa, pal.
  • 0

#140 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:23 PM

2) Gunnarsson + something else for Jaroslav Halak? Are you insane?? Unless that something else is Phaneuf and a 1st St. Louis laughs at Burke and blocks Toronto's number


Uh, he wasn't proposing a trade, he was pointing out what Jaroslav Halak was traded for; Lars Eller and Ian Schultz.

Which is again something for you to consider, in light of your Purcell/Aulie/1st idea. Montreal had two goalies, and they needed to move one (sound familiar?). They got Lars Eller and Ian Schultz. Eller's OK - he's Jannik Hansen - Ian Schultz is a 3rd round pick who will probably never see the NHL.

So, again, if all that Montreal could get for a 25 year-old that led his team to the ECF in stunning fashion as an 8th seed was a Jannik Hansen-comparable and a mid-to-low level prospect, how in the world do you expect Mike Gillis to land Teddy Purcell, Keith Aulie, and a 1st round pick for 33 year-old Roberto Luongo, with 9 years remaining on his contract?

Edited by King of the ES, 06 November 2012 - 03:24 PM.

  • 0

#141 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:42 PM

One of the most fundamental truths of negotiations is that he who cares less, wins. Mike Gillis will be a lot more eager to get rid of Luongo than anybody will be to acquire him. This puts him in a terrible position. He can put on a front that he's happy to keep both 'tenders, but other GMs just aren't that stupid. There is simply no chance in hell that Gillis/Vancouver will want to allocate $5.3M of cap space to their backup goaltender - and, no, they're not going to split the duty 50/50. In football, if you have two QB's, you have none. Not much different in hockey with goaltenders. This would just create two justifiably disgruntled goalies. Awful idea.


So Burke doesn't care that much about getting Luongo? Hmm, who has a pretty successful team that will very likely be in the playoffs, and who is the GM of a team who will very likely not make it to the playoffs? Yeah, I guess Burke cares less. It certainly shows in how he has led that team for the last few years.

And once again, you automatically assume that Luongo will not be traded in a timely fashion. Can you perhaps wait at least a week after the season begins before starting in with the "OMG, when are they ever going to trade Luongo?" comments?


I'm sure the team would be annoyed, yes. Don't you remember "Sundin Watch" back in 2008? Will Mats waive his NTC? Will he do what's best for the Leafs? It'd be a massive distraction that would hurt the team. It's also a very awful way to "ease" Cory Schneider into his new position as starter. You just can't bring Luongo back.


And even though I do like Luongo, I too believe that he should be traded. It's best for the team (in terms of assets gained, cap hit, locker room), and it's best for Luongo.

Where we differ is: I do not believe that he is only worth a bucket of used pucks; that if he is not traded by the first minute after a new CBA is signed it will be a disaster for the team; and that trading him for crap is a benefit to this team.


regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 06 November 2012 - 06:45 PM.

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

#142 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:47 PM

Look at his Twitter avatar. No signal there, eh?

Denial is a river in Africa, pal.


Once again, pal, you failed to address the question I asked.

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

#143 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:12 PM

And once again, you automatically assume that Luongo will not be traded in a timely fashion. Can you perhaps wait at least a week after the season begins before starting in with the "OMG, when are they ever going to trade Luongo?" comments?


Wrong. I think he will be traded in a timely fashion, which I've already said many times.

And even though I do like Luongo, I too believe that he should be traded. It's best for the team (in terms of assets gained, cap hit, locker room), and it's best for Luongo.


Not a debate here. Your "belief" can basically be stamped as "fact", because it's happening.

Where we differ is: I do not believe that he is only worth a bucket of used pucks; that if he is not traded by the first minute after a new CBA is signed it will be a disaster for the team; and that trading him for crap is a benefit to this team.


I never said that trading him for crap is a benefit to this team. That's just the reality of the situation that Gillis has put us in by not dealing with it earlier. We're selling low. That's never good. I would've much preferred to have traded Schneider in the off-season of 2011 (or deadline day 2012, whatever), and held on to Luongo.

What you or I think he's worth is irrelevant, it's whatever the market will pay. And I don't expect that to be a very high price. Purcell/Aulie/1st is a pipe-dream.
  • 0

#144 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:13 PM

Once again, pal, you failed to address the question I asked.


What is the question?
  • 0

#145 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,008 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:47 PM

Uh, he wasn't proposing a trade, he was pointing out what Jaroslav Halak was traded for; Lars Eller and Ian Schultz.

Which is again something for you to consider, in light of your Purcell/Aulie/1st idea. Montreal had two goalies, and they needed to move one (sound familiar?). They got Lars Eller and Ian Schultz. Eller's OK - he's Jannik Hansen - Ian Schultz is a 3rd round pick who will probably never see the NHL.

So, again, if all that Montreal could get for a 25 year-old that led his team to the ECF in stunning fashion as an 8th seed was a Jannik Hansen-comparable and a mid-to-low level prospect, how in the world do you expect Mike Gillis to land Teddy Purcell, Keith Aulie, and a 1st round pick for 33 year-old Roberto Luongo, with 9 years remaining on his contract?

Still Toronto would have to offer a ton more than Gunnarsson and 'something else' for Halak. Also Luongo is much more proven than Halak is, thus will get a higher return for Vancouver than what Halak got for Montreal.

And I fail to see why you think Tampa wouldn't do that trade. Its more than fair and would address both teams needs perfectly.
  • 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


#146 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,165 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:50 PM

That's an assumption right there. How do you know that they're such good friends? You really consume the crap that Gillis et. al. feeds you through the media like it's gospel, don't you?

You are simply clueless if you think that the two goalies would be OK with an arrangement like this.


It's not at assumption at all actually, your grasping at straws. or else you have brain damage, I shouldn't have to show you the friendship that they have & the respect that they for one another, but I guess it have come to this.

It's not only Gillis saying it, it has also come from the horse's mouth, a # of times actually, here are some examples.





Watch the interviews, even go find more interviews on your own if you want too and you will see they shows the respect and friendship, you would have to be blind and deaf not to notice that.

Really I shouldn't even have to show you these video's you should just know that from watching them talk every day for the past few seasons that there is respect and friendship there but since you obvisously don't follow the team all that closely I guess I have too.
  • 1

zackass.png


#147 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,165 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:55 PM

Luongo is shaky in the playoffs and even the most blind fanboy should be able to see that.
You referenced round 1 against Chicago in 2011 a couple times. Did you forget about our 3-0 series lead? There was no way that series should've gone 7 games. You say without Luongo that we would've been out in that very same 1st round, we were one goal away from that and it was largely due to Luongo's annually shaky playoff performance.

Chances are we dont make the playoffs in '07 without Luongo, however he did benefit from AV's strictly defense first system.
With Schneider on the team in '11 and '12, whether or not we win the PT is debatable. In '11 we did win by a landslide.
Again with 2011, we almost didn't make it out of round 1 in large part because of Luongo.


This is so laughable, because anyone who watched the games that season would realize that Luongo won AV the Jack Adams trophy, I don't even know how it is debatable. That wasn't a playoff team, it was just Lu. The skater roster had gotten worse after a season in which we missed the playoffs. And who was more benefical to our success? Luongo or AV? Luongo is the clear correct choice.

As for the rest, I guess you also didn't see the terrible play by our players, go back and watch the full highlights in games 4 and 5? and you will see how terribly we played and how much better than Hawks were playing than we were.

Your argument is just another case of: When we lose it is all Roberto's fault, when we win it is inspite of Roberto. Which really is an age old argument that niether side will ever win, you just have to be able to realize that it is a team sport, and you have to look at everyone's play before you assess the blame to one person, which people in this city clearly don't do enough.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 06 November 2012 - 08:30 PM.

  • 1

zackass.png


#148 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,165 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:09 PM

Florida needs him? They must have had a horrible season last year without him.


I guess you haven't learned how to read.

I was saying how they want to get him for the coming years when there veteran's move out and there younger players move in, but like I said, you just didn't read the damn thing well enough before replying.

After I read that I realized that you are a person who does not use reason at all, you come to conclusions based on nothing to support a weak arguement.

The truth is you have not idea what Minnesota plans to do with Backstrom. The common though before the off season was Harding was going to be one of the top UFA goaltenders and would get a starting job somewhere. He decided to re-sign in Minnesota. That could leave one to conclude he either thinks he has a good chance of the starting job in Minnesota or he really likes it there. Either way, Hackett played well despite not doing great in the win column. Minnesota can afford to trade one of Harding or Backstrom and have a good young goalie play backup for a few seasons.


Your such a hypocrite, because the thing I highlighted is the exact same response I could make for your wall of text below it, but instead I will address your points like you didn't.

Like I said, with the injuries all there goalies have went through, and with how badly there defensive depth is they want as good a goaltending that is available too them, now does that makes sense as to why they resigned him to you?

And Hackett isn't ready, close but not quite, because if they thought he was then they wouldn't have resigned Harding or else they would have traded Backstrom already. Don't you think?


What you last said there makes absolutely no sense. "If they were willing to move one, they wouldn't have re-sign Harding, or else they would have already traded him at the deadline." Signing Harding makes one of them expendable.


Thomas wanted to take time off for the start of the season, some coming holocaust or something. Mackenzie said that it was believed Thomas may want to come back midway through the season. I'm sure if the lights are still on come December 22, Thomas will want to get back to playing since he wanted to play in the next Olympics. Thomas is on Team USA, right? Who's the GM of Team USA again?


Enroth is the heir to Miller. If Buffalo could get the right return for for Miller I wouldn't doubt he gets traded but I admit this is less likely.


So it's Mackenzie's speculation versus what Thomas said himself? I'm definetly gunna trust what Thomas said a little more, because even though I like Bob and I think he is very very credible, it's just his opinion, there's no source or anything behind it. And if there is please bring it to my attention.

Thomas said he is not playing this year, and you can re-read the rest of my points that you didn't address from my last post, so that I don't have to type them out again.

And I think we can both agree the Miller speculation is most bone headed of them all and makes very little to 0 sense for Buffalo.

Do you know what Halak got traded for to go from Montreal to St,Louis? Look it up.... Gunnarsson and another asset doesn't look so bad now.


It isn't the pressure of trading him as soon as the Canucks can that will give what is deemed a poor return. It will be that no GM in the league will want to take the Luongo for 10 years when the cap might drop 10 million from this coming season to the next.


And I understand the return wasn't great, Eller and a prospect I think (can't remember who), but that's Gauthier's fault, plus at the time he wasn't really proven, there was the chance that it was just a lucky playoff and that he wouldn't return to that form in the reg season, but now he has proved he is that good.

if they traded him now you would be dumb to think that he wouldn't get more than what he was traded for, and I have no issue with Gunnarsson but I get the feeling people overrate him on this board.

And the other point I tried to drop in is that it would have to be an overpayment, because St.Louis doesn't want to move him.



And that last point carries 0 weight at all, since again the CBA is a mystery, at this point it is just as likely that the Cap Remains around the same it currently is.
  • 1

zackass.png


#149 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:18 PM

Wrong. I think he will be traded in a timely fashion, which I've already said many times.


If you believe that Luongo will be traded in a timely fashion, why are you so concerned about his continued presence on the team? It is a major harping point on your part.

Just out of curiosity, how do you define "in a timely fashion"? Hours after the new CBA is signed? A day? A week? A month? From the tone of some of your posts, if Luongo was around for perhaps a week(?), then things would go south for the team.

I believe that things would be fine for even as long as a month, perhaps longer depending upon the situation at the time.


I never said that trading him for crap is a benefit to this team. That's just the reality of the situation that Gillis has put us in by not dealing with it earlier. We're selling low. That's never good. I would've much preferred to have traded Schneider in the off-season of 2011 (or deadline day 2012, whatever), and held on to Luongo.

What you or I think he's worth is irrelevant, it's whatever the market will pay. And I don't expect that to be a very high price. Purcell/Aulie/1st is a pipe-dream.


And you are reaching for the low-point from which to base your opinion, in my opinion. When could Gillis have dealt with this sooner? At the draft? This makes your suggestion one of panic selling where there is no alternative but to take less than what Luongo is worth. Get the most used pucks in the bucket of used pucks and move on. I don't abide with that view.

Indeed, what we believe Luongo is worth is irrelevant. So why are you so strident in your opinion?

So, Purcell/Aulie/1st is a pipe-dream? As I asked earlier, should I have added Connolly to the deal to make it a fairer trade?


regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#150 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:21 PM

What is the question?


Have you ever heard Luongo specifically state that he wants to be traded... or maybe something about names of rivers in Africa.

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




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.