Gollumpus Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 You accuse others of assuming and having unrealistic trade proposals while your proposals and assumptions are exactly the same except much to far in the Canucks' favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 It doesn't take a rocket scientist? Tell me using logic and reason why Gollumps deal makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Is Nick Jensen a real gem? 29th overall pick in 2011. Something tells me that you'll think he's far better and far more valuable than Ashton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 And you are also making an assumption that there wouldn't be any of these locker room problems that I've mentioned. So, yes, we're both making assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I thought that deal of Luongo, Ballard FOR Paajarvi was off. The Oilers would be taking 9.5 mil in salary back and what is considered two bad contracts for Paajarvi. It doesn't take a rocket scientist? Tell me using logic and reason why Gollumps deal makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 The deal above was something that I wrote in passing. Still reasonable, IMO. However, my actual Luongo proposal was Luongo + Tanev to Chicago for Leddy + Frolik + Beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Actually he's not making any assumptions, only you are. Because Cory and Lu are good friends, and we already seen first hand that it can work without issue if it has too, not to mention everyone in the room likes both. As Mike Gillis said, it can work because we have seen it work, what better proof is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.