Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

VAN - FLA


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
135 replies to this topic

#61 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,487 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 02 December 2012 - 01:54 PM

In your eyes, maybe. But again, you show an inability to remove yourself from the situation and look at it from the other side.

TB just gave 2 2nds and a 3rd for Lindback. That's not a price to pay for someone who's going to backup Luongo and play 20 games per year.


What does that have to do with anything?

I don't think Tampa is interested, all I'm saying is that if they were, and all they had to give up is Purcell, they would do it in an instant, they would be dumb not to.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 02 December 2012 - 01:54 PM.

zackass.png


#62 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,971 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 02 December 2012 - 02:31 PM

You are aware that that would've been a similar offer to Vancouver trading Cody Hodgson + Nicklas Jensen for a guy like Vincent Lecavalier in the summer of 2011, right?

Would you have made that deal?

No. That isn't even close to being similar. I can't wait until the Luongo trade goes down and you will have been proven wrong with what you think Luongo will get. 'Not worth more than Purcell.' lmao.

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


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#63 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,978 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 02 December 2012 - 02:45 PM

"Youth"?

Do I need to remind you that Luongo's a few months away from being 34 years old, himself?


Hmm, you do have trouble grasping comments which are meant as a joke.

Please do remind me that Luongo is 34, and that he has a contract with a long term, and all the rest of the stuff which is very *obvious*.

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

#64 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,574 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 02 December 2012 - 02:53 PM

1st; Lou > Lecavalier this is 2012 not 2006 when Vinny was at the top nor 2002 when he was a washout as first overall pick.

2knd; Lecavalier is owed fifty million over 5 years, Lou over ten (a fair distinction).

3rd; Hodgson & Jensen > Kadri and Biggs (Hodgson may have attitude issues, but he's overcoming them by outworking guys not showing up fat).

So we could say no and have it reflect Notta thing on the discussion

You are aware that that would've been a similar offer to Vancouver trading Cody Hodgson + Nicklas Jensen for a guy like Vincent Lecavalier in the summer of 2011, right?

Would you have made that deal?



#65 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,978 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:09 AM

In your eyes, maybe. But again, you show an inability to remove yourself from the situation and look at it from the other side.

TB just gave 2 2nds and a 3rd for Lindback. That's not a price to pay for someone who's going to backup Luongo and play 20 games per year.


I would point out that there are folks who are concerned about Schneider's youth and inexperience. If I recall correctly, you would prefer that the Canucks kept Luongo rather than Schneider, as Luongo is the better goalie.

So what is your opinion of Lindback? He is younger than Schneider and has played only as many games in the NHL as Schneider has wins. Why wouldn't TB want Luongo to act as the starter and mentor to Lindback as he did with Schneider? And can you come up with anything other than Luongo's age and the length of his contract? TB is a team which could go far in the playoffs with a goaltender. Heck, they got to game 7 of the conference finals against the Bruins a couple of years ago with Roloson.

If you believe that the Canucks should be okay with keeping Luongo, why wouldn't another team want to acquire him?

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

#66 James van Riemsdyk

James van Riemsdyk

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 12

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:21 AM

I would point out that there are folks who are concerned about Schneider's youth and inexperience. If I recall correctly, you would prefer that the Canucks kept Luongo rather than Schneider, as Luongo is the better goalie.

So what is your opinion of Lindback? He is younger than Schneider and has played only as many games in the NHL as Schneider has wins. Why wouldn't TB want Luongo to act as the starter and mentor to Lindback as he did with Schneider? And can you come up with anything other than Luongo's age and the length of his contract? TB is a team which could go far in the playoffs with a goaltender. Heck, they got to game 7 of the conference finals against the Bruins a couple of years ago with Roloson.

If you believe that the Canucks should be okay with keeping Luongo, why wouldn't another team want to acquire him?

regards,
G.


I think I know where you are coming from, but who would Tampa Bay give us that would be worth our while? If they are a Contender for the cup they will not be willing to trade away people we need for our run now as well. If we trade for prospects that doesn't do us very much if we want the cup now as well. As much as I'd like to admit it would be good to trade with Tampa Bay but they wouldn't really have much to offer us.
Posted Image
Edmonton Oilers CHL AGM
Edmontion Oilers SRHL Commissioner/GM

#67 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,971 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:37 AM

I think I know where you are coming from, but who would Tampa Bay give us that would be worth our while? If they are a Contender for the cup they will not be willing to trade away people we need for our run now as well. If we trade for prospects that doesn't do us very much if we want the cup now as well. As much as I'd like to admit it would be good to trade with Tampa Bay but they wouldn't really have much to offer us.

I agree. I used to think that Tampa would be the only place Luongo would end up, but then I noticed that their top six really isn't that bad

Malone - Stamkos - St. Louis
Purcell - Lecavalier - Connolly

Don't think they would want to mess around with that. Their D is pretty solid too

Hedman - Carle
Brewer - Salo
Lee - Bergeron

I'd watch out for the Lightning this year (whenever/if that will be)

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


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#68 canuktravella

canuktravella

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,474 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 12

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:28 AM

same as a thousand proposals boring.

#69 JHansenFan

JHansenFan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,363 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 08

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:03 AM

^coming from the guy who makes a new thread every two days with whatever rainbow he pulls out of his behind.


Posted Image
Sick Sig Made By: allons-y


#70 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:58 AM

No. That isn't even close to being similar. I can't wait until the Luongo trade goes down and you will have been proven wrong with what you think Luongo will get. 'Not worth more than Purcell.' lmao.


How is it not close?

Kadri was 7th overall, Biggs 25th. Hodgson was 10th, Jensen 29th. Both Luongo & Lecavalier are guys past their primes with huge contracts. It's the same thing.

#71 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:01 AM

I would point out that there are folks who are concerned about Schneider's youth and inexperience. If I recall correctly, you would prefer that the Canucks kept Luongo rather than Schneider, as Luongo is the better goalie.

So what is your opinion of Lindback? He is younger than Schneider and has played only as many games in the NHL as Schneider has wins. Why wouldn't TB want Luongo to act as the starter and mentor to Lindback as he did with Schneider? And can you come up with anything other than Luongo's age and the length of his contract? TB is a team which could go far in the playoffs with a goaltender. Heck, they got to game 7 of the conference finals against the Bruins a couple of years ago with Roloson.

If you believe that the Canucks should be okay with keeping Luongo, why wouldn't another team want to acquire him?


I don't know much about Lindback at all. But TB sure seems to like him, based on what they paid to acquire him. Makes you wonder why they'd want Luongo. 2 2nds and a 3rd to pick up a backup goaltender? Not likely.

EDIT: to your last question, the answer is because of the high degree of risk in the acquisition. High potential for it to be a flop, which will then cost the GM his job. I don't think many GMs are all that eager to stick their necks on the line for something like this. Lu's almost 34 years old and is under contract until 2022. Some of you have suggested that he'll be retiring in 3 - 4 years, and simply walking away from ~$20M of guaranteed money. I'd call that not very likely.

Edited by King of the ES, 04 December 2012 - 05:04 AM.


#72 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,971 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:26 AM

How is it not close?

Kadri was 7th overall, Biggs 25th. Hodgson was 10th, Jensen 29th. Both Luongo & Lecavalier are guys past their primes with huge contracts. It's the same thing.

Because both Hodgson and Jensen are better than Kadri and Biggs.

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


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#73 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:31 PM

Because both Hodgson and Jensen are better than Kadri and Biggs.


In the summer of 2011, Hodgson's value/potential was shaky. Kinda like Kadri's is now.

It's a reasonable comparison, and something that you're just not considering. Leafs giving up two of their top prospects, 1st round guys, for a goalie that we have to trade?

Edited by King of the ES, 04 December 2012 - 05:33 PM.


#74 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,978 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:16 PM

I don't know much about Lindback at all. But TB sure seems to like him, based on what they paid to acquire him. Makes you wonder why they'd want Luongo. 2 2nds and a 3rd to pick up a backup goaltender? Not likely.

EDIT: to your last question, the answer is because of the high degree of risk in the acquisition. High potential for it to be a flop, which will then cost the GM his job. I don't think many GMs are all that eager to stick their necks on the line for something like this. Lu's almost 34 years old and is under contract until 2022. Some of you have suggested that he'll be retiring in 3 - 4 years, and simply walking away from ~$20M of guaranteed money. I'd call that not very likely.


Yeah, so if you're Yzerman you're comfortable going forward with a 22 year old goalie (for whom you traded away two 2nd's and a 3rd), who has only 38 games worth of NHL experience, and who has a medical condition which could have an impact on his future playing career, rather than trading for Luongo because of the high potential for that trade to be a flop?




Leafs giving up two of their top prospects, 1st round guys, for a goalie that we have to trade?


You seem to be continually working from the mindset that there is only one team at any given time which is interested in Luongo. There are several other teams which have expressed an interest in Luongo, so doesn't that strengthen the Canucks bargaining position? (Nevermind about how much Luongo's contract is worth, or what his cap hit is, or how old he is, or anything else. Those are separate issues. Just address the question I just put forward if you would. :))

Yes, yes, but because these other GM's "know" that Gillis has to trade Luongo this somehow greatly reduces his return value from these other teams, right?

I want to make sure I understand your position here: 1.) due to circumstances, Luongo is likely to be traded; 2.) other GM's are aware of this, so rather than making a reasonable offer for his services, they will try to underbid each other in the hopes that Gillis will eventually stop at their bid because it's the currently the highest low bid on the table and he wants to make a deal before he has to give up Luongo and 1st just to get a bucket of used pucks. Is this about right?

So how do you trade someone without letting other teams "know" that you want to trade that player? According to your logic, wouldn't this drive down his price rather than raising it? As soon as one GM phones up another GM to talk trades, does the worth of either team's players go up or down?

And, assuming that the Oilers could do this, how much more than Carson, Gelinas, $15 million, and LA's '89, 91, 93 1st round picks could they have gotten for Gretzky if they weren't blabbing it all over Vancouver, LA, and Detroit that they were lookiing to trade him? (And no, I am not comparing Luongo to Gretzky, so you can jump off that hobby horse right now.)

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

#75 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 05 December 2012 - 03:33 PM

Yeah, so if you're Yzerman you're comfortable going forward with a 22 year old goalie (for whom you traded away two 2nd's and a 3rd), who has only 38 games worth of NHL experience, and who has a medical condition which could have an impact on his future playing career, rather than trading for Luongo because of the high potential for that trade to be a flop?


Based on what he paid to get him, yes, you've gotta think that Yzerman's at least comfortable in giving Lindback a shot. Why else would he offer up that much? It makes no sense.

You seem to be continually working from the mindset that there is only one team at any given time which is interested in Luongo. There are several other teams which have expressed an interest in Luongo, so doesn't that strengthen the Canucks bargaining position? (Nevermind about how much Luongo's contract is worth, or what his cap hit is, or how old he is, or anything else. Those are separate issues. Just address the question I just put forward if you would. :))


Yes, that would clearly strengthen the Canucks' bargaining position. More buyers = more power. Obviously.

But you can't just blow off the contractual and other issues as "separate"; they're exactly what are driving this deal. If Miikka Kiprusoff, for example, was put up for sale by the Calgary Flames, there would be a flurry of activity, no doubt about it. Why? 2 years remaining on his deal. Not 9.

Yes, yes, but because these other GM's "know" that Gillis has to trade Luongo this somehow greatly reduces his return value from these other teams, right?

I want to make sure I understand your position here: 1.) due to circumstances, Luongo is likely to be traded; 2.) other GM's are aware of this, so rather than making a reasonable offer for his services, they will try to underbid each other in the hopes that Gillis will eventually stop at their bid because it's the currently the highest low bid on the table and he wants to make a deal before he has to give up Luongo and 1st just to get a bucket of used pucks. Is this about right?

So how do you trade someone without letting other teams "know" that you want to trade that player? According to your logic, wouldn't this drive down his price rather than raising it? As soon as one GM phones up another GM to talk trades, does the worth of either team's players go up or down?


You went off on a bit of a tangent in the last paragraph, but, yes, if it's known that you're under pressure to sell something, you're not going to get very good value for it. This is just another fundamental characteristic of a market.

#76 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,978 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:14 PM

Based on what he paid to get him, yes, you've gotta think that Yzerman's at least comfortable in giving Lindback a shot. Why else would he offer up that much? It makes no sense.


Well, might not Yzerman be looking at Lindback as a goalie of the future, and this is why he paid what he did? And if this is the case, then would it not be beneficial for TB to get a goalie for "now" (ie. Luongo) who can also act as a mentor for the goalie of the future?

Further, with Lindback's medical condition, there is the potential for it to have an impact on his playing ability. If this does become the case, then having Luongo could be of major benefit to the Bolts.


Yes, that would clearly strengthen the Canucks' bargaining position. More buyers = more power. Obviously.

But you can't just blow off the contractual and other issues as "separate"; they're exactly what are driving this deal. If Miikka Kiprusoff, for example, was put up for sale by the Calgary Flames, there would be a flurry of activity, no doubt about it. Why? 2 years remaining on his deal. Not 9.


Yes, but if other GM's are actively asking about a player (in this case, Luongo), then they are also willing to accept his contract and have figured out how to make it fit within their cap structure. Them offering less will not reduce the amount paid, the cap hit or the duration of Luongo's contract.

I do not see duration as being as much of an issue as you wish us to believe, and has been answered (at least to my satisfaction) in previous threads. Yes, it would be used as a bargaining chip, but at the end of the day, they have competitors for Luongo, and if they want him, they will have to pay a reasonable price.


You went off on a bit of a tangent in the last paragraph, but, yes, if it's known that you're under pressure to sell something, you're not going to get very good value for it. This is just another fundamental characteristic of a market.


You continue to put all of the pressure to make a deal on Gillis' shoulders.

A fundamental characteristic of a market is that if you can't get the price for something you wish to sell, you can take it off of the market until some later time. You are not obliged to sell your asset at a loss.

Yes, you run the risk that the return will not improve or even go down. You also have the chance of a "cost" associated with holding on to that asset (eg: your constant concerns over locker room strife; or not having that cap space available to acquire another player; or just not having the assets which would come back in the deal). However, there is also a chance (and in the case of Luongo, I believe it to be a good chance) that you will be able to get a very satisfactory return for your asset, and at minimal risk for the amount of time concerned.

Is Gillis under some pressure to move a goalie (likely Luongo)? Sure. Is Burke under a lot more pressure to upgrade his goaltender position? Absolutely. Are there competitors for Luongo? I believe this is the case (or was the case, assuming the rumour of a done deal waiting on the new CBA are true), and as such, this puts even more pressure on Burke to complete a deal rather than putting more pressure on Gillis.


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

#77 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,978 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:30 PM

I think I know where you are coming from, but who would Tampa Bay give us that would be worth our while? If they are a Contender for the cup they will not be willing to trade away people we need for our run now as well. If we trade for prospects that doesn't do us very much if we want the cup now as well. As much as I'd like to admit it would be good to trade with Tampa Bay but they wouldn't really have much to offer us.


I think they have a fair amount to offer. :)

Vancouver has a need for a top-6 RW, and TB has a bit of depth at RW with St. Louis, Purcell and Connolly. Purcell could fill the bill as the impact roster player, and TB would still have a couple of good top-6 right wingers.

For a prospect, I wouldn't mind Aulie, but there are a few forward prospects that would work.

The 1st round pick for 2014.


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

#78 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,978 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

In the summer of 2011, Hodgson's value/potential was shaky. Kinda like Kadri's is now.

It's a reasonable comparison, and something that you're just not considering. Leafs giving up two of their top prospects, 1st round guys, for a goalie that we have to trade?


You should re-word this to say: "Leafs giving up two of their top prospects, 1st round guys, for a goalie which they need if they want to go anywhere in the near future."

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

#79 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,225 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:56 PM

Lindback isn't going to be the starter for the Lightning anyways, him and Garon are going to be 1A 1B goalies.
Lindback will probably play about 40-45 games next year, and get a few more each year as time goes on.
If it was the case that Lu could be the starter for 2 or 3 more years then hand the reigns over to Lindback then maybe I could see Tampa going for it, but because of his contract that just isn't possible. If Tampa got Luongo they would likely no longer need him in a few years, and would be stuck in a situation similar to ours.
I can't see Tampa going for Lu right now, but that being said in terms of pure value, he's worth more than just Purcell.

Jagermeister.jpg


#80 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,978 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:13 PM

Lindback isn't going to be the starter for the Lightning anyways, him and Garon are going to be 1A 1B goalies.
Lindback will probably play about 40-45 games next year, and get a few more each year as time goes on.
If it was the case that Lu could be the starter for 2 or 3 more years then hand the reigns over to Lindback then maybe I could see Tampa going for it, but because of his contract that just isn't possible. If Tampa got Luongo they would likely no longer need him in a few years, and would be stuck in a situation similar to ours.


Maybe. I could see Luongo being there for at least four years, and after that time, he might retire, he might be traded, or he could just be placed on waivers where a team looking to reach the cap floor can pick him up.

I can't see Tampa going for Lu right now, but that being said in terms of pure value, he's worth more than just Purcell.


If you are referring to my previous post, I was basing my proposal on what Gillis stated as his asking price for Luongo: an impact roster palyer, a top prospect and a 1st. Working from that (not that this would be what the final deal will look like), the deal would be Purcell, Aulie and the 2014 1st. :)


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

#81 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:07 PM

Well, might not Yzerman be looking at Lindback as a goalie of the future, and this is why he paid what he did? And if this is the case, then would it not be beneficial for TB to get a goalie for "now" (ie. Luongo) who can also act as a mentor for the goalie of the future?


Luongo is not a goalie for "now" - he's a goalie until 2022. This is what you and seemingly everyone else continue to forget.

Further, with Lindback's medical condition, there is the potential for it to have an impact on his playing ability. If this does become the case, then having Luongo could be of major benefit to the Bolts.


He wasn't diagnosed with his medical issue yesterday. This is something he's had since 2008. Again, TB is clearly not seeing it as a significant risk.

You continue to put all of the pressure to make a deal on Gillis' shoulders.

A fundamental characteristic of a market is that if you can't get the price for something you wish to sell, you can take it off of the market until some later time. You are not obliged to sell your asset at a loss.


You honestly think Luongo's value will raise playing second-fiddle to Schneider?

Is Gillis under some pressure to move a goalie (likely Luongo)? Sure. Is Burke under a lot more pressure to upgrade his goaltender position? Absolutely. Are there competitors for Luongo? I believe this is the case (or was the case, assuming the rumour of a done deal waiting on the new CBA are true), and as such, this puts even more pressure on Burke to complete a deal rather than putting more pressure on Gillis.


I think you're wrong about Burke. Why is he under pressure to upgrade his goaltenders? James Reimer was phenomenal in 2011. That was only a year ago. They could very logically give him a year or two to see if he can perform.

And the more that these CBA talks continue, the more convinced I'm becoming that other teams will be scared off by Luongo's contract. Daly's "the hill we're dieing on" comment tonight, as it relates to limiting contracts to 5 years, should serve as a pretty strong signal. Does not bode well for Luongo's return.

#82 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,978 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:50 PM

Luongo is not a goalie for "now" - he's a goalie until 2022. This is what you and seemingly everyone else continue to forget.


Oh, how can we forget, for you continue to remind us at every opportunity. :)

Luongo is a goalie until 2018. After that time, he will likely retire, or otherwise be moved out of the organization to which the Canucks move him. And there is ample opportunity for this to occur, which is something you chose to disregard, rather than "forget". And once Luongo is gone, he becomes someone else's problem. This is another thing you choose to disregard.

And if this is such a significant problem, then Burke would not put forward *any* trade offer in the first place. How would Burke trading even a bucket of used pucks for Luongo do anything to ease this problem of the length of term which you view as being such a deal stopper?

ANSWER: it wouldn't.

If your concern on this issue is apparently not shared by Burke, then it would not have an impact on Luongo's value to the Leafs and the offer which they will likely have to pay for his services. However, I am aware that it is a very good bargaining chip and Burke would be a fool to not try and use it.


He wasn't diagnosed with his medical issue yesterday. This is something he's had since 2008. Again, TB is clearly not seeing it as a significant risk.


Yup, but it is something which will have to be considered as his career goes forward.


You honestly think Luongo's value will raise playing second-fiddle to Schneider?


And you continually espouse the view which suggests that if Luongo is not traded within minutes of the new CBA being signed, then somehow he will become a less sought after player.

The latest trade rumour I saw was Kadri, Bozak, Komarov and Holzer. So, if Gillis doesn't jump on that right away, do you suggest that the Leafs will remove Holzer from the deal? And if Gillis hasn't agreed to deal by the middle of January, then Burke will pull Komarov off the table, and so on until the trade deadline, when Gillis will have to add a 1st in order to get even a bucket of used pucks for Luongo, because of all the negative value he will have accrued?

Another factor which you choose to disregard is that there will be changes to various teams once the new CBA is signed. This could open a number of opportunities for Gillis, and yes it could also close some. The only way it reduces Luongo's value is if *every* team looking for a goalie decides to look elsewhere, which I view as being unlikely. However, you seem to believe that many other teams will be content with goalies who are older than Luongo or drastically younger and less experienced. So be it.


I think you're wrong about Burke. Why is he under pressure to upgrade his goaltenders?


There's these things called the playoffs. If you've been a Canucks fan for the last while you may have forgotten that not every team makes them. Burke is under pressure to produce a winner, whether that team includes Luongo or not. This puts him under pressure.

I'm sorry if this news has come as a bit of a shock to you. :)


James Reimer was phenomenal in 2011. That was only a year ago. They could very logically give him a year or two to see if he can perform.


Yup, they sure could. I suspect Burke would follow his development from the comfort of his home rather than the team box on game nights.


And the more that these CBA talks continue, the more convinced I'm becoming that other teams will be scared off by Luongo's contract. Daly's "the hill we're dieing on" comment tonight, as it relates to limiting contracts to 5 years, should serve as a pretty strong signal. Does not bode well for Luongo's return.


So? Daly's comments are about new contracts, no? Last I checked, Luongo's contract was signed a couple of years ago.

Unless there's something in the new CBA which punishes anyone other than the original team (and/or the player) then there's no problem. There has as yet (to my knowledge) not been anything which says "the Leafs will be screwed by the new CBA if they dare sign Luongo".


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

#83 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:18 PM

Oh, how can we forget, for you continue to remind us at every opportunity. :)

Luongo is a goalie until 2018. After that time, he will likely retire, or otherwise be moved out of the organization to which the Canucks move him. And there is ample opportunity for this to occur, which is something you chose to disregard, rather than "forget". And once Luongo is gone, he becomes someone else's problem. This is another thing you choose to disregard.


No he's not. His contract is in effect until 2022. Teams will not be valuing him on the basis of an early retirement, you can be assured of that. They're not so stupid to make a potentially very costly assumption like that.

And yes, when he's out of Vancouver, he becomes someone else's problem. But who wants that risk?

Another factor which you choose to disregard is that there will be changes to various teams once the new CBA is signed. This could open a number of opportunities for Gillis, and yes it could also close some. The only way it reduces Luongo's value is if *every* team looking for a goalie decides to look elsewhere, which I view as being unlikely. However, you seem to believe that many other teams will be content with goalies who are older than Luongo or drastically younger and less experienced. So be it.


No, I believe that they're already heavily invested in them. Go look it up on Capgeek, if you don't believe me. There are simply not a lot of vacancies.

There's these things called the playoffs. If you've been a Canucks fan for the last while you may have forgotten that not every team makes them. Burke is under pressure to produce a winner, whether that team includes Luongo or not. This puts him under pressure.


Reimer almost got them there in 2011 practically by himself. Check his numbers. Reasonable for them to be willing to try him out again.

#84 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,487 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:36 PM

How is it not close?

Kadri was 7th overall, Biggs 25th. Hodgson was 10th, Jensen 29th. Both Luongo & Lecavalier are guys past their primes with huge contracts. It's the same thing.


Hodgson > Kadri
Jensen > Biggs

(Shouldn't have to explain those two, pretty obvious)

Lu > Lecavalier

Lecavalier is nowhere near his prime, Lu may have lost a few baby steps from his absolute prime, but he is still a star goaltender and a far better goaltender than what most of the teams in the league have.

Luongo is not a goalie for "now" - he's a goalie until 2022. This is what you and seemingly everyone else continue to forget.

You honestly think Luongo's value will raise playing second-fiddle to Schneider?

I think you're wrong about Burke. Why is he under pressure to upgrade his goaltenders? James Reimer was phenomenal in 2011. That was only a year ago. They could very logically give him a year or two to see if he can perform.

And the more that these CBA talks continue, the more convinced I'm becoming that other teams will be scared off by Luongo's contract. Daly's "the hill we're dieing on" comment tonight, as it relates to limiting contracts to 5 years, should serve as a pretty strong signal. Does not bode well for Luongo's return.


No one is forgetting that, trust me. It is pretty much your main argument, no one is forgetting the contract length don't worry. But in making that statement, you seem to forget about retirement or buyout's.

Lu won't play 2nd fiddle, it's going to be a tandem. Anyone who has watched this team reglularly over the past season would have no issue agreeing.

Burke's job is on the line and the Leafs playoff birth is way overdue. Riemer had a great stretch of play. Great, so did Steve Mason, Andrew Raycroft, I seem to remember Maxime Ouellet even having a few good games back in 05-06, I wonder where he is now, I could go on and on, but Riemer has had an entire season to continue that and he failed to. Nothing but a huge risk.

I'm not sure how Bill Daley's comments have anything to do with Luongo's contract. Luongo's deal has already been signed, that is referring to future contracts, and (For argument's sake) even if that was referring to his deal, it would only make him more appealing. You might need to explain why you brought that up, completely irrelevant to me.

zackass.png


#85 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,225 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:38 PM

Jensen > Biggs


Gotta disagree with you here.
Jensen may have more pure offensive skill, but Biggs is an absolute force physically, and has the potential to put up some good numbers in the NHL.
I'd say they are pretty equal, but I'd be inclined to give an edge to Biggs.
There was a reason he was picked 7 spots ahead of Jensen just a little over a year ago, and both have lived up to, and beyond early expectations.

Edited by Jägermeister, 07 December 2012 - 08:39 PM.

Jagermeister.jpg


#86 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,487 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:49 PM

Gotta disagree with you here.
Jensen may have more pure offensive skill, but Biggs is an absolute force physically, and has the potential to put up some good numbers in the NHL.
I'd say they are pretty equal, but I'd be inclined to give an edge to Biggs.
There was a reason he was picked 7 spots ahead of Jensen just a little over a year ago, and both have lived up to, and beyond early expectations.


I say offensively Jensen is better, skating is probably around the same, both are about the same size, Biggs is probably heavier and he's more nasty but Jensen has better offensive ability.

It's just what kind of player you prefer really.

zackass.png


#87 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,971 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:53 PM

I say offensively Jensen is better, skating is probably around the same, both are about the same size, Biggs is probably heavier and he's more nasty but Jensen has better offensive ability.

It's just what kind of player you prefer really.

Imagine us getting him and Kadri for Luongo and have a prospect line up like this

Jensen - Gaunce - Kassian
Biggs - Schroeder - Kadri

Then throw in this years 1st (or 1sts depending on us trading for any), and we are good to go.

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


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#88 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,978 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:46 PM

No he's not. His contract is in effect until 2022. Teams will not be valuing him on the basis of an early retirement, you can be assured of that. They're not so stupid to make a potentially very costly assumption like that.


Yes, he is. Do you really believe that guys like Tallon and Yzerman and Burke are stupid? Well, you may be able to make a case with Burke...

I believe these guys are comfortable with the thought of being able to get rid of Luongo's contract should he decide he does not want to retire. If they weren't, why would they make a trade offer in the first place? And as I pointed out, if one of them does acquire Luongo, whatever price they pay (whether high or low) will do nothing to shrink Luongo's cap hit, the term of his deal or how much he gets paid.

However, I am sure they will feel touched with your concern. :)


And yes, when he's out of Vancouver, he becomes someone else's problem. But who wants that risk?


Well, apparently Brian Burke, Yzerman and Tallon are willing to take the risk (and perhaps others). I suggest that a deal was not done earlier, is not because they are afraid of Luongo's contract, but rather that they are hoping to get a quality player at a fire sale price.


No, I believe that they're already heavily invested in them. Go look it up on Capgeek, if you don't believe me. There are simply not a lot of vacancies.


Luongo would be a major upgrade in each of these cities. In some cases, the guys were draft picks of the team for which they currently play, other were traded.

Chicago (Crawford at $2.5+ million, and one year left after this season)), Columbus (all three of the listed goalies will be RFA's at the end of this year), Detroit (Howard is a UFA at the end of this season), Edmonton (Dubnyk maybe can have a case made for him), Phoenix (both goalies are UFA's after this season), San Jose (Niemi? I could see the Sharks unloading the remaining term of his contract to make way), maybe the Islanders or Flyers if they buy out a contract under the bew CBA. And then there's the Leafs, the Panthers and the Bolts.


Reasonable for them to be willing to try him out again.


I revisit you with this:



I'm sure Burke could follow how the Leafs do from the comfort of his living room, because he likely won't be watching them from the Leaf's box. You can explain to him how not getting Luongo was "the right move".


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

#89 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,487 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:58 PM

Imagine us getting him and Kadri for Luongo and have a prospect line up like this

Jensen - Gaunce - Kassian
Biggs - Schroeder - Kadri

Then throw in this years 1st (or 1sts depending on us trading for any), and we are good to go.


Draft Carrier with our 1st. Draft Houck with our 2nd.

Carrier - Kadri - Jensen
(Top offensive line, Great PLY with 2 finishers)
Biggs - Gaunce - Kassian
(Size, grit, toughness, good two play, exc. what's not to like)
Rodin - Schroeder - Houck
(Rodin is a skilled two-way player, Houck is a more gritty 2-way player & JS is here due to depth/Chemistry)

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 07 December 2012 - 10:01 PM.

zackass.png


#90 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:32 AM

Hodgson > Kadri
Jensen > Biggs

(Shouldn't have to explain those two, pretty obvious)

Lu > Lecavalier

Lecavalier is nowhere near his prime, Lu may have lost a few baby steps from his absolute prime, but he is still a star goaltender and a far better goaltender than what most of the teams in the league have.


Calling Jensen better than Biggs is laughable. You have literally zero basis from which to form that opinion. Neither are NHLers right now, Biggs was drafted 7 spots higher, and they've put up basically identical OHL stats. You really have a problem with overvaluing Vancouver Canuck players.

Even calling Hodgson better than Kadri is premature. Give Kadri a full year in the NHL first. Kadri had better AHL numbers than Hodgson did in 2010-11.

As for Lu/Lecvavalier, the problem is that there simply aren't many teams that are in the market for a goalie. You can't counter that fundamental reality with any sort of statistic. Supply/demand will always trump all. Demand is low. That carries consequences.

Lu won't play 2nd fiddle, it's going to be a tandem. Anyone who has watched this team reglularly over the past season would have no issue agreeing.


A tandem is a stunningly foolish idea that I've explained many times. In short, one will invariably outplay the other, leaving one as the starter and one as the backup. Whoever's the backup suddenly has very little value, and we still have > $9M invested in goaltenders. Utterly foolish.

Burke's job is on the line and the Leafs playoff birth is way overdue. Riemer had a great stretch of play. Great, so did Steve Mason, Andrew Raycroft, I seem to remember Maxime Ouellet even having a few good games back in 05-06, I wonder where he is now, I could go on and on, but Riemer has had an entire season to continue that and he failed to. Nothing but a huge risk.

I'm not sure how Bill Daley's comments have anything to do with Luongo's contract. Luongo's deal has already been signed, that is referring to future contracts, and (For argument's sake) even if that was referring to his deal, it would only make him more appealing. You might need to explain why you brought that up, completely irrelevant to me.


Reimer was injured. This wasn't a Ryan Kesler, I-had-a-bad-year-so-I'll-tell-everyone-I-was-injured situation, he only played in 34 games. If Burke acquires Luongo, he's effectively given up on Reimer. Which might happen, but my point is that he's really not under that much pressure to do so, because a reasonable case can be made to try out Reimer some more.

And as for Daly, yes it does matter. What it tells you is that the lifetime contracts are what the owners are "willing to die on a hill" to avoid. What kind of signal does that give you as to what the sort of demand for Luongo will be, around the league, knowing that they're desperately wanting to get rid of the lifetime contract? Think about it.




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.