Gollumpus Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Your CDC-patented "regards, G" has always made me think you're an old guy. No disrespect meant, just an observation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamhuis2 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Reading through these posts, I agree with many things being said here. One thing that I do not agree with however is that Bjugstad is more NHL ready than Huberdeau. Florida has committed Bjugstad to stay in college for this year, and there is a strong chance he will remain there again next year. Huberdeau had a strong enough camp last year to make their team, but they didn't want to rush him into their lineup(much to the suprise of everyone) so he played junior. He will be a top-6 forward for them once the season starts up(whenever that may be). Remember, he was a #3 overall pick. While Bjugstad is maybe a top 20 prospect in the league, Huberdeau is surely a top 5/10. Personally, my "realistic" Luongo trade would be something like this: Lu+Schroeder For Bjugstad+Clemmenson+2nd Or Lu+Schroeder+3rd For Bjugstad+Petrovic+Clemmenson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Reading through these posts, I agree with many things being said here. One thing that I do not agree with however is that Bjugstad is more NHL ready than Huberdeau. Florida has committed Bjugstad to stay in college for this year, and there is a strong chance he will remain there again next year. Huberdeau had a strong enough camp last year to make their team, but they didn't want to rush him into their lineup(much to the suprise of everyone) so he played junior. He will be a top-6 forward for them once the season starts up(whenever that may be). Remember, he was a #3 overall pick. While Bjugstad is maybe a top 20 prospect in the league, Huberdeau is surely a top 5/10. Personally, my "realistic" Luongo trade would be something like this: Lu+Schroeder For Bjugstad+Clemmenson+2nd Or Lu+Schroeder+3rd For Bjugstad+Petrovic+Clemmenson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 How about: To Florida: Luongo, 2014 2nd, perhaps a mid-level prospect To Vancouver: Clemmensen, Petrovic, Huberdeau, 2014 1st, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Hmm, so you buy a new car and you still have the old one. You have a two car garage, so you have a place to keep it. You're also not strapped for cash. You try to sell the old car, but the only offers are well below the book price of the car. Do you sell it at a ridiculously low price or do you hold on to it in anticipation of better offers? The fantasy is not that MG is happy with having both goaltenders. The fantasy is that MG has to move one of them as soon as he is capable and that he has to take a crappy deal in order to make the deal happen. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I wouldn't write off the Bolts just yet. They have a number of assets available to trade for Luongo, such as: Purcell, Aulie and a 2014 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 To Florida: Luongo, 2014 2nd, perhaps a mid-level prospect To Vancouver: Clemmensen, Petrovic, Huberdeau, 2014 1st, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 The Canucks want Reimer because MG wants a goaltender back who can maybe play 20+ games or so if Schneider really can't handle the pressure of being a Starting goaltender. Although Reimer wouldn't be the best available in terms of being a backup goaltender, he holds value in that he will be able to play some games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I suppose my primary thought about the two is that Huberdeau is not a big guy (although he does have a large amount of talent), while Bjugstad is what I would prefer Gillis to get. Bjugstad is a guy with size who knows how to use it, has skating ability, skill with lots of scoring potential. He fits better with my view of the type of team Gillis is now looking to create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Yes, that was your earlier insane proposal, almost as insane as Huberdeau/Petrovic/Clemmensen/1st. Rumor has it that TB was eager to land Schneider. When it became clear that Vancouver was going to be trading Luongo, instead, they went out and got Lindback. What's the point in TB paying the price of 2 2nd round picks, and a 3rd, to acquire someone to be their backup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Only King would think a proposal that is completley fair is 'insane'. Need I remind you who it was that proposed Luongo and Ballard for Paajarvi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 "Completely fair". Jonathan Huberdeau, Alex Petrovic, Scott Clemmensen, and a 1st is "completely fair", is it? As a piece of advice, you may want to hang tight on ordering your Jonathan Huberdeau Vancouver Canuck jersey until the deal is finalized, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 A whole lot of trade discussion here for two teams that won't be making a trade any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I was talking about Purcell, Aulie and a '14 1st for Luongo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Seriously, this is a joke, right? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 A whole lot of trade discussion here for two teams that won't be making a trade any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 ATM this thread seems better discussion, but thoughts (?) re CC on my post from the Lou trade thread; What we ask for and will get is (pick two of these three) Kadri, Ashton and Biggs PLUS their choice of Colburne and Franson. Happy to send secondaries back as balance (Connauton if Gardiner, Schroeder if Kadri or Colburne, Raymond...). Mark it here? Deal will be Ashton, Biggs and Franson. 2 years from now Danny / Hank/ Kass Jensen / Kess / Biggs Burrows / Gaunce / Ashton Looks pretty good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 ATM this thread seems better discussion, but thoughts (?) re CC on my post from the Lou trade thread; What we ask for and will get is (pick two of these three) Kadri, Ashton and Biggs PLUS their choice of Colburne and Franson. Happy to send secondaries back as balance (Connauton if Gardiner, Schroeder if Kadri or Colburne, Raymond...). Mark it here? Deal will be Ashton, Biggs and Franson. 2 years from now Danny / Hank/ Kass Jensen / Kess / Biggs Burrows / Gaunce / Ashton Looks pretty good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 In comparison to my T.O. deal above I'm also happy with Petrovic and Bjugstad + a 2014 1st for Lou, and we chuck in balancers they can choose from; Schroeder, Connauton, our 2014 1st if we get their's, Raymond, maybe Ballard (but I personally want to keep him). But I don't see Huberdeau; called by some the best / most NHL ready centre prospect in the world not in the NHL by some prior to the lockout... There we give up Lou, Burrows and a pick, which ain't happening...? With Gillis' "impact player, top prospect and a 1st" comment in mind, I also do not see the Canucks doing a deal with Florida if he tries to hold Tallon to that request. About the only roster player the Canucks might be interested in could be Versteeg, due to age, ability, cap hit and position. This is why Tallon would not want to let him go. But if he still wants Luongo the only way Tallon can do it is by giving up a better asset in a different area. Since the choice for a 1st can either be a 2013 1st or one from a later year, there isn't much that can be done here. The only area that Tallon can really improve his offer is through prospects. To me, this suggests that Tallon would have to give up at least two "top" prospects to make up for the lack of an impact roster player, and what he prefer was a 1st in 2014 rather than 2013. Tallon will have to decide if he really does want Luongo, and if he does, he'll have to find a way to make Gillis say yes. To my mind, the only way he can do this is with a deal which includes a 1st (likely 2014), and two very good prospects. I'd be okay with Petrovic being one of them. After that, I'd say Gillis will hold firm on Bjugstad. Sound points. This being said, I see the main reason Versteeg will likely not be a Canuck is that Tallon really cannot afford to let him go without someone else to replace him on in the top-6. I see dealing with Toronto as dealing with Florida. The "good" roster assets are too valuable to the success of the team and if they were sent out in a deal with the Canucks then Burke is in automatic re-build mode, which would make no sense. It's just a different set of prospects from which to choose in dealing with the Leafs. Colborne, Ashton, Biggs, perhaps some of their d-man prospects could be useful, but why would the Canucks want Reimer? They appear to be pretty well stacked with their own goalie prospects (Lack, Cannata). As a special favour to you, I will never include Huberdeau in a trade proposal ever again... unless it's a really good deal. I wouldn't write off the Bolts just yet. They have a number of assets available to trade for Luongo, such as: Purcell, Aulie and a 2014 1st. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Good pick up; and many of my posts have centred on my belief we are waaay heavy on LW and left D. And considering we have great talent but not size as a whole on the left; we should not just be getting RIGHT side players but size so all factors balance. At the risk of turning this into another Van - Tor trade thread, yeah I'm okay with this. It puts a lot of youth and size on the right side, even on the defense with Franson (assuming he wants to play here and stays once he does get here). regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.