Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

(proposal) goalie trades


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

Poll: (proposal) goalie trades (13 member(s) have cast votes)

trade #1 or #2

  1. 1: Luongo trade (11 votes [84.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 84.62%

  2. 2. Schneider trade (2 votes [15.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Red-Haired_Shanks

Red-Haired_Shanks

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 12

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:35 PM

put yourself in Gillis's shoes. if your phone rings and one a GM offers you this for a goalie would you take it. factor in not just value but how much it help our organization. i have trades for both Lu and Schneider


Burke calls and offers Gillis this for Luongo:

Bozak, Franson*, Biggs and a conditional 2013 1st** for Luongo and Rodin
*Franson is signed not an RFA
**condition is if Bozak and Franson resign we get a 2nd if not its a 1st rounder


Luongo>Bozak, Franson, 2013 1st or 2nd
Rodin<Biggs

we get a 3rd line center, a big gritty d-man, a good power-forward prospect and a 1st or 2nd rounder(youth movement).
for
one of our superstar goalies and a decent prospect



lines after trade(sorry cap Geek isnt working for me for some reason)


D.Sedin-H.Sedin-Burrows
Booth-Kesler-Higgins
Raymond-Bozak-Hansen
Lapierre-Malholtra-Kassian
/Weise,

Bieksa-Hamhuis
Edler-Garrison
Ballard-Franson
/Tanev,Alberts

Schneider
Lack

roughly 4mill in cap space

or

Burke calls and offers this for Schneider:

Gardiner and a 2013 2nd for Schneider

we get a great young d-man who can develop into a franchise d-man
for
our great young franchise goaltender

lines after trade


D.Sedin-H.Sedin-Burrows
Booth-Kesler-Higgins
Raymond-Lapierre-Hansen
Ebbett-Malholtra-Kassian
/Weise,

Bieksa-Hamhuis
Edler-Garrison
Gardiner-Ballard
/Tanev,Alberts

Luongo
Lack

we have around 5mill in cap space

Edited by Red-Haired_Shanks, 23 November 2012 - 09:36 PM.

  • 0
NHL! WHY YOU LOCKOUT!

#2 CanucksFanMike

CanucksFanMike

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 11:46 PM

We are not trading Schneider..... and BTW the lui deal is way better
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#3 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,039 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 11:53 PM

We are not trading Schneider..... and BTW the lui deal is way better

I know we're not trading Schneider, but what if team A offered something that was 10 times better than what team B offered for Luongo? Just some food for thought.

Btw the Luongo trade is much better.
  • 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


#4 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:15 AM

I'd love to be in Gillis' shoes. They are probably way nicer than my own.
  • 0
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#5 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,585 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:16 AM

I'm down for trading Schneider if we get a good enough return for him that it would be stupid not to trade him. However thats unlikely.
As for this proposal, the Lu trade is much better. Toronto probs wouldn't accept though.
  • 0
Posted Image

#6 Phil_314

Phil_314

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,038 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:24 AM

put yourself in Gillis's shoes. if your phone rings and one a GM offers you this for a goalie would you take it. factor in not just value but how much it help our organization. i have trades for both Lu and Schneider

Burke calls and offers this for Schneider:

Gardiner and a 2013 2nd for Schneider

Bieksa-Hamhuis
Edler-Garrison
Gardiner-Ballard
/Tanev,Alberts


I don't think getting Gardiner addresses our team's greatest need and helps it (filling out the Top 6). Besides, the team is well-stocked defensively enough that balance should be found by strengthening other parts of the lineup (in this case, up front). ONLY way I'd get Jake is if Edler left before Lu or Cory got moved.

I think something like Schneider for Grabovski would be the best deal; if Lu's stock isn't high enough to get someone like him, I'd be willing to take the risk to get him by trading Cory. To get Gardiner on the other hand gives this mobile defense another smallish player with offensive abilities, not someone with enough size and sandpaper (though of course he does have mobility) to flourish when the grind comes.

Then again, how is his being buried on the 3rd unit any different than the team's treating of Ballard? If that roster move is what happens to him I could see him pull another Hodgson and want out of town and the team could lose another young stud without addressing the issue that needs to be addressed.
  • 0

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


Jesus LOVES YOU!
2012, meet Matthew 24:36-47!

14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.


#7 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,692 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 02:01 AM

The schneider trade helps us more in the near future than the Lu trade does. So I'll pick the Schneider one, even though it's far more unlikely to happen.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#8 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,692 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 02:03 AM

Bozak, Franson*, Biggs and a conditional 2013 1st** for Luongo and Rodin
*Franson is signed not an RFA
**condition is if Bozak and Franson resign we get a 2nd if not its a 1st rounder


Issues with this trade could be:

1.) Bozak might not be needed in this deal. The team could decide that Malhotra is looking good enough to resume his duties. The Canucks might also have a deal in the works for Arnott which would make the immediate need for acquiring a 3C as part of the Luongo deal somewhat less pressing. And even if Gillis does want him, he can either wait for Bozak to reach UFA status for next year, or perhaps swing a side deal with the Leafs to pick him up at the deadline as a rental for this year.

I could see Gillis trying to get an additional prospect or pick in place of the roster player piece which Bozak represents.

2.) I thought Franson was currently an RFA, but that his status could change based on the proposed CBA. :)

I see Franson as almost a throw-in in this deal, rather than a significant piece (Burke would probably disagree).

Franson is reportedly not happy with Toronto because he wants more ice time but he was playing behind veteran guys who had bigger contracts so they got more minutes. Coming to Vancouver could be viewed as putting him in a similar position, which could make certain (sadly) that he would not want to stay here. Perhaps if Edler was moved, due to contract considerations, then Franson could move to the top-4, but that would not result in an overall gain in the quality of the defense, and might be viewed by some as a minus.

So how significant is a fairly good young d-man who just might demand a trade as soon as he is acquired? If he could be convinced to stay here and play on the bottom pairing, with a certain amount of time getting top-4 minutes, then I'd be all for him. Otherwise, he might only be worth for what Gillis can flip him. Who knows, as part of the right deal he could bring back another 1st round pick.

Further, considering the Leafs defense, the Canucks may have to add a d-man to their part of the deal, assuming Burke doesn't want to go with Rielly in the Leafs 1 - 6 d-men.

3,) The suggested pick would have to be for 2014, no? The date for the proposed pick (June 28/29 2013) means it would have to used prior to the date for players reaching free agency (July 1, 2013). I don't believe Burke would agree to this as it could result in a situation where Gillis could use the pick and then still sigh the players after the draft.

You're also tying one pick to the results of two different players. What if Franson signed and Bozak walked? Would the Canucks still get the 1st as only one guy signed, or would it become a 2nd? I think it would have to be that each player is tied to an individual pick, or the pick is a stand alone feature in the deal.

4.) If there is a conditional pick in this deal, I suspect it will be something like a 2013 or 2014 1st, with Burke getting to decide which one he wants to keep. This would allow him to protect his pick in this upcoming draft to prevent another Tyler Seguin episode.

5.) I like Biggs, and I've included him in some of my proposals.


So, I see the deal being:

To Vancouver- Colborne (in place of Bozak); Biggs; 2013 or 2014 1st (Burke's choice); rights to Franson.

To Toronto - Luongo; Alberts; Rodin ***EDIT: This works only if Burke wants Alberts as a rental ***


Burke calls and offers this for Schneider:

Gardiner and a 2013 2nd for Schneider


I'd hang up as I'm not interested in trading Schneider. :)

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 24 November 2012 - 05:08 PM.

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

#9 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,039 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 02:13 AM

Issues with this trade could be:

1.) Bozak might not be needed in this deal. The team could decide that Malhotra is looking good enough to resume his duties. The Canucks might also have a deal in the works for Arnott which would make the immediate need for acquiring a 3C as part of the Luongo deal somewhat less pressing. And even if Gillis does want him, he can either wait for Bozak to reach UFA status for next year, or perhaps swing a side deal with the Leafs to pick him up at the deadline as a rental for this year.

I could see Gillis trying to get an additional prospect or pick in place of the roster player piece which Bozak represents.

2.) I thought Franson was currently an RFA, but that his status could change based on the proposed CBA. :)

I see Franson as almost a throw-in in this deal, rather than a significant piece (Burke would probably disagree).

Franson is reportedly not happy with Toronto because he wants more ice time but he was playing behind veteran guys who had bigger contracts so they got more minutes. Coming to Vancouver could be viewed as putting him in a similar position, which could make certain (sadly) that he would not want to stay here. Perhaps if Edler was moved, due to contract considerations, then Franson could move to the top-4, but that would not result in an overall gain in the quality of the defense, and might be viewed by some as a minus.

So how significant is a fairly good young d-man who just might demand a trade as soon as he is acquired? If he could be convinced to stay here and play on the bottom pairing, with a certain amount of time getting top-4 minutes, then I'd be all for him. Otherwise, he might only be worth for what Gillis can flip him. Who knows, as part of the right deal he could bring back another 1st round pick.

Further, considering the Leafs defense, the Canucks may have to add a d-man to their part of the deal, assuming Burke doesn't want to go with Rielly in the Leafs 1 - 6 d-men.

3,) The suggested pick would have to be for 2014, no? The date for the proposed pick (June 28/29 2013) means it would have to used prior to the date for players reaching free agency (July 1, 2013). I don't believe Burke would agree to this as it could result in a situation where Gillis could use the pick and then still sigh the players after the draft.

You're also tying one pick to the results of two different players. What if Franson signed and Bozak walked? Would the Canucks still get the 1st as only one guy signed, or would it become a 2nd? I think it would have to be that each player is tied to an individual pick, or the pick is a stand alone feature in the deal.

4.) If there is a conditional pick in this deal, I suspect it will be something like a 2013 or 2014 1st, with Burke getting to decide which one he wants to keep. This would allow him to protect his pick in this upcoming draft to prevent another Tyler Seguin episode.

5.) I like Biggs, and I've included him in some of my proposals.


So, I see the deal being:

To Vancouver- Colborne (in place of Bozak); Biggs; 2013 or 2014 1st (Burke's choice); rights to Franson.

To Toronto - Luongo; Alberts; Rodin





I'd hang up as I'm not interested in trading Schneider. :)

regards,
G.

Dude, that would be an amazing trade. Especially if the 1st is a 2013 1st. Just imagine us gaining 4 amazing/solid prospects (our 1st + Toronto's 1st along with Biggs and Colbourne). We would be golden for a long time to come.
  • 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


#10 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,683 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 04:15 AM

I think Franson would actually be quite useful here?

I believe he would beat out Tanev for 2knd line right D? On physical ability and talent he should anyway; but Tanev is pretty crafty. What we really have is a glut on the left side + Bieksa.(+ Tanev) on the right. This deal still leaves us with on insurance on Edler?

I agree Bozak is not really needed (certainly not with half a year of contract left).

Two top prospects + Franson & a pick would be a major score! :towel: I'd happily accept Biiggs, Franson and Colburne.

Issues with this trade could be:

1.) Bozak might not be needed in this deal. The team could decide that Malhotra is looking good enough to resume his duties. The Canucks might also have a deal in the works for Arnott which would make the immediate need for acquiring a 3C as part of the Luongo deal somewhat less pressing. And even if Gillis does want him, he can either wait for Bozak to reach UFA status for next year, or perhaps swing a side deal with the Leafs to pick him up at the deadline as a rental for this year.

I could see Gillis trying to get an additional prospect or pick in place of the roster player piece which Bozak represents.

2.) I thought Franson was currently an RFA, but that his status could change based on the proposed CBA. :)

I see Franson as almost a throw-in in this deal, rather than a significant piece (Burke would probably disagree).

Franson is reportedly not happy with Toronto because he wants more ice time but he was playing behind veteran guys who had bigger contracts so they got more minutes. Coming to Vancouver could be viewed as putting him in a similar position, which could make certain (sadly) that he would not want to stay here. Perhaps if Edler was moved, due to contract considerations, then Franson could move to the top-4, but that would not result in an overall gain in the quality of the defense, and might be viewed by some as a minus.

So how significant is a fairly good young d-man who just might demand a trade as soon as he is acquired? If he could be convinced to stay here and play on the bottom pairing, with a certain amount of time getting top-4 minutes, then I'd be all for him. Otherwise, he might only be worth for what Gillis can flip him. Who knows, as part of the right deal he could bring back another 1st round pick.

Further, considering the Leafs defense, the Canucks may have to add a d-man to their part of the deal, assuming Burke doesn't want to go with Rielly in the Leafs 1 - 6 d-men.

3,) The suggested pick would have to be for 2014, no? The date for the proposed pick (June 28/29 2013) means it would have to used prior to the date for players reaching free agency (July 1, 2013). I don't believe Burke would agree to this as it could result in a situation where Gillis could use the pick and then still sigh the players after the draft.

You're also tying one pick to the results of two different players. What if Franson signed and Bozak walked? Would the Canucks still get the 1st as only one guy signed, or would it become a 2nd? I think it would have to be that each player is tied to an individual pick, or the pick is a stand alone feature in the deal.

4.) If there is a conditional pick in this deal, I suspect it will be something like a 2013 or 2014 1st, with Burke getting to decide which one he wants to keep. This would allow him to protect his pick in this upcoming draft to prevent another Tyler Seguin episode.

5.) I like Biggs, and I've included him in some of my proposals.


So, I see the deal being:

To Vancouver- Colborne (in place of Bozak); Biggs; 2013 or 2014 1st (Burke's choice); rights to Franson.

To Toronto - Luongo; Alberts; Rodin





I'd hang up as I'm not interested in trading Schneider. :)

regards,
G.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 24 November 2012 - 05:28 AM.

  • 0

#11 Red-Haired_Shanks

Red-Haired_Shanks

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 12

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:53 PM

Issues with this trade could be:

1.) Bozak might not be needed in this deal. The team could decide that Malhotra is looking good enough to resume his duties. The Canucks might also have a deal in the works for Arnott which would make the immediate need for acquiring a 3C as part of the Luongo deal somewhat less pressing. And even if Gillis does want him, he can either wait for Bozak to reach UFA status for next year, or perhaps swing a side deal with the Leafs to pick him up at the deadline as a rental for this year.

I could see Gillis trying to get an additional prospect or pick in place of the roster player piece which Bozak represents.

2.) I thought Franson was currently an RFA, but that his status could change based on the proposed CBA. :)

I see Franson as almost a throw-in in this deal, rather than a significant piece (Burke would probably disagree).

Franson is reportedly not happy with Toronto because he wants more ice time but he was playing behind veteran guys who had bigger contracts so they got more minutes. Coming to Vancouver could be viewed as putting him in a similar position, which could make certain (sadly) that he would not want to stay here. Perhaps if Edler was moved, due to contract considerations, then Franson could move to the top-4, but that would not result in an overall gain in the quality of the defense, and might be viewed by some as a minus.

So how significant is a fairly good young d-man who just might demand a trade as soon as he is acquired? If he could be convinced to stay here and play on the bottom pairing, with a certain amount of time getting top-4 minutes, then I'd be all for him. Otherwise, he might only be worth for what Gillis can flip him. Who knows, as part of the right deal he could bring back another 1st round pick.

Further, considering the Leafs defense, the Canucks may have to add a d-man to their part of the deal, assuming Burke doesn't want to go with Rielly in the Leafs 1 - 6 d-men.

3,) The suggested pick would have to be for 2014, no? The date for the proposed pick (June 28/29 2013) means it would have to used prior to the date for players reaching free agency (July 1, 2013). I don't believe Burke would agree to this as it could result in a situation where Gillis could use the pick and then still sigh the players after the draft.

You're also tying one pick to the results of two different players. What if Franson signed and Bozak walked? Would the Canucks still get the 1st as only one guy signed, or would it become a 2nd? I think it would have to be that each player is tied to an individual pick, or the pick is a stand alone feature in the deal.

4.) If there is a conditional pick in this deal, I suspect it will be something like a 2013 or 2014 1st, with Burke getting to decide which one he wants to keep. This would allow him to protect his pick in this upcoming draft to prevent another Tyler Seguin episode.

5.) I like Biggs, and I've included him in some of my proposals.


So, I see the deal being:

To Vancouver- Colborne (in place of Bozak); Biggs; 2013 or 2014 1st (Burke's choice); rights to Franson.

To Toronto - Luongo; Alberts; Rodin





I'd hang up as I'm not interested in trading Schneider. :)

regards,
G.


problem with that trade is the leafs would be really close to the cap
  • 0
NHL! WHY YOU LOCKOUT!

#12 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,039 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:57 PM

problem with that trade is the leafs would be really close to the cap

Good point. But remember they could always dump someone like Connolly, Lombardi or Komisarek if the have to.
  • 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


#13 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,692 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 05:40 PM

Dude, that would be an amazing trade. Especially if the 1st is a 2013 1st. Just imagine us gaining 4 amazing/solid prospects (our 1st + Toronto's 1st along with Biggs and Colbourne). We would be golden for a long time to come.


I would like this, however I suspect Burke wouldn't go along with it, the jerk. :)


I think Franson would actually be quite useful here?

I believe he would beat out Tanev for 2knd line right D? On physical ability and talent he should anyway; but Tanev is pretty crafty. What we really have is a glut on the left side + Bieksa.(+ Tanev) on the right. This deal still leaves us with on insurance on Edler?

I agree Bozak is not really needed (certainly not with half a year of contract left).

Two top prospects + Franson & a pick would be a major score! :towel: I'd happily accept Biiggs, Franson and Colburne.


Franson could be very useful here, being a right side d-man. I believe he needs a few rough edges taken off his game, but that would come with experience. I also believe he would beat out Tanev, if for no other reason than he bigger, although there's a good argument that could be made that Tanev is a bit sounder in his defensive play and maybe a bit more mobile (not to say that Franson is a slug).

Were Edler to re-sign, then Franson would quite likely start as a bottom pairing d-man, likely playing with Ballard (assuming no additional trades involving Ballard or anyone else). If Edler does move on, the Franson moves to the 2nd pairing and plays with Garrison.


problem with that trade is the leafs would be really close to the cap


Good catch, Red. I'm usually the one who mentions this to others...

My short answer: Screw Burke.

Longer answer: Screw Burke. Let him figure it out. He'll still be a couple of hundred grand to the good.


Good point. But remember they could always dump someone like Connolly, Lombardi or Komisarek if the have to.


Connolly and Komisarek have NTC-type clauses so getting rid of them could be difficult. Perhaps something could be worked out in the way of a cap dump to a team looking to get to the cap floor, but once again, there's that NTC clause.

Komisarek could the easier of the two to move, depending upon the teams he submits to Burke. He is required to supply a list of teams to which he would accept a trade each June 15. He's not that bad of a d-man, but certainly overpaid for what he can do for a team. The downside is, the Leafs would be moving *another* d-man which is a bit of a short area for them. Yes, they have Rielly and Gardiner, but how much experience do they have? This leaves the Leafs with Phaneuf, Liles, Gunnarsson and ...

Lombardi is the likely guy to go. Doesn't have a NTC of any sort. Center, "only" $3.5 million cap hit for one year. Kind of average at face-offs.

Luongo and Alberts add $6.588 million to the cap. Alberts' deal is done after this year.... so why would Burke take Alberts? Stupid me. Forgot the premise of my post and why Gillis wouldn't want Bozak. If Burke wants Alberts as a rental, then it is okay, if not, then the deal would have to take a different form. Maybe Ballard could be in this deal, and the Canucks would have to swallow some cap hit back.

So what happens if Burke doesn't want Alberts? Might not Ballard be included in the deal, and if so, what has to come back in the way of cap hit?

Luongo and Ballard = $9.533 million cap hit. The Canucks taking Lombardi drops it to $6 million and change. Acceptable, or do we think that Burke would demand to send out more? We also have to keep in mind the number of contracts each team has. The Canucks are currently at 48 while the Leafs are at 50 (not counting Franson).

So the revised deal could be:

To Toronto - Luongo, Ballard, Rodin

To Vancouver - Colborne, Biggs, 2013 or 2014 1st (Burke's choice), rights to Franson, Lombardi.

Leafs get lots of help for right now, the Canucks potentially get some help for now (assuming Franson agrees to play), some help for the near future (Colborne is close and could be in the line up in a year or so), and help for down the road (Biggs and the Toronto 1st).


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

#14 Dancin'Droid

Dancin'Droid

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:05 PM

I would like this, however I suspect Burke wouldn't go along with it, the jerk. :)




Franson could be very useful here, being a right side d-man. I believe he needs a few rough edges taken off his game, but that would come with experience. I also believe he would beat out Tanev, if for no other reason than he bigger, although there's a good argument that could be made that Tanev is a bit sounder in his defensive play and maybe a bit more mobile (not to say that Franson is a slug).

Were Edler to re-sign, then Franson would quite likely start as a bottom pairing d-man, likely playing with Ballard (assuming no additional trades involving Ballard or anyone else). If Edler does move on, the Franson moves to the 2nd pairing and plays with Garrison.




Good catch, Red. I'm usually the one who mentions this to others...

My short answer: Screw Burke.

Longer answer: Screw Burke. Let him figure it out. He'll still be a couple of hundred grand to the good.




Connolly and Komisarek have NTC-type clauses so getting rid of them could be difficult. Perhaps something could be worked out in the way of a cap dump to a team looking to get to the cap floor, but once again, there's that NTC clause.

Komisarek could the easier of the two to move, depending upon the teams he submits to Burke. He is required to supply a list of teams to which he would accept a trade each June 15. He's not that bad of a d-man, but certainly overpaid for what he can do for a team. The downside is, the Leafs would be moving *another* d-man which is a bit of a short area for them. Yes, they have Rielly and Gardiner, but how much experience do they have? This leaves the Leafs with Phaneuf, Liles, Gunnarsson and ...

Lombardi is the likely guy to go. Doesn't have a NTC of any sort. Center, "only" $3.5 million cap hit for one year. Kind of average at face-offs.

Luongo and Alberts add $6.588 million to the cap. Alberts' deal is done after this year.... so why would Burke take Alberts? Stupid me. Forgot the premise of my post and why Gillis wouldn't want Bozak. If Burke wants Alberts as a rental, then it is okay, if not, then the deal would have to take a different form. Maybe Ballard could be in this deal, and the Canucks would have to swallow some cap hit back.

So what happens if Burke doesn't want Alberts? Might not Ballard be included in the deal, and if so, what has to come back in the way of cap hit?

Luongo and Ballard = $9.533 million cap hit. The Canucks taking Lombardi drops it to $6 million and change. Acceptable, or do we think that Burke would demand to send out more? We also have to keep in mind the number of contracts each team has. The Canucks are currently at 48 while the Leafs are at 50 (not counting Franson).

So the revised deal could be:

To Toronto - Luongo, Ballard, Rodin

To Vancouver - Colborne, Biggs, 2013 or 2014 1st (Burke's choice), rights to Franson, Lombardi.

Leafs get lots of help for right now, the Canucks potentially get some help for now (assuming Franson agrees to play), some help for the near future (Colborne is close and could be in the line up in a year or so), and help for down the road (Biggs and the Toronto 1st).


regards,
G.


It works for me
  • 0

DancingAndroidYellow-1.gif



2013 Kent Jr. Football Champion

2014 Bronze Boot

2014 Kent Sr. Football Champion

2014 SWOSSA Football Finalist 

#77


#15 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,917 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:02 PM

Did I just read Franson as a "big, gritty dman" ... ??? Franson is big, but FAR from gritty. Also, under the old CBA, RFAs had to sign prior to December 1 or they would be ineligible to play that season. I'm not sure what the ruling would be if he's not signed prior to December 1 this year, but it's possible he may not be able to play.

Overall, the trade proposals aren't bad, but neither really address our needs. We need a right-handed 2nd line winger, a dependable 2nd/3rd pair right-handed defenseman, and a quality veteran backup goaltender (if we trade Lu).

Edited by n00bxQb, 24 November 2012 - 09:12 PM.

  • 0

#16 Red-Haired_Shanks

Red-Haired_Shanks

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 12

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:05 PM

Did I just read Franson as a "big, gritty dman" ... ???


well maybe not the gritty part but he is a big guy, and he CAN hit hard, when he does hit.
  • 0
NHL! WHY YOU LOCKOUT!

#17 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,692 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:12 AM

Did I just read Franson as a "big, gritty dman" ... ??? Franson is big, but FAR from gritty. Also, under the old CBA, RFAs had to sign prior to December 1 or they would be ineligible to play that season. I'm not sure what the ruling would be if he's not signed prior to December 1 this year, but it's possible he may not be able to play.


He wouldn't have to be gritty to be effective. Many folks believe physical means only that when one guy hits the other the target winds up in the third row, of the upper deck or he is willing to fight. If Franson plays positionally sound hockey, can block shots effectively, move people out from in front of the net, rub them out along the boards, knock them off their stride, and put a pretty good lick on someone every now and then, I'd be content. :)

I suspect that the Dec.1 rule would stay in effect with the new CBA. (Good catch on that BTW.) This being said, I'd still take Franson in this deal. If he doesn't sign in time, it would not help address any questions which the team has on defense for this year, but those are not the most significant issues facing the team, so I'd view it as being worth the gamble. The top-4 would still be around, so all would not be lost.

If the bottom pairing does look a bit vulnerable (assuming Ballard was traded and Franson remained unsigned), Gillis could very well do a deadline deal for a veteran d-man rental.


Overall, the trade proposals aren't bad, but neither really address our needs.


I agree with you. However, turning the assumed Luongo deal into a deal for the future is the point of the exercise. :)

The idea I was putting out there for discussion is that Gilis is being offered very little in the way of top-6 talent (at least top-6 by the Canucks' standards). And any players who might be acceptable are on the last year of their contracts and are going to be, with the lock-out, nothing more than rentals.


We need a right-handed 2nd line winger, a dependable 2nd/3rd pair right-handed defenseman, and a quality veteran backup goaltender (if we trade Lu).


Gillis' announced wants and needs were getting a top-6 winger, a 3C who can step up to 2C until Kesler returned, and the lowest priorities were defense and goal. As the lock-out drags on, getting a 3C/2C is becoming a bit less of a priority (IMO), and might already be solved if Gillis has Arnott lined up to sign here, or one of the guys already on the team can fill in for the remainder of the shortened season.

I don't see a lot of teams wanting to create a hole in their top-6 in order to acquire Luongo. From the three "usual suspects" rosters, they aren't all that deep to begin with. Toronto will not trade Kessel, and after that it's Kulemin. I view him as not being top-6 material. After that, it's really only prospects.

Florida has Versteeg, but I don't see him being moved in this deal. After him, their Upshall, who has a NMC/NTC, and after that things get kind of thin.

TB has the most possibilities at RW, however, St. Louis isn't going anywhere, Purcell was just signed to a new deal and I'd be willing to bet he won't be moved. After him, there's Connolly who will not be moved.

This is why I suspect Gillis would contemplate going for futures rather than meeting the needs of right in this deal. However, if a different team enters the bidding as a result of the new CBA (eg. Philadelphia), things could change.

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

#18 zombieksa

zombieksa

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,959 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 11

Posted 03 December 2012 - 08:38 PM

Lu for Grabovski straight up. The guy is a possession beast and makes everyone he plays with better (Drance Numbers). if Malhotra/Lapierre/Ebbett can handle 3rd/4th line duties. Grabovski can play with Kesler Booth
  • 0
"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."
-Edgar Allen Poe




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.