Red-Haired_Shanks Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 We are not trading Schneider..... and BTW the lui deal is way better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 We are not trading Schneider..... and BTW the lui deal is way better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Fatigue Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I'd love to be in Gillis' shoes. They are probably way nicer than my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 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! 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Haired_Shanks Posted November 24, 2012 Author Share Posted November 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 problem with that trade is the leafs would be really close to the cap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancin'Droid Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n00bxQb Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Haired_Shanks Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share Posted November 25, 2012 Did I just read Franson as a "big, gritty dman" ... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombieksa Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.