• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      Forum-specific Rules   07/11/2017

      These are board specific rules for the Trades and Rumors forum designed to provide organization and a better experience for everyone. Please review these rules before posting new threads. 
        THREAD ETIQUETTE   1. Please search for an existing thread before posting. This forum can be very fast moving, so it's understandable if redundant threads are inadvertently posted. In such a case, please use the report feature to request removal of redundant threads.    2. Provide a clearly identifiable topic title so that users can readily understand the content. The title should include any and all teams involved, as well as player names or other personnel involved as appropriate.   3. All trades, signings, rumors and other news MUST include a linkable source. Simply posting the name of the source is not enough. Effort should also be made to copy and paste the full article, or at the very least the relevant portion of text from the source to the first post of the thread. Moderators may remove low-quality threads in favour of high-quality threads. 

      Affixed to the front of your title should be a label that identifies the type of transaction that is taking place. For all trades use [TRADE]. For all signings use [SIGNING]. For all waiver-wire transactions use [WAIVERS]. For all rumours use [RUMOUR].
      For articles or news items that don't fit into the above categories, affix an appropriate label of your choice such as [NEWS], [ARTICLE] or [MISC].   4. When the status of a thread changes a new thread can be created. The new thread should reflect the change and help focus the discussion on current events. e.g. Someone may create a new thread when a rumor becomes a trades. The old thread will be locked by the moderating team.    5. Do not misrepresent the contents of your thread or post false trades or rumors. Trolling will result in a permanent suspension. 

      SOURCES   The following source types are considered INVALID. Any links to posts or threads on other message boards Any links to personal blogs Any news heard on the radio that does not have a link to an audio vault or podcast Any news seen on television that does not have a link to online video Any news spread by word of mouth
      Additionally, certain sources may be be blacklisted due to poor credentials, clear traffic-mongering etc. Blacklisted sources will be posted here. 
      Thank you for your co-operation and please PM the Administrator or Moderators if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding this forum.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Templeton Peck

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 4.0

3,456 posts in this topic

Luongo would have taken Philly past NJ, and NY

Couterier has no place with Briere, Giroux, and Talbot.

You know nothing of hockey.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luongo would have taken Philly past NJ, and NY

Couterier has no place with Briere, Giroux, and Talbot.

You know nothing of hockey.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hartnell - Giroux - Briere

Couturier - Schenn - Simmonds

Read - Talbot - Wellwood

Please tell me where Couturier doesn't fit in that top 9.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, how I look at it is 90% of NHL owners/GMs are NOT willing to overlook Luongo's contract. But 10% are because they're desperate and if you're MG, those 10% are going to have to pay pretty close to fair market value for a goalie of Luongo's caliber, despite the contract because MG is now in a position of power (especially now that Van is on the hook for him if he retires).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You left out Voracek. But you're right, Couturier could fit in the top 9...just like Hodgson could have fit in our top 9. But Couturier is naturally a center. Center is where Philly have a LOT of depth. It is a position they can sacrifice youth for a world class goalie.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, oldnews, good luck with that. I wouldn't be going out and ordering a Sean Couturier or Wayne Simmonds Canuck jersey quite yet, though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so that's why Couturier was matched up against Malkin in the playoffs.. a natural assignment for a 19 year old "5th center", he's as valuable as RNH do get a clue. Every center there except Giroux will get traded before Couturier including Schenn. Though it should be noted Philly is trying to convert Couts to a center, he is a natural LW.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're vastly underestimating what it's like to have a cup winning team and no goalie, they can afford to lose their 5th C
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just said it yourself Smashian. if the guy is a poor defensive winger, you sure as hell don't convert him to a center.

Bad idea, bad option - simple as that. Cammalleri is "capable" of playing center as well - he's still a winger, and a lousy option.

And Weiss isn't the missing piece imo - I don't think either are realistic on either side of the equation. Bad move for Florida when there are other options, and not a good fit for Vancouver.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I phrased it wrong, I should have quoted you cause personally after watching all the NJ and FLA games in the playoffs he seemed fine to me.

Cammalleri is like Kessel, niether had the experiance at center Fleischmann has but volunteered (Kessel atleast) to try center.

I think this is pretty much done as I have already proven he can play center, so I'll move onto the Weiss thing.

Weiss would be a great fit here IMO, he has great chemistry with Booth, is a great playmaker, would fit well with Kesler and Booth if you ask me. He brings it all and is a veteran, if you pay attention to him throughout his career (not trying to take a shot at you saying you don't just in general) then you will see there isn't much not to like, he is solid defensively and offensively is the exact player we need and the previous Chemistry with Booth only adds to it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all the media (Toronto based I might add) seem to put Luongo's value pretty high. They all seem to think he'll go for more than you've been saying. I heard on Edmonton radio Mark Spector say that no combination of Paajarvi, Gagner, and prospects (not including Yak) could fetch Luongo or any major piece.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain to me how/where/why Luongo is such an upgrade over Bryzgalov that they can afford to both buyout Bryzgalov and part ways with perhaps the most promising 20 year-old C in the NHL to do accommodate him.

Oldnews ignored my question, so hopefully you can provide some clarity to this mystery.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that I'm wrong, of course.

But if that's the case, then why did Toronto supposedly only offer Luke Schenn in the summer? Where were the offers from all of these other alleged suitors? I really don't care what Mike Gillis wants - I care what another party might be willing to pay. Gillis can set the price at whatever the hell he wants. That certainly doesn't mean that he'll get it.

Way I see it, Lu's age reduces his value, his contract length reduces his value, his NTC reduces his value, his shaky playoff reputation reduces his value, the fact that he wants out reduces his value, the fact that the Canucks have another guy to start in net reduces his value, etc. And of course, by "value" I'm referring to what the acquirer might be willing to pay, not the value that he will bring to the acquiring team as their new starter (which I can't seem to get through oldnews' skull).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, how I look at it is 90% of NHL owners/GMs are NOT willing to overlook Luongo's contract. But 10% are because they're desperate and if you're MG, those 10% are going to have to pay pretty close to fair market value for a goalie of Luongo's caliber, despite the contract because MG is now in a position of power (especially now that Van is on the hook for him if he retires).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holmgren: Hey bud I realized I messed up with the Bryzgalov signing so I'm here to buy him out with your money.

Owner: Get the $&@& out of my office.

And are you serious about Grossman? He's a stay at home d-man! I know this may sound crazy, but his job as a defenseman is to play defense, not offense. Go figure right.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couturier would fit on any team - and I'd give you Cody Hodgson, his twin brother, and Brayden Schenn's older brother for him...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luongo's contract is an overstatement of the issue - it's more specific - the term - the cap hit/salary put him in a class with comparables like Bryzgalov, Fleury, Price, Ward, Kipper, Backstrom, Hiller, Dipietro... In that class, he looks just fine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure? Sean Couturier had a relative corsi of -3.4. Doesn't that mean that he sucks, in your eyes?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real life repeated example - I can have a person come and offer me half of what I am asking one day (for item A - a solid walnut dresser) - I refuse that lowball, explaining that I have invested more value than the person is offering and it's a waste of my time as the item is worth more in my hand than half the cash - and the next a person shows up and offers what I am asking, having a better, more realistic estimation of market value. They see the item in question differently, and have different needs. You think there is only buyer 1 in the market - I acknowledge that there is a buyer 1, but also a buyer 2 if you have any patience.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure? Sean Couturier had a relative corsi of -3.4. Doesn't that mean that he sucks, in your eyes?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.