nuck luck Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Before I begin...Yes, I know the buyout clause doesn't come into effect until the summer Regarding trade possibilities: A trade including the Flyers or Islanders could still happen now! A trade could include a goalie swap straight across....PLUS Canucks gain - We would solidify the backup vacancy that would result in breaking up the best tandem in the league. - We might be able to get a full season out of him, if he was limited to games & Bryz 'might' have just had a bad year - We could buy the goalie out at the end of the season (yes, it would cost a lot....but we could use this $ for a pick - what's a high round pick worth these days?) - Both teams have assets that we could use this season - We have seasoned vets that would be able to control Bryz if he becomes a distraction - The entertainment value we lose from Lou would be replaced Flyers gain - they would buy him out but get nothing in return - they would save a sh-tload of $ - they would finally get that #1 goalie they've been seeking for years - Similar lengthy contracts but a little cheaper cap - Flyers distraction on the team is dealt with - Isle's finally get a #1 goalie for a full season I wonder what GMMG could get for a deal that would include this goalie swap? Another possibility is the big issue that the Flyers have with their D... We could include Ballard in on the deal and this would help us in our dilemma for the next season: - This would be a slight savings for us in $, not having to buy Ballard out at the end of the season - We could get some value out of Ballard instead of losing him for nothing in a buyout. - A more obvious benefit would be the extra cap space we would have to sign Edler. - Trading him alone in the summer might have lowered his value...pending on his opportunities given this year Even though this is a benefit in our favor... the Flyers need a Dman THIS season and we don't have cap or signing issues until the summer. Timing is everything If we include Ballard, I think this might be enough to leave every player on the Flyers roster a possibility....PLUS the picks we get for the money we paid in the buyout. I think Ballard is a great player, but AV hasn't given him a chance and won't. He's getting paid too much for the line that he's on. And at the end of the season, we will eventually be forced with the same question....Do you want Ballard or Edler? I think this trade favors both teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eretz canucks Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 To VAN Bryz Couturier Coburn To PHIL Luongo Ballard Raymond We buy out Bryz and have a stanley cup contending line up. sedin sedin burrows booth Kesler Higgins Hansen Couturier Kassian Manny Lappy -who the hell cares Bieksa Hammy Edler Garrison Coburn Tanev Schneider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 To VAN Bryz Couturier Coburn To PHIL Luongo Ballard Raymond We buy out Bryz and have a stanley cup contending line up. sedin sedin burrows booth Kesler Higgins Hansen Couturier Kassian Manny Lappy -who the hell cares Bieksa Hammy Edler Garrison Coburn Tanev Schneider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 So I guess your proposal is (it wasn't immediately clear as there wasn't a defined proposal) Lu for Bryz, or Lu for DiPitero. I'm not certain if you're thinking of having more enticing assets in the deal so that we'd want to take on the contracts of goalies who are currently worse than Luongo and that we'd want to buy out in the summer, but as it stands, both ideas are horrible. They'd better be giving us much better assets to sweeten the pot (and I mean MUCH) since that's a major move on our part, but when does it become fair for us and still worth it for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 So I guess your proposal is (it wasn't immediately clear as there wasn't a defined proposal) Lu for Bryz, or Lu for DiPitero. I'm not certain if you're thinking of having more enticing assets in the deal so that we'd want to take on the contracts of goalies who are currently worse than Luongo and that we'd want to buy out in the summer, but as it stands, both ideas are horrible. They'd better be giving us much better assets to sweeten the pot (and I mean MUCH) since that's a major move on our part, but when does it become fair for us and still worth it for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck luck Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 So I guess your proposal is (it wasn't immediately clear as there wasn't a defined proposal) Lu for Bryz, or Lu for DiPitero. I'm not certain if you're thinking of having more enticing assets in the deal so that we'd want to take on the contracts of goalies who are currently worse than Luongo and that we'd want to buy out in the summer, but as it stands, both ideas are horrible. They'd better be giving us much better assets to sweeten the pot (and I mean MUCH) since that's a major move on our part, but when does it become fair for us and still worth it for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck luck Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 Agreed, I don't see why the Canucks would be interested this in the slightest unless the have hidden shares in Philly or Long Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.