Gollumpus Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 That would be a great return but i dont think they would part with 2 prospects, unless they find that they have too many in a certain position... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockNroLLa. Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I don't see a team, which is looking to go far in the playoffs, trading away one of their top-6 players..., unless. The only way a top-6 guy would come here in a trade was if he was expendable to that team for any number of reasons. Maybe they have a younger guy who they like more (cap hit, play style, etc). Maybe the guy lost his place due to injury, and the replacement the team put in his place was a better option for them going into the playoffs and beyond. Maybe the guy just wants to be traded and Vancouver is a good fit for him and Luongo a good fit for the other team. Prospects are a far more likely return for Luongo (IMO). Losing them doesn't hurt the other team's current chances for the playoffs, and if they don't move any of their top prospects in the deal, it won't hurt their future chances. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Bernier has far more upside potential, is 24 years old, and is not signed until 2022. His NHL numbers after 49 career games are promising. I'm not sure why people seemingly have such difficulties understanding the driving force of this deal, which is only one thing: Roberto Luongo's contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Shouldn't be a surprise. We all agree that Schneider would bring back a lot more than what Luongo would. Well, Bernier is pretty comparable to Schneider. NHL numbers are not as impressive, but they're nonetheless impressive, and he's 2 years younger. Both were 1st round picks who's NHL careers probably should've been further along by this point, but for the presence of an elite NHL goaltender. Far lower risk, and higher upside potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Bjugstad is too young and not skilled enough. It would be a risk to trade for Bjugstad. I would try aiming for Kessel, if he continues to play unproductively. We may be able to use him for 2nd or 3rd line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I don't see a team, which is looking to go far in the playoffs, trading away one of their top-6 players..., unless. The only way a top-6 guy would come here in a trade was if he was expendable to that team for any number of reasons. Maybe they have a younger guy who they like more (cap hit, play style, etc). Maybe the guy lost his place due to injury, and the replacement the team put in his place was a better option for them going into the playoffs and beyond. Maybe the guy just wants to be traded and Vancouver is a good fit for him and Luongo a good fit for the other team. Prospects are a far more likely return for Luongo (IMO). Losing them doesn't hurt the other team's current chances for the playoffs, and if they don't move any of their top prospects in the deal, it won't hurt their future chances. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockNroLLa. Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Florida does have a number of very good center prospects. Petrovic is perhaps the latest of good young d-men in the Panthers' system. Whether they are willing to paer with him or Shore remains to be seen. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Please tell me you're trolling now, that you'd want to trade for a winger with a $5.4M cap hit this year and next with the hope he'll stay unproductive and be used on our 2nd or 3rd line... There's always the question of what Gillis feels is our need (or needs, and which he picks as most viable given the trading partner if it is multiple) versus what we think it is, but it's a fair point. I agree on a backup now that Lack is out, either in this deal or another. An improving forward who can provide top 9 capability, perhaps 3rd line C, or a #5-6 D-man who can do what Ballard does only cheaper if we get an opportunity to move him as a roster player otherwise. I think prospect-wise, a top end talent would be almost essential, but if not then we'd pursue a 1st rounder and a lesser prospect. Obviously a combination of those rather than all of them, but those are some things I think we'd be looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 makes sense, but maybe a team like Florida who have said they wanna resign Weiss, might wanna move one of their other top 6 guys. So maybe it means keeping Weiss (reasonable price) and adding Lu while sacrificing a guy like Versteeg. I guess it comes down to who is more valuable to them in their lineup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockNroLLa. Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 True, but if they are looking to be Cup contenders this year, what do they have on their team to replace Versteeg if they move him in a deal for Luongo? Might they not want a top-6 guy in return? Who do the Canucks have who is a top-6 guy who might be moved? Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Burrows, and Kassian would not be moved. Florida got rid of Booth so they would likely not want to take him back. The rest of the Canucks' forwards aren't really top-6 material (at least not on a long term basis). I don't see Versteeg coming here. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 That would be a great return but i dont think they would part with 2 prospects, unless they find that they have too many in a certain position... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allkill326 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Dealing an overpaid, but young, budding players, such as Ellerby would make sense, if the Panthers are set on acquiring Luongo. Panthers would want to increase their depth with young talent to bolster their offensive and defensive lineup for future considerations. They would not want to give up too much for Luongo. If they need to give up significant assets, they might as well find suitable goalies through trade with other teams or free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Shore, Petrovic, a pick and Clemmensen would be nice. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I don't think we need to replace Ballard he is playing great, no reason to change something that is working very very well. A backup is a need, although there are other options through separate trade. (Wish we had signed Ellis now) Then futures, I don't think we need a 3C, Schroeder is proving plenty capable of playing and contributing in this league, I wouldn't mind getting one though but if its that or a better prospect or something along those lines then I would take the better futures. We have depth, we really don't have any holes in our line-up, if we can add someone like Matt Perreault as a throw in (Whos value is at an all time low) then great, but I would like a top prospect/young player or a good prosepct/young player and a 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 That package does address a lot of our holes. +1 I'm still hopeful for a piece with a higher ceiling (although I suppose Ellerby could become one of the league's defensive beasts - he's only 24). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 My thinking is we'll have to lose a contract above and beyond moving Luongo, which is why I suggest looking at moving Ballard. I know you're high on his play this year, and I think he's done reasonably well, but not enough to consider keeping a #5 D-man at over $4M going into next season. Gillis and Gilman have surprised before but if they get a good offer for Ballard that isn't likely to be repeated before the deadline, I think they consider it at least. Schroeder is great, but not as sure how well he'll do as a 3rd line checking center against the top teams just yet. I'd prefer to use what we have there though and look at bringing in a defenceman on a good contract to fill out our 3rd pairing. Orlov, Petrovic, Despres are names that have been floating around (not all in Luongo deals obviously) and would be great. I'd like to see a significant propsect for future as I don't think we have that all but guaranteed top line forward, but I'd be happy to get a D as mentioned and go for a backup and pick along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Dealing an overpaid, but young, budding players, such as Ellerby would make sense, if the Panthers are set on acquiring Luongo. Panthers would want to increase their depth with young talent to bolster their offensive and defensive lineup for future considerations. They would not want to give up too much for Luongo. If they need to give up significant assets, they might as well find suitable goalies through trade with other teams or free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Unlike Bernier, Schneider has played well enough to overtake the elite goaltender he is playing behind. And actually there is far, far less risk in getting Luongo, with him you know what you are getting, with Bernier it is nothing but risk and he really isn't an upgrade on Riemer and Scrivens. And judging by the reports that LA's asking price for Bernier is ridiculously high (probably close if not the same as what we are askign for Roberto) Lu would be the far better choice. Al Montoya was taken 6th Overall, Devan Dubynk was taken 14th Overall, Cory Schneider was taken 24th Overall, Pekka Rinne was taken 258th Overall. All in the same draft. The "potential" the first 2 had didn't exactly materialize aswell as the other 2 now did it? Thomas McCollum was taken 30th Overall. Jacob Markstrom was taken in the 2nd Round. Not sure your point, there are endless examples. No they don't they picked up some guy at the deadline last year who is carrying the 1st line on his back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 It's equally highly risky to pick Schneider. Afterall, Luongo is less risky because you know what you're getting. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needtogetswole Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Different situation, we are talking about a team in need of a goaltender that they know can step in and play. And Schneider is in the same boat as Luongo, both are starters, both are reliable, you know what you are getting with both. There isn't any risk in either guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.