Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 5.0


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3019 replies to this topic

#2911 Merci

Merci

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:46 AM

He has 6 points in his last 6 games. He's 1st in Goals for the team and 4th in points.

And if you watched the goals tonight, you will see they are hardly his fault at all.


Yea speed is killing right now as people are getting their feet back. Zack Kassian has 5 goals too, does that mean he's been playing great as of late? Does it mean Raymond will be playing this great in the playoffs?

His one goal tonight was a gift and otherwise he had 2 shots on net, was a minus 2 and had no shots and no blocked shots, has Raymond ever blocked a shot?


Raymond is playing great and so is Brouwer the difference is Brouwer leads his team with 35 hits and 7 goals.

I am tired of this regular season high scoring fanatasicsm and when the whistles go away in the playoffs we're blaming the coach for not adapting.

Raymond has been great his whole career in the regular season, where has he been in the playoffs, why does he get yet another chance to walk this off season?

If we keep Raymond and Schroeder and lose in the playoffs you'll blame the coach.

Mason Raymond belongs on another team where he can evolve and become even better.

Edited by Merci, 18 February 2013 - 01:52 AM.

  • 1

Keslerific, on 25 May 2014 - 4:47 PM, said:

Gaunce is wayy cooler though, Gaunce is the kind of guy you want to bring with you to Costco

 

vPTJpcO.jpg


#2912 sampy

sampy

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,044 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:54 AM

He has 6 points in his last 6 games. He's 1st in Goals for the team and 4th in points.

And if you watched the goals tonight, you will see they are hardly his fault at all.

Raymond is a good depth player and defensively responsible. Canucks couldn't get his true value in a trade. His skill set has improved a lot

My turn on the Wash proposal since there is no news:
Carlson, Neuvirth, Forsberg
For
Lu, Ballard, Connaughton, 2nd, 3rd

Edited by sampy, 18 February 2013 - 01:54 AM.

  • 0

#2913 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,842 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:17 AM

Jake Allen's emergence as an NHLer complicates the Luongo deal. I mean now the Blues have 3 potential starters in Halak, Elliot and Allen. Teams that we view as in 'desperate need for goaltending' could sooner talk to the Blues, and their young goalies, rather than deal with us. We'll see where the dominoes fall, but I think the return on any one of these goalies would give us an idea of Luongo's worth.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2914 BertuzziJr 2.0

BertuzziJr 2.0

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 278 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 13

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:15 AM

I just thought of something and bear with me please. Remember the "potential deal in place" that was dependent on a player. Could it possibly be Scottie Upshall? The florida beat writer was on twitter was discussing how he was looking great in practice but that their coach was saying he's still a ways away. Maybe Upshall is the salary coming back in a deal for one of their stud prospects or stephen weiss? Maybe I'm over thinking it
  • 0

#2915 TmanVan

TmanVan

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:59 AM

Jake Allen's emergence as an NHLer complicates the Luongo deal. I mean now the Blues have 3 potential starters in Halak, Elliot and Allen. Teams that we view as in 'desperate need for goaltending' could sooner talk to the Blues, and their young goalies, rather than deal with us. We'll see where the dominoes fall, but I think the return on any one of these goalies would give us an idea of Luongo's worth.



What if the Blues think Luongo gives them a better shot at winning than Halak/Elliot? They could send us Elliot as part of a Luongo return, and then trade Halak to a team in need of goaltending that was unwilling to pay the price for Luongo.

To Van : Berglund, Elliot
To Stl: Luongo, 3rd

To Toronto/Tampa bay/Columbus/Washington: Halak

To Stl: Something that softens the loss of Berglund.


Here's to wishful thinking.....
  • 0

#2916 Lonny_Bohonos_14

Lonny_Bohonos_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 09

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:07 AM

Jake Allen's emergence as an NHLer complicates the Luongo deal. I mean now the Blues have 3 potential starters in Halak, Elliot and Allen. Teams that we view as in 'desperate need for goaltending' could sooner talk to the Blues, and their young goalies, rather than deal with us. We'll see where the dominoes fall, but I think the return on any one of these goalies would give us an idea of Luongo's worth.


I don't see this as much of a problem - unless St. Louis decides to move Halak or Allen.

Elliott has had a few chances to take the starting job and has failed each time (playoffs last year, Halak injury this year). Even though his numbers were great last year, whenever he's had the opportunity to take that next step, he fails.

I doubt St. Louis would move Halak. He's been their most consistent performer in net, and Allen is too green to give the starting position with Elliot as the backup.

  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2917 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:15 AM

I cant believe this thread is still here.

absolutely nobody is getting traded.
  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#2918 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,863 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:17 AM

Jake Allen's emergence as an NHLer complicates the Luongo deal. I mean now the Blues have 3 potential starters in Halak, Elliot and Allen. Teams that we view as in 'desperate need for goaltending' could sooner talk to the Blues, and their young goalies, rather than deal with us. We'll see where the dominoes fall, but I think the return on any one of these goalies would give us an idea of Luongo's worth.


It doesn't complicate anything as long as Brian Elliot keeps playing like the worst goalie in the league.

Halak won't be going anywhere, and the other two cannot be considered to be anything like acquiring Luongo.
  • 0
Posted Image

#2919 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,903 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:30 AM

Jake Allen's emergence as an NHLer complicates the Luongo deal. I mean now the Blues have 3 potential starters in Halak, Elliot and Allen. Teams that we view as in 'desperate need for goaltending' could sooner talk to the Blues, and their young goalies, rather than deal with us. We'll see where the dominoes fall, but I think the return on any one of these goalies would give us an idea of Luongo's worth.

Truthfully, it was never that likely the Blues would be seriously interested (IMO). They might have kicked the tires, but both goalies playing so well last year couldn't have been a fluke so they should be able to rely on one, and they knew they had a decent prospect in Allen coming up.

Now, they certainly aren't sure on Elliot right now, but only if Halak was completely unreliable from an injury perspective would they consider moving a roster player, top prospect, and/or pick to bring back a goalie of Luongo's calibre. It hasn't been an issue before, so it would be a pretty reactionary move for a team that's 4th in the Western Conference right now.

What if the Blues think Luongo gives them a better shot at winning than Halak/Elliot? They could send us Elliot as part of a Luongo return, and then trade Halak to a team in need of goaltending that was unwilling to pay the price for Luongo.

To Van : Berglund, Elliot
To Stl: Luongo, 3rd

To Toronto/Tampa bay/Columbus/Washington: Halak

To Stl: Something that softens the loss of Berglund.


Here's to wishful thinking.....

That's a horrible deal for us. Basically just Berglund for Luongo and a backup in Elliot for the 3rd. Berglund is great and all, but is that the return we want?

It doesn't complicate anything as long as Brian Elliot keeps playing like the worst goalie in the league.

Halak won't be going anywhere, and the other two cannot be considered to be anything like acquiring Luongo.

I'm not sure from reading that if you think it's more or less likely as a result of Elliot's play.

I cant believe this thread is still here.

absolutely nobody is getting traded.

Won't you look silly if someone offers a deal good enough for us to accept before the trade deadline.

It's possible nothing happens until summer, but can you say that with 100% certainty? If not, then I think it's ok that people are discussing possible deals, many of which aren't dictating when they will happen.

Edited by elvis15, 18 February 2013 - 10:37 AM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#2920 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:40 AM

Truthfully, it was never that likely the Blues would be seriously interested (IMO). They might have kicked the tires, but both goalies playing so well last year couldn't have been a fluke so they should be able to rely on one, and they knew they had a decent prospect in Allen coming up.

Now, they certainly aren't sure on Elliot right now, but only if Halak was completely unreliable from an injury perspective would they consider moving a roster player, top prospect, and/or pick to bring back a goalie of Luongo's calibre. It hasn't been an issue before, so it would be a pretty reactionary move for a team that's 4th in the Western Conference right now.


That's a horrible deal for us. Basically just Berglund for Luongo and a backup in Elliot for the 3rd. Berglund is great and all, but is that the return we want?


I'm not sure from reading that if you think it's more or less likely as a result of Elliot's play.


Won't you look silly if someone offers a deal good enough for us to accept before the trade deadline.

It's possible nothing happens until summer, but can you say that with 100% certainty? If not, then I think it's ok that people are discussing possible deals, many of which aren't dictating when they will happen.


Well then screw it lets have a trade discussion thread for every player on the Canucks.

Would that be breaking any rules? Mr. Thread cop sir
  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#2921 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,165 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:55 AM

Jake Allen's emergence as an NHLer complicates the Luongo deal. I mean now the Blues have 3 potential starters in Halak, Elliot and Allen. Teams that we view as in 'desperate need for goaltending' could sooner talk to the Blues, and their young goalies, rather than deal with us. We'll see where the dominoes fall, but I think the return on any one of these goalies would give us an idea of Luongo's worth.

IMO Lou is going to a team looking for his experience combined with ability. Younger goaltenders are more of a gamble.

Looking forward to he Hawk's game. Van needs to be really pushed. With Ebbett waived it looks like Booth will play in Chicago. I actually do not want them to walk away with the NW division this year. Rather they have to fight all the way into playoffs.
  • 0

#2922 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,903 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:08 AM

Well then screw it lets have a trade discussion thread for every player on the Canucks.

Would that be breaking any rules? Mr. Thread cop sir

Ironic you jump in with that after stating you're wondering why this thread is even here still.

The reason we have a pinned thread to discuss a potential Luongo trade is because we have two top goalies and only room for one going forward. One has said he'd accept a trade and other teams have inquired. People tend to discuss things in the realm of possibility, let alone as likely as this eventually is, so there is a thread (imagine that!) pinned to the top of the trades/rumours/signings forum to do just that.

If you have something significant enough to warrant it's own thread, go ahead, post it on any player you like as it would make just as much sense as this one.

If you feel like that's out of line, report the thread, me, or anyone else you want to the mods so they can handle it. Otherwise, if you want to post in a Luongo discussion thread, try and keep up with everyone else and stay on topic.

And just so it's clear gifs without any other comment in half your recent posts doesn't qualify for much in the way of on topic.

Edited by elvis15, 18 February 2013 - 11:12 AM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#2923 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,385 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:25 AM

Jake Allen's emergence as an NHLer complicates the Luongo deal. I mean now the Blues have 3 potential starters in Halak, Elliot and Allen. Teams that we view as in 'desperate need for goaltending' could sooner talk to the Blues, and their young goalies, rather than deal with us. We'll see where the dominoes fall, but I think the return on any one of these goalies would give us an idea of Luongo's worth.


Doesn't worry me at all. Those guys are sub par starters, and Jake Allen is totally unproven.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#2924 TmanVan

TmanVan

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:28 AM

That's a horrible deal for us. Basically just Berglund for Luongo and a backup in Elliot for the 3rd. Berglund is great and all, but is that the return we want?


I guess it depends how you look at it. Berglund and Elliot both help our team now, and in the future.

You could also say Berglund gives us a sure thing,where as a return package of something like Bjugstad, Petrovic, and a mid round pick guarantees nothing, doesn't help at all for the playoffs, and would probably also cost more.

As much as I want Bjugstad like a lot of other people here, I would rather take Berglund than wait 4 years to see if Bjugstad can even get to the point Berglunds at now if that offer was on the table.

Edited by TmanVan, 18 February 2013 - 11:29 AM.

  • 0

#2925 BertuzziJr 2.0

BertuzziJr 2.0

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 278 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 13

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:32 AM

I guess it depends how you look at it. Berglund and Elliot both help our team now, and in the future.

You could also say Berglund gives us a sure thing,where as a return package of something like Bjugstad, Petrovic, and a mid round pick guarantees nothing, doesn't help at all for the playoffs, and would probably also cost more.

As much as I want Bjugstad like a lot of other people here, I would rather take Berglund than wait 4 years to see if Bjugstad can even get to the point Berglunds at now if that offer was on the table.


I can guarantee if that deal was offered Gillis would have taken it by now. It will be hard enough getting one of Bjugstad and Petrovic let alone both of them
  • 0

#2926 TmanVan

TmanVan

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:39 AM

I can guarantee if that deal was offered Gillis would have taken it by now. It will be hard enough getting one of Bjugstad and Petrovic let alone both of them



Oh really eh, Luongo alone couldn't land us Petrovic?? Am I missing something here???? Sure you're not getting confused with Pietrangelo? Hahaa
  • 0

#2927 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:59 AM

Doesn't worry me at all. Those guys are sub par starters, and Jake Allen is totally unproven.

Allen sure took a step in the right direction against the Canucks. He looked every bit an NHL goalie and showed a huge upside in only his 3rd NHL game. He was technically very good and beat Lou, who wasn;t.
  • 0

#2928 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,903 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:27 PM

I guess it depends how you look at it. Berglund and Elliot both help our team now, and in the future.

You could also say Berglund gives us a sure thing,where as a return package of something like Bjugstad, Petrovic, and a mid round pick guarantees nothing, doesn't help at all for the playoffs, and would probably also cost more.

As much as I want Bjugstad like a lot of other people here, I would rather take Berglund than wait 4 years to see if Bjugstad can even get to the point Berglunds at now if that offer was on the table.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like Berglund, just that if that's all we get for Luongo and also give up a 3rd for Elliot then it's not a good deal. They'd have to be offering more incentive for us to make that trade.

Berglund's a 40-50+ point guy right now with room to improve, and he's at a reasonable price, but he's not exactly worth Luongo straight up.

Elliot was very good last year splitting the workload with Halak behind a strong defensive team, but very poor this year, very poor in Colorado, and pretty poor again in Ottawa. The Sens absolutely killed Colorado in the trade when they got Anderson back for Elliot straight up, and I'd be hesitant to offer much for Elliot now.

Maybe more like this:
Berglund
Ian Cole
Elliot
1st

for

Luongo
Ballard
Raymond or Higgins

Jaden Schwartz can move to center for them, and Raymond or Higgins can take the left wing. Ballard can fill in Cole's spot and of course Luongo takes over in net.

We move Berglund between Booth and Kesler, add Cole in with Tanev and Elliot backs up. We get an extra 1st round pick to use in a deep draft.

St Louis has $20M in cap space, although an internal cap might limit what they want to spend, and Raymond or Higgins could be swapped with a prospect like Rodin/Grenier/Archibald if they wanted to keep costs down. Even then it feels like we move more because we have to do something with the cap next year, but we do get some good pieces back from St Louis.

But, I've already said I don't think St Louis would want to give away much to upgrade in net unless Halak goes down with a long term injury. Luongo just doesn't seem like a target for them.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#2929 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,863 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:48 PM

Doesn't worry me at all.    Those guys are sub par starters, and Jake Allen is totally unproven.


Halak a sub-par starter? Are you on crack?

Halak, like Luongo, has one of the top-10 best career save percentages of all time. Plus he's only 27, and just came off of his best season (indicating he is just hitting his prime).

The suggestion that the Blues are possibly in the market for a starting goalie was crazy-talk all along.
  • 2
Posted Image

#2930 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,796 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:03 PM

I agree Lou is probably not a target for them.

I also believe they would not cough up Berglund, certainly not add the the first, perhaps because Lou is not that target. As much as we have this mythical pick, prospect and roster player concept of value...

But also because he is extremely valuable to their team! And would be to ours, probably so good (exactly what we need) that we should take it if it were in fact being offered. We're probably arguing a moot point; St Lou is no longer a contender if u take him off their line up.

I guess I am disagreeing with the assessment of Berglund's value.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like Berglund, just that if that's all we get for Luongo and also give up a 3rd for Elliot then it's not a good deal. They'd have to be offering more incentive for us to make that trade.

Berglund's a 40-50+ point guy right now with room to improve, and he's at a reasonable price, but he's not exactly worth Luongo straight up.

Elliot was very good last year splitting the workload with Halak behind a strong defensive team, but very poor this year, very poor in Colorado, and pretty poor again in Ottawa. The Sens absolutely killed Colorado in the trade when they got Anderson back for Elliot straight up, and I'd be hesitant to offer much for Elliot now.

Maybe more like this:
Berglund
Ian Cole
Elliot
1st

for

Luongo
Ballard
Raymond or Higgins

Jaden Schwartz can move to center for them, and Raymond or Higgins can take the left wing. Ballard can fill in Cole's spot and of course Luongo takes over in net.

We move Berglund between Booth and Kesler, add Cole in with Tanev and Elliot backs up. We get an extra 1st round pick to use in a deep draft.

St Louis has $20M in cap space, although an internal cap might limit what they want to spend, and Raymond or Higgins could be swapped with a prospect like Rodin/Grenier/Archibald if they wanted to keep costs down. Even then it feels like we move more because we have to do something with the cap next year, but we do get some good pieces back from St Louis.

But, I've already said I don't think St Louis would want to give away much to upgrade in net unless Halak goes down with a long term injury. Luongo just doesn't seem like a target for them.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 18 February 2013 - 01:05 PM.

  • 0

#2931 TmanVan

TmanVan

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:44 PM

I agree Lou is probably not a target for them.

I also believe they would not cough up Berglund, certainly not add the the first, perhaps because Lou is not that target. As much as we have this mythical pick, prospect and roster player concept of value...

But also because he is extremely valuable to their team! And would be to ours, probably so good (exactly what we need) that we should take it if it were in fact being offered. We're probably arguing a moot point; St Lou is no longer a contender if u take him off their line up.

I guess I am disagreeing with the assessment of Berglund's value.



St Louis isn't a contender if you take Berglund off their team? David Backes, Tj Oshie, David Perron, Chris Stewart, Vladimir Tarasenko, Andy McDonald , Alex Steen, Jaden Shwartz..... Not exactly a bunch of slouches, I think they could manage.


  • 0

#2932 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,903 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:00 PM

St Louis isn't a contender if you take Berglund off their team? David Backes, Tj Oshie, David Perron, Chris Stewart, Vladimir Tarasenko, Andy McDonald , Alex Steen, Jaden Shwartz..... Not exactly a bunch of slouches, I think they could manage.

And we have the Sedins, Burrows, Kesler, Booth, Kassian, Raymond, Higgins, Hansen, Schroeder, etc as well. We could manage too. He's just as likely to be important to their team as he is to ours.

You can also make the argument they have good goalie depth too, and wouldn't be in a rush to give up any asset unless it clearly improved them elsewhere more than what they'd be losing.

Both teams are still contenders regardless of if they make a deal or not, so I don't agree they aren't without Berglund, but there is the underlying point that there isn't a lot of incentive for them to make this type of deal. Gillis has certainly shown he won't make a deal unless he gets back what he wants, so you can bet he's asking for something at least similar to what's been rumoured before (if not a little better) when St Louis calls.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#2933 Italia2006

Italia2006

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:00 PM

Why aren't we talking about Buffalo being in the picture?
I think they're getting sick of Miller and he has some value in a trade market. He only has this year and next year left. Miller would look good on the Oilers.
Then we can trade Luongo to the Sabres. They have some nice pieces that we could use. If I could add one roster player, I'd love to add Ott. Everyone here keeps bringing up Brouwer, but we all know we need a guy like Ott more than anything right now. The grit he would add and faceoff percentage would be huge. I guess it would all have to come down where Luongo wants to go and how bad he wants out.
When Gillis said, "we have a deal in place, we're just waitting for them to move a player" I'd have to think it would have to be something along the lines of a goalie getting moved first and it being a 3 way deal.
I would go hard for Ott if this scenario is a possibily and I think Gillis knows he needs a guy like Ott.
  • 0

#2934 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,903 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:11 PM

Why aren't we talking about Buffalo being in the picture?
I think they're getting sick of Miller and he has some value in a trade market. He only has this year and next year left. Miller would look good on the Oilers.
Then we can trade Luongo to the Sabres. They have some nice pieces that we could use. If I could add one roster player, I'd love to add Ott. Everyone here keeps bringing up Brouwer, but we all know we need a guy like Ott more than anything right now. The grit he would add and faceoff percentage would be huge. I guess it would all have to come down where Luongo wants to go and how bad he wants out.
When Gillis said, "we have a deal in place, we're just waitting for them to move a player" I'd have to think it would have to be something along the lines of a goalie getting moved first and it being a 3 way deal.
I would go hard for Ott if this scenario is a possibily and I think Gillis knows he needs a guy like Ott.

Who wants to trade for a goalie that's playing bad? It's the situation Philly was in coming into the season, where they weren't confident in Bryz, but how could they get rid of him? Miller is still a good goalie, but they'd have to move him before they could bring someone else in.

Would we take him back? I doubt it. Same with the Oilers, since they'd have to give up assets to get him and I think they're comfortable with Dubnyk considering their team isn't quite ready to be considered locks to reach the playoffs, let alone the finals.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#2935 Creid

Creid

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:23 PM

Why are people wasting their time talking about a trade with st. Louis? they have a goalie.
  • 0

#2936 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,842 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:41 PM

Why are people wasting their time talking about a trade with st. Louis? they have a goalie.


Lol, I can't figure it out either. They have 3 goalies that can play and start at the NHL level.

My point was that by dealing anyone of these 3 goalies, it takes away a possible destination for Luongo. The rest of these crackheads somehow turned St.Louis into a possible destination for Luongo.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2937 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,796 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:41 PM

St Louis isn't a contender if you take Berglund off their team? David Backes, Tj Oshie, David Perron, Chris Stewart, Vladimir Tarasenko, Andy McDonald , Alex Steen, Jaden Shwartz..... Not exactly a bunch of slouches, I think they could manage.


Make NO mistake that St Louis's forward game starts and stops with the fact that Backes and Berglund up the middle, along with their line mates, can physically dominate other teams. It makes room for a converted winger like Steen (who is by all admission very tealented) to function in the middle, and guys like itsy, bitsy, tiny And McDonald to fly around.

Do they have enough talent they are still exciting, especially adding Taresenko, you bet. But the basis of every Hitchcock team (see Philly days) has been that physical play to shut down teams.

No way St Lou matches up against Boston, LA or New York with Steen as their 2knd line centre defensively! I see no circumstance that they trade Berglund; it's nuts never mind they have goalies.

(Look how we did playing against LA and Boston with an injured Kess; take him completely out of the lineup and where are we?)

And we have the Sedins, Burrows, Kesler, Booth, Kassian, Raymond, Higgins, Hansen, Schroeder, etc as well. We could manage too. He's just as likely to be important to their team as he is to ours.

You can also make the argument they have good goalie depth too, and wouldn't be in a rush to give up any asset unless it clearly improved them elsewhere more than what they'd be losing.

Both teams are still contenders regardless of if they make a deal or not, so I don't agree they aren't without Berglund, but there is the underlying point that there isn't a lot of incentive for them to make this type of deal. Gillis has certainly shown he won't make a deal unless he gets back what he wants, so you can bet he's asking for something at least similar to what's been rumoured before (if not a little better) when St Louis calls.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 18 February 2013 - 04:44 PM.

  • 0

#2938 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,796 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:47 PM

I am in the camp that believes we need to do more to be a serious play off threat, not just good enough to win the NW division.

When we went to the final;

We had (started) with Samuelsson instead of Booth. Well one reason we lost, and the real reason Mikael was let go is he was old and injury prone. But where he does not have Booth's athleticism, he was his equal in size, added substantial moxy and he was a RW which kept our dearth of talented left side speedsters free to get ice time. Net; I'm happy with Booth if we replace the RW or Kass stands back up to his play a few weeks ago.

We had Erhoff instead of Garrison. There may be a way to make Garrison as valuable. He is 220 lbs and can move bodies in front of the net which was also an important question when we lost to Boston. But there is no doubt Erhoff added flight to our game which made the rest of the team dangerous. Edler can score his points, but does not have the same ability to help us get the puck moving up ice. We still are, possibly, the top D in the league defensively (combined with goal tending). But missing Erhoff we are nowhere near the high flying top offensive, punishing PP team we were.

Net of the last paragraph; trade one of Hamhuis, Garrison, Edler or Ballard for a puck moving, right handed shot, right D. Gotta chuck in a goalie to get him; so be it! We also die the instant Bieksa, our only right handed shot of substance, gets hurt. We have to get better at moving the puck from the back end!

We had Torres and Manny instead of Schroeder and Higgins. Guys, Higgins may be a better player than Torres, but he is nowhere near as valuable. Torres would not just rock Thornton, he was big enough he could render him ineffective. We need that size and ability to match up back in our line up. I'm at odd's as to how, or whether we should replace Manny as Schroeder does have value.

We had Tambelini instead of Higgins. Well, lets call this one a win and a hint as to where Higgins should really be playing if we scored another big forward! Ah, we would be lucky to have a guy like Higgins be able to step up from the 4th line but thats the position we need to be in!

Net of the whole conversation?

Lou + Ballard for Mike Green and Mo Jo (as much O as Schroeder + 20 lbs and 5 inches and more potential). Let coach decide who decides to be in the rotation by their play amongst the two. U guys debate whether we get a 1st as well; I want to win now. Mike Green instantly makes us that high flying team which scores, his value is lower, perhaps he's likely expendable with Carlson and Orlov and they desperately need a goalie. I've watched 5 Wash games in 2 weeks, and goal tending is clearly a factor! Add a big RW at the deadline covered by the cap hit of whoever (inevitably) is hurt.

Edited by Canuck Surfer, 18 February 2013 - 04:55 PM.

  • 0

#2939 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:35 PM

Truthfully, it was never that likely the Blues would be seriously interested (IMO).


I agree. Goaltending is really there last need. Halak has been just fine and is a very solid starter, then aside from him, Elliot should be a quality backup and they have solid netminders in the pipeline with Allen, and Binnington.

They need help on the backend. That's really there biggest need right now.
  • 0

zackass.png


#2940 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:36 PM

Why are people wasting their time talking about a trade with st. Louis? they have a goalie.


I agree with Ossi.

St.Louis is one of the better organizations for goaltending. Doesn't really make any sense at all.
  • 0

zackass.png





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.