Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 6.0


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3104 replies to this topic

#1471 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,821 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:31 PM

That's very sentimental Surfer - and thanks for correcting me, but do you have any actual information or a clause in the CBA that says a player like Pronger can't be bought out, or are you just talking warm air?

Those two years you talk about him soaking out of the Flyers as 575K would cost the Flyers $1. 0125 million to buyout - and if they bought him out, he'd get 1.0125 for the last three years which otherwise have no salary in his backdiving contract.

But regardless, you either missed or ignored the point of a buyout - which wouldn't be about trying to save a couple million dollars - it would be about the fact that the Flyers are pinned up against the cap and Pronger's $5 million is really hampering their ability to add what they need.

In addition, even if he retired, he's a 35+ contract and his cap hit would continue to apply, so he wouldn't necessarily be doing the Flyers any favours by walking away from the money - the cap hit would continue to cost them in terms of team building, and when the cap hits 64 next year, the pain will increase (not to mention their 7 UFAs and a pair of RFAs)...

You can't buyout a player who's injured. There was discussion around this for Drury, and all the concern over letting Redden and Gomez play at all (even in the AHL) this year in case they got injured.

http://www.nydailyne...rury-bought-out

The road to the buyout proved bumpy, as sources said that Drury planned to file paperwork with the league to block it, citing his chronic knee problems and the league rule that an injured player cannot be bought out.


Pronger either retires and cost the Flyers cap space (due to his 35+ contract) or he stays on LTI and allows them to exceed the cap with a replacement.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1472 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:33 PM

I don't see Philly as the source of a R side D - imo they added Schenn because, Meszaros aside, they're pretty weak there (Gervais and Foster are depth at best).

Brayden Schenn and Couturier are different types of Cs - Braden is the regular in that lineup who gets the highest % of ozone starts and favourable matchups. Couturier is the guy who faces the 2nd strongest quality of competition on that team, gets 38% offensive zone starts and manages a positive relative corsi +1.1 while Schenn's is slightly higher - last season the underlying numbers for both were very similar to this.

So, what type of center do the Canucks need more? I guess that would depend upon whether you want a 2nd line scoring type like Braden and see Kesler playing more of a shutdown role, or whether you want a 3C type like Couturier and see Kesler remaining in the 2c role.

Personally, I'm more impressed by the fact that (at a year and a half younger than Schenn) Couturier is capable of handling that role in terms of dzone starts and a very strong quality of competition - and I also think that under those circumstances, his offensive numbers are deflated and that he has more upside than his numbers (although not bad) suggest.
Personally I'd rather see that skillset added to the roster, and I think that as has been proposed, the Schenns's would probably have to be a package deal, one I would not give up Schneider and Edler to acquire.

Reports out of Philly are that Bryz is showing "signs of wear."

Luo is pretty rested. :bigblush: Luo, Ebbett for Couturier, Leighton.


Good points, I don't see either of the deals being the wrong way to go regarding shake ups.

Luongo for couturier allows us to keep the younger goalie. Also makes our forward group a bit stronger. I have some concerns about our dcore too though becoming too comfortable and needing a shake up soon anyways. If that's the case who goes? Bieksa or hamhuis are off limits IMO. Eddys our offensive star but those guys are our big game guys.

The trade of edler Schneider Raymond for both schenns and a first, gives us another first in a deep draft and gives us more toughness on defense while getting us a bit younger. We sacrifice Edlers points, which sucks but I'm a little worried now about Edlers ability to step up physically over the remainder of his career. He's a great hitter and that IMO is why he's worth his new contract. If its just straight for his points I'd only give him the 4.6.

If either of those deals are able to get done I think I would do them. A youthful shakeup getting done or not getting done soon, could make or break the future of this team.
  • 0

#1473 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,495 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:49 PM

Why do you think Savard has never been bought out in Boston?

Here's one link blogging on players challenging their buyout because they contend they were injured.

http://kuklaskorner....es_and_buyouts.

Thanks for coming?

Oh; Philly can't already have cap relief because he is injured?


edit; in fact wouldn't Snider even promise a sweetheart scouting deal after his deal runs out... :rolleyes:



That's very sentimental Surfer - and thanks for correcting me, but do you have any actual information or a clause in the CBA that says a player like Pronger can't be bought out, or are you just talking warm air?

Those two years you talk about him soaking out of the Flyers as 575K would cost the Flyers $1. 0125 million to buyout - and if they bought him out, he'd get 1.0125 for the last three years which otherwise have no salary in his backdiving contract.

But regardless, you either missed or ignored the point of a buyout - which wouldn't be about trying to save a couple million dollars - it would be about the fact that the Flyers are pinned up against the cap and Pronger's $5 million is really hampering their ability to add what they need.

In addition, even if he retired, he's a 35+ contract and his cap hit would continue to apply, so he wouldn't necessarily be doing the Flyers any favours by walking away from the money - the cap hit would continue to cost them in terms of team building, and when the cap hits 64 next year, the pain will increase (not to mention their 7 UFAs and a pair of RFAs)...


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 11 March 2013 - 01:06 PM.

  • 0

#1474 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,206 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:57 PM

I've been a pretty big supporter of keeping the team, basically, the way it is.........minus Luongo. That said, I'm truly not exactly sure where I stand right now. I'm honestly not seeing anything out of this team that leads me to believe they have any magic left in the core. I do not think there is an untouchable on this team right now, Sedins included (though they are pretty much untradeable at this point). I used to think the idea of trading Kesler or Edler was unthinkable, now I'm not so sure. This lineup needs a major overhaul IMO, and maybe it's time to cut loose some of these guys, if a deal comes along that ensures a competitive team for the future.

Ive been a staunch supporter of CS since the day he was drafted and I would love nothing more than to see this team move fwd with him as their started. However, if there is no deal for Lu that makes this team significantly better, then maybe Schneids is the one who has to go if he can fetch a significantly better deal for the club.

Nor do I believe the coaching staff and management team are effective any longer. I love AV, one of my fave Canucks coaches ever, but I think the coaching staff needs to go........for everyones sake. I don't think AV has done anything to deserve being fired, but it's easier to change the coaches than all the players.

I also think MG needs to go, though I think he's probably safe. He's made a huge mess here in Van with bad trades, bad player management, poor treatment of some players and staff and I think the Canucks have a much worse rep in the league than they did before MG came into the pic. That said, unless there is a GM candidate out there who is better, I don't see him going anywhere.

I think 3-4 of the following players need to be moved

kesler
edler
schneider
luongo
booth
ballard
hank
danny
lappy
raymond


players I would build around........not that I think the rest get traded, but these would be my untouchables

Hansen
Higgins
Hamhuis
Kassian
Burrows
Bieksa (can't believe I'm saying that)
Tanev
Garrison
Schroeder

players coming back from any trades would have to be big, fast, young(ish) and hungry.

Of course, this is all just antasy, the reality is that the lineup will look almost the same next season, maybe a new coach and one less tender.

Edited by stawns, 11 March 2013 - 01:00 PM.

  • 1

#1475 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,743 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:03 PM

You can't buyout a player who's injured. There was discussion around this for Drury, and all the concern over letting Redden and Gomez play at all (even in the AHL) this year in case they got injured.

http://www.nydailyne...rury-bought-out


Pronger either retires and cost the Flyers cap space (due to his 35+ contract) or he stays on LTI and allows them to exceed the cap with a replacement.


Or perhaps Pronger, too, will be on his way to Long Island in 2015...
  • 0

#1476 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,495 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:12 PM

Gotta admit; this bolded part is spot on.

I'd pick B Schenn though. Too dynamic!

I don't see Philly as the source of a R side D - imo they added Schenn because, Meszaros aside, they're pretty weak there (Gervais and Foster are depth at best).

Brayden Schenn and Couturier are different types of Cs - Braden is the regular in that lineup who gets the highest % of ozone starts and favourable matchups. Couturier is the guy who faces the 2nd strongest quality of competition on that team, gets 38% offensive zone starts and manages a positive relative corsi +1.1 while Schenn's is slightly higher - last season the underlying numbers for both were very similar to this.

So, what type of center do the Canucks need more? I guess that would depend upon whether you want a 2nd line scoring type like Braden and see Kesler playing more of a shutdown role, or whether you want a 3C type like Couturier and see Kesler remaining in the 2c role.

Personally, I'm more impressed by the fact that (at a year and a half younger than Schenn) Couturier is capable of handling that role in terms of dzone starts and a very strong quality of competition - and I also think that under those circumstances, his offensive numbers are deflated and that he has more upside than his numbers (although not bad) suggest.
Personally I'd rather see that skillset added to the roster, and I think that as has been proposed, the Schenns's would probably have to be a package deal, one I would not give up Schneider and Edler to acquire.

Reports out of Philly are that Bryz is showing "signs of wear."

Luo is pretty rested. :bigblush: Luo, Ebbett for Couturier, Leighton.


  • 0

#1477 john bell

john bell

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 07

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:23 PM

There is an article Today on TSN about the Blackhawks maybe considering buying out Hossa's contract, because He will end up costing Them cap space if He retires before His contract expires when He'll be 42. Luongo has a similar contract. I'm starting to agree with People like like Keenan that Luongo is not tradeable.
  • 0

#1478 Brick Tamland

Brick Tamland

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,143 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:23 PM

For Lu or Schneider we need NHL players. This window is small and getting smaller. Cap going down, players getting older, career years in the rear view. We need immediate help. I still like Kessel and Kadri/Bozak or Gudbrandson and Mueller
  • 0
I Love Lamp...

#1479 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,743 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:24 PM

Why do you think Savard has never been bought out in Boston?

Here's one link blogging on players challenging their buyout because they contend they were injured.

http://kuklaskorner....es_and_buyouts.

Thanks for coming?

Oh; Philly can't already have cap relief because he is injured?


Pronger is a 35+ contract and his cap hit applies, unlike Savard, which doesn't effect the Bruins - that is the context where the club is simply being cheap. The Flyers on the other hand, have a far bigger issue/problem.
The Flyers are handicapped by a 5 million dollar cap hit while they're trying to compete.
Pronger hasn't ruled out playing - the Flyers desperately need him to recover so they can either utilize him, trade him (to a team that can take the 35+ risk - probably for very little trade value), or buy him out.
They may have to wait and Thomas him to the Islanders in a couple years.
I personally can't stand the way the 35+ clause works.
It makes it harder for veteran players to get a decent deal after all their years of NHL production. It also makes it harder for them to get deals on contending clubs because the cap risk deters teams spending near the cap and contending from taking those risks. The Pronger case is an example of how it can sting a team - although the backdiving aspect of that deal was clearly circumvention. I think the NHL needs to get more creative in the way it deters teams from circumventing the cap with contracts to older players - as it stands, it's hurting players (Salo comes to mind, whom the Canucks couldn't risk term due to the nature of the CBA). Take out the backdiving as they have, but also create a third party to determine if a player is legitimately injured - if so, remove the cap hit.

Edited by oldnews, 11 March 2013 - 01:24 PM.

  • 0

#1480 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:25 PM

@stawns. Huge post so I won't quote.

I'm pretty much the same way. I've shown major support for this team but the uninspired play for the past years causing me concern aswell.

I think your list however is rather large. A shake up could put this team right back into contention and there's no need for a total rebuild.

A guy I'm inclined to keep right now is booth. He's not score but neither are any of them. I'm judging the effort he's putting in compared to other players. He's newer and could be decent piece to go forward with. He really hasn't had a chance to show what he can do yet.

I agree with the coaching change too, I like AV and the success he brought but a fresh mind is needed.

Losing MG would be a huge mistake IMO. He's done great things with this team by creating the best contract structure in the league, made several good signings(tanev, Higgins, lapierre, torres, manny) even weise has been a good pickup, despite what people say.

Your not going to slam dunk win every trade and gotta take your lumps and learn from them. Booth had some freak accidents slowing him down but so did hodgson and now look at him. how can anyone say giving up 2 aging ufa vets for a 26yr old power forward was a bad thing. The jury is still out on the hodgson trade untill we see them in their prime. The Ballard trade was an obvious loss but is that a reflection of of mg? or AV not playing him enough to find his groove?

MG has done far more good then he has done bad and I think will go down as the best GM we've ever had in due time. We've had 2 major slumps since he's been here, that's pretty good IMO. I wouldn't get rid of him over that.

I'm not too sure what should be done right now but I have faith MG will make the right moves going forward.
  • 0

#1481 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,743 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:33 PM

There is an article Today on TSN about the Blackhawks maybe considering buying out Hossa's contract, because He will end up costing Them cap space if He retires before His contract expires when He'll be 42. Luongo has a similar contract. I'm starting to agree with People like like Keenan that Luongo is not tradeable.


I think there are a few differences - Hossa has a concussion history, and he is a skater - which both increases the risk of re-injury and makes it more difficult to play in the NHL until age 42 - the % of older skaters relative to goaltenders is fewer imo.
  • 0

#1482 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:43 PM

There is an article Today on TSN about the Blackhawks maybe considering buying out Hossa's contract, because He will end up costing Them cap space if He retires before His contract expires when He'll be 42. Luongo has a similar contract. I'm starting to agree with People like like Keenan that Luongo is not tradeable.


I really didnt see the need the put the punishment rules in for contracts under the old cba. Why not just close the loopholes? Especially when Bettman and the owners were in control.. Was it the owners saying we need to punish each other or were the players saying we won't sign unless you punish those teams?... Seems like its a burn for both sides, players finding harder to get moved and teams handcuffing themselves to contracts.

It's like if dancing all the sudden became illegal so everyone stopped dancing. Would you throw someone in jail because they used to dance? Lol
  • 0

#1483 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,945 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:12 PM

There is an article Today on TSN about the Blackhawks maybe considering buying out Hossa's contract, because He will end up costing Them cap space if He retires before His contract expires when He'll be 42. Luongo has a similar contract. I'm starting to agree with People like like Keenan that Luongo is not tradeable.

I know Hossa has concussion problems and has a bad contract but still, its Marian Hossa. You don't buy players of that calibre out.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#1484 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:25 PM

I know Hossa has concussion problems and has a bad contract but still, its Marian Hossa. You don't buy players of that calibre out.


Shut up, dummy... They might actually buy him out and he could go to the eastern conference.
If we get bounced by Chicago every year for the remainder of his contract this is all on you now!


Jk haha
  • 0

#1485 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,945 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:31 PM

Shut up, dummy... They might actually buy him out and he could go to the eastern conference.
If we get bounced by Chicago every year for the remainder of his contract this is all on you now!


Jk haha

Or he could sign with us if he gets bought out :bigblush:
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#1486 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,206 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:41 PM

@stawns. Huge post so I won't quote.

I'm pretty much the same way. I've shown major support for this team but the uninspired play for the past years causing me concern aswell.

I think your list however is rather large. A shake up could put this team right back into contention and there's no need for a total rebuild.

A guy I'm inclined to keep right now is booth. He's not score but neither are any of them. I'm judging the effort he's putting in compared to other players. He's newer and could be decent piece to go forward with. He really hasn't had a chance to show what he can do yet.

I agree with the coaching change too, I like AV and the success he brought but a fresh mind is needed.

Losing MG would be a huge mistake IMO. He's done great things with this team by creating the best contract structure in the league, made several good signings(tanev, Higgins, lapierre, torres, manny) even weise has been a good pickup, despite what people say.

Your not going to slam dunk win every trade and gotta take your lumps and learn from them. Booth had some freak accidents slowing him down but so did hodgson and now look at him. how can anyone say giving up 2 aging ufa vets for a 26yr old power forward was a bad thing. The jury is still out on the hodgson trade untill we see them in their prime. The Ballard trade was an obvious loss but is that a reflection of of mg? or AV not playing him enough to find his groove?

MG has done far more good then he has done bad and I think will go down as the best GM we've ever had in due time. We've had 2 major slumps since he's been here, that's pretty good IMO. I wouldn't get rid of him over that.

I'm not too sure what should be done right now but I have faith MG will make the right moves going forward.


of that list, I said 3-4 need to be moved, as opposed to the whole list. Of course I don't expect the twins are going anywhere, and one of Lu/CS will be staying.........but if I were MG, I would seriously be looking at moving Edler and Kesler for younger, healthier players with potential and a different kind of game.
  • 1

#1487 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,351 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:42 PM

Or he could sign with us if he gets bought out :bigblush:


He'd look good on a line with Hansen!! :bigblush:
  • 0

#1488 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:56 PM

@stawns. Huge post so I won't quote.

I'm pretty much the same way. I've shown major support for this team but the uninspired play for the past years causing me concern aswell.

I think your list however is rather large. A shake up could put this team right back into contention and there's no need for a total rebuild.

A guy I'm inclined to keep right now is booth. He's not score but neither are any of them. I'm judging the effort he's putting in compared to other players. He's newer and could be decent piece to go forward with. He really hasn't had a chance to show what he can do yet.

I agree with the coaching change too, I like AV and the success he brought but a fresh mind is needed.

Losing MG would be a huge mistake IMO. He's done great things with this team by creating the best contract structure in the league, made several good signings(tanev, Higgins, lapierre, torres, manny) even weise has been a good pickup, despite what people say.

Your not going to slam dunk win every trade and gotta take your lumps and learn from them. Booth had some freak accidents slowing him down but so did hodgson and now look at him. how can anyone say giving up 2 aging ufa vets for a 26yr old power forward was a bad thing. The jury is still out on the hodgson trade untill we see them in their prime. The Ballard trade was an obvious loss but is that a reflection of of mg? or AV not playing him enough to find his groove?

MG has done far more good then he has done bad and I think will go down as the best GM we've ever had in due time. We've had 2 major slumps since he's been here, that's pretty good IMO. I wouldn't get rid of him over that.

I'm not too sure what should be done right now but I have faith MG will make the right moves going forward.


This.
  • 0

#1489 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:23 PM

Or he could sign with us if he gets bought out :bigblush:


Woah...

D. SEDIN - H. SEDIN - HOSSA

Deadly...
  • 0

#1490 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:05 PM

of that list, I said 3-4 need to be moved, as opposed to the whole list. Of course I don't expect the twins are going anywhere, and one of Lu/CS will be staying.........but if I were MG, I would seriously be looking at moving Edler and Kesler for younger, healthier players with potential and a different kind of game.


I guess I should have elaborated a bit better regarding the list. I didnt actually think u wanted the list gone.. It comes across as a bit broad though.

Interesting piece going could be kesler someday. Even if he comes back and gets back to form he's the one player on the team I could see the ego getting in the way eventually. The kinda guy who might go for the money next contract. He's still a hell of a player though and it would be tough to move him IMO. I don't see any point in trying to move him untill he's healthy and back to form though we just wouldn't be able to get decent value for him untill then... Another point I think of with kesler is when the twins retire or move to the second line do we want a shoot first centre on the top line? Probably not unless you got pat Kane on his wing

Unless we get a wicked package I wouldn't trade edler. I'm on the fence with him but if we had to make a major shake up he would be the one to go on defense. Bieksa and hamhuis are our big game guys, we just got garrison and tanev is off limits and on his way to being our best defensive dman.

Before I did any of that I would get lindy ruff and trade a goalie and see how the team responds first. It's still an amazing group of players that could win it all with the right additions and new coach.
  • 0

#1491 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,481 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:30 PM

Healthy, we have Kesler, plus Lapierre to centre a second defensive line.

Having a Ribiero to centre a 2knd offensive line would be a lot more attractive than Goc. We're suffering a lot worse offensively than our ability to keep the puck out of the net.


Ballard (we need to clear a left D) + a 3rd for Ribiero. Wash does this to put Backstrom back in the role he was in before MR showed up. We do it as a classic rental; win this year move. But it also clears Ballards salary. I suppose we have to add a less interesting secondary player to make the cap work?

Lou then all out for a right D, perhaps a depth RW.


I think it will take more than that. And I think Goc brings more of what we need in the 3C role, but Riberio would add a better scoring punch, although if we got him I would want him to be on the 2nd line on the Wing.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1492 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,481 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:32 PM

Do you honestly think Kesler will ever get 40 goal again. There's a reason his lines are called the 'helicopter line', he has no wingers. Much like Ovechkin, the league has figured out how to stop/block his wrist shot from everywhere. A 3rd line and specialty teams role would be perfect for Kesler.


Maybe not, he is still good for 30+ goals a year and atleast 65-70+ points IMO.

Thats still first line production, and he still brings an elite two-way game, meaning he is still an elite two-way player and a 1st line player.

Meaning it would still be very stupid to put him on the 3rd line.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1493 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,481 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:32 PM

I'd look for Brouwer Hendricks and Forsberg. Add a 1st if it is Cory not Luongo. I think that they are the perfect candidate for a trade, cause they're not rebuilding, but know they aren't making the playoffs this year.


Meh I don't see Brouwer as a fit, I don't think they will trade him as they just locked him up, and I am not really looking to overpay. And aside from that we have alot of wingers as it is.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1494 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,495 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:50 PM

I really didnt see the need the put the punishment rules in for contracts under the old cba. Why not just close the loopholes? Especially when Bettman and the owners were in control.. Was it the owners saying we need to punish each other or were the players saying we won't sign unless you punish those teams?... Seems like its a burn for both sides, players finding harder to get moved and teams handcuffing themselves to contracts. It's like if dancing all the sudden became illegal so everyone stopped dancing. Would you throw someone in jail because they used to dance? Lol


How does the new CBA work; max 7 years or 8 with your own club & no year can change by more than 25% (by memory) year over year up or down? If that includes signing bonuses; you really would not need the over 35 clause?

:huh:

Clubs are only punishing themselves by contracting into years with a higher likelihood of injury and diminishing returns.


Pronger is a 35+ contract and his cap hit applies, unlike Savard, which doesn't effect the Bruins - that is the context where the club is simply being cheap. The Flyers on the other hand, have a far bigger issue/problem. The Flyers are handicapped by a 5 million dollar cap hit while they're trying to compete. Pronger hasn't ruled out playing - the Flyers desperately need him to recover so they can either utilize him, trade him (to a team that can take the 35+ risk - probably for very little trade value), or buy him out. They may have to wait and Thomas him to the Islanders in a couple years. I personally can't stand the way the 35+ clause works. It makes it harder for veteran players to get a decent deal after all their years of NHL production. It also makes it harder for them to get deals on contending clubs because the cap risk deters teams spending near the cap and contending from taking those risks. The Pronger case is an example of how it can sting a team - although the backdiving aspect of that deal was clearly circumvention. I think the NHL needs to get more creative in the way it deters teams from circumventing the cap with contracts to older players - as it stands, it's hurting players (Salo comes to mind, whom the Canucks couldn't risk term due to the nature of the CBA). Take out the backdiving as they have, but also create a third party to determine if a player is legitimately injured - if so, remove the cap hit.


  • 0

#1495 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,495 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 05:31 PM

Yes, but we don't have ANY right wing of consequence who is a legitimate front line threat?

Kassian, well we can throw some responsibility on AV for not finding a way to get more productivity from him. Nonetheless he ain't getting it done. Hansen is a good player, but I doubt any team prefers to face him rather than say Hossa? Burrows is a converted LW and actually plays better there. Kudo's to him for flexibility but I'd rather we actually fix our RW problem.

And our centre problem...

And our right D problem...

If we're lucky, our right D problem might also include a defender who strikes fear breaking pressure lugging the puck, because we also have issues gaining the zone and navigating traps and fore-checks...

If we're lucky, we can get a play maker to ignite our secondary scoring when we acquire a winger or centre...

The common denominator is roster shortcomings!

As much as Brouwer himself may not be available, a player like him would be as good a start as any!



Meh I don't see Brouwer as a fit, I don't think they will trade him as they just locked him up, and I am not really looking to overpay. And aside from that we have alot of wingers as it is.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 11 March 2013 - 05:33 PM.

  • 0

#1496 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 05:51 PM

How does the new CBA work; max 7 years or 8 with your own club & no year can change by more than 25% (by memory) year over year up or down? If that includes signing bonuses; you really would not need the over 35 clause?

:huh:

Clubs are only punishing themselves by contracting into years with a higher likelihood of injury and diminishing returns.


No, I meant I didn't see the point in the punishing cap hits for retiring early 35+ contracts that were signed under the old cba... Like why would Aquillini say, "Bettman I totally agree if luongo retires early, my team should have to hold a cap hit of the money we saved on the back diving contract"... Then Ed snider says "he's right Gary I wanna get screwed with prongers contract too.".. Did Chicago's owner then pipe up and say "heyyyy don't think you guys aren't getting ****ed over without screwing me with hossa first!"

It just doesn't make sense why they would agree to that for those contracts signed before the new cba. You closed the loophole, why shoot yourself in in the foot with something you signed under different rules?
  • 0

#1497 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,743 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:16 PM

Clubs are only punishing themselves by contracting into years with a higher likelihood of injury and diminishing returns.


Wow - that's some pretty ripe ageism there CS.
jk.
but easy on oldtimers - you too are on your way...

But really, veteran players who have played 15 seasons in the NHL, and some of them still very good NHLers (Salo says hello) are devalued because of the 35+ terms of the CBA and more and more wind up on peripheral clubs when they are precisely the types of players in the past that contenders could value and use - and who, in the last years of their careers, might like a shot at a Cup. Imo the CBA is problematic in that sense, and I don't like it - there should be some kind of injury verification provision that doesn't punish teams that sign older players, while prohibiting backdiving of any kind - 35+ contracts should simply have to have identical salary and cap hits throughout the term. Give teams cap relief if that player is legitimately injured, but don't give them salary relief (or the option of a buyout) - that imo would do as much to prevent suspect contract to older players.
If you want to talk about unions and whether they're worth their salt, you might look at the arguably discriminatory 35+ terms in the CBA that relatively limit their contracting/negotiating power relative to ^35. So much for 'seniority'!
  • 0

#1498 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:20 PM

of that list, I said 3-4 need to be moved, as opposed to the whole list. Of course I don't expect the twins are going anywhere, and one of Lu/CS will be staying.........but if I were MG, I would seriously be looking at moving Edler and Kesler for younger, healthier players with potential and a different kind of game.


NYI
Kesler
Edler
1st

VAN
Tavares

D. SEDIN - H. SEDIN - BURROWS
BOOTH - TAVARES - KASSIAN



Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 11 March 2013 - 06:21 PM.

  • 0

#1499 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,481 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:21 PM

My original post in this 'discsussion' regarded the fact the Isles have 28 million of cap space, no starter moving forward, etc to which you jumped with they don't have the money, they wouldn't be interested in an aging goalie like Luongo...
How does Thomas solve their problems? Virtually no one in the hockey world believes that Snow acquired Thomas believing he'd actually play - it was a pure cap space transaction for both sides. If either Boston or the Islanders were angling to have him return it would have made more sense to simply let him take his year off, and renegotiate the terms of another year, which at 39 and after a year off, wouldn't cost them $5 million a season.


Actually it wouldn't.

Cause you run the risk of losing him, and letting him walk for free. This way when he comes back (and he has stated he is going to) the Islanders hold his rights, so he must play for them.

It was actually a really smart move. It helps your financial situation, and when he returns if he doesn't make a huge fuss about playing for your team, he should provide solid goaltending. And if he doesn't and he makes a fuss and requests a trade or something, then they don't lose anything as the pick was conditional, and they have gained the benefit of him being on the cap and not earning and money from them.

Great move by NYI.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 11 March 2013 - 06:22 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1500 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,743 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:24 PM

Yes, but we don't have ANY right wing of consequence who is a legitimate front line threat?



Posted Image

117 goals last 4 seasons, +107.

Not a right handed shot? Who cares?
  • 0




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.