conundrumed Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Is that contract even movable? 10 years? Wow. I find Luongo to be kind of arrogant about it, like he doesn't realize he's anchored by that contract and there are a lot of great goalies. TBay maybe? I know about Lindback, but... There can't be a ton of interest, he can hardly afford to be really selective about it imho. He comes across like he's kinda calling the shots...it's weird. He needs to wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 TB is pretty high on Lindback & have Garon to start or run in tandem while he's proving himself as that #1. A trade for a better temp if necessary sounds more feasible then adding a 10 year 5.3 cap hit if it costs assets. Panthers have Markstrom penciled in as starter in 2-3 years. In the meantime Theodore, Clemmenson or a UFA/trade pickup would suffice. Again, the assets going out the door vs long term gain/loss. TML really don't have a solid prospect in the pipeline but are apparently balking @ the asking price. Gillis supposedly wants Gardiner + and acts as if there are many bidders. A trade for a cheaper, shorter term goalie (Harding, Biron, etc. would strengthen them without giving away as much). Chicago won a SC with Niemi & Huet in goal. Crawford & Emery aren't any worse. Stan Bowman learned enough from his dad to know better then to be suckered into over paying for a long term, big contract goalie with few teams even in the market for a (former) starter. Gillis needs to consider he is attempting to trade a player that knows his time in Vancouver is up & carries a big $, long term contract. Any team taking on that contract is already giving him a big asset in long term cap relief. If he's excessive in his demands for additional returns he could well be sitting on a depreciating asset (Luongo isn't going to increase in value playing a backup role) while being denied the opportunity to sign, re-sign or trade for other assets due to lack of cap space. Insisting on too much value up front can result in less value in total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
returnofthejets Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Wouldn't that be something, Nucks and Hawks meet up again in the playoffs, but this time Lou in a Hawks jersey. Nucks put up a 7 spot in game 7 on Lou. But not to fast, Toews still leads the Hawks to an 8-7 game 7 win and clinch the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Wouldn't that be something, Nucks and Hawks meet up again in the playoffs, but this time Lou in a Hawks jersey. Nucks put up a 7 spot in game 7 on Lou. But not to fast, Toews still leads the Canucks to an 8-7 game 7 win and clinch the series. Or maybe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Is that contract even movable? 10 years? Wow. I find Luongo to be kind of arrogant about it, like he doesn't realize he's anchored by that contract and there are a lot of great goalies. TBay maybe? I know about Lindback, but... There can't be a ton of interest, he can hardly afford to be really selective about it imho. He comes across like he's kinda calling the shots...it's weird. He needs to wake up. LOL welcome to February. It's clear that it in fact is, since at least 2 teams have confirmed they are interested. Despite what you think the asking price is and what the price should be, that's the only thing left to be determined. I am convinced Florida and Toronto are the only two serious bidders at this point. I'm sure Chicago inquired, as did Tampa Bay before acquiring Lindback, as did New Jersey before Brodeur re-signed, as did probably San Jose, Edmonton and maybe a few others. The asking price is whats left to be determined. I'm sure Gillis has his price that he wants, and I'm sure it's way too high. But I'm fine with that, that's his job. I'm sure he doesn't care if he comes across as arogant or stubborn because what good GM isn't? All that has to happen now is either Toronto or Florida get nervous and bring their price up a little, or Gillis gives in a little and brings the price down. This is what I'm guessing. If it's Florida: Gillis' asking price: Top Prospect (Howden/Huberdeau/Bjugstad/Gudbranson) Roster Player (Bergenheim/Matthias/Versteeg/Ellerby/Santorelli) Back-up Goalie (Clemensen or Theodore) Draft Pick Florida's asking price: Mid-level Prospect (Robak/Shore/Petrovic) Roster Player (Matthias/Ellerby/Santorelli) Goalie OR Pick I's expect the eventual package to fall somewhere in between. Here's what I'd venture to guess: Colby Robak or Alex Petrovic Shawn Matthias Jose Theodore or Scott Clemensen 2nd/3rd Round pick OR Quinten Howden Theodore/Clemensen 2nd Round Pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Or maybe... If you are attempting to suggest taht Toews might be what would come back the other way, all I can say is keep the entertainment coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 LOL welcome to February. February is appropriate, because the return will make most Nuck fans shiver... The bad contract will be first and foremost... As it will limit the return... Trying to retain both tenders after this point would only be bad ju-ju... The Nucks are backed into the proverbial rock and a hard place on this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invin Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 I'm probably biased, but I feel that the pressure is on Gillis more as time goes on. The other teams have options, maybe not as good of goalies, but potentially better bang for the buck, whereas Gillis has a huge contract on a guy who doesn't see himself playing there anymore, especially as a backup. That's a pretty awkward situation, and I think the other GMs can smell it and aren't willing to trade anywhere near what Gillis thinks he can get. Luongo in a Hawks jersey would be... very interesting. I'd cheer for him. Slowly, the Vancouver taint would wash away I didn't think the Hawks vs. Canucks playoff series could get any better, but that'd really put it over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 If you are attempting to suggest taht Toews might be what would come back the other way, all I can say is keep the entertainment coming Hence the " " February is appropriate, because the return will make most Nuck fans shiver... The bad contract will be first and foremost... As it will limit the return... Trying to retain both tenders after this point would only be bad ju-ju... The Nucks are backed into the proverbial rock and a hard place on this one... I hope you didn't stop reading there... Point was that the talk of Luongo not being able to be traded was February. Most people have gotten past that and can see that it's not true, argue all you want how it will dimish the number or teams interested, or the return, that's valid. But to say he can't be traded because of his contract is simply wrong. I'm probably biased, but I feel that the pressure is on Gillis more as time goes on. The other teams have options, maybe not as good of goalies, but potentially better bang for the buck, whereas Gillis has a huge contract on a guy who doesn't see himself playing there anymore, especially as a backup. That's a pretty awkward situation, and I think the other GMs can smell it and aren't willing to trade anywhere near what Gillis thinks he can get. Luongo in a Hawks jersey would be... very interesting. I'd cheer for him. Slowly, the Vancouver taint would wash away I didn't think the Hawks vs. Canucks playoff series could get any better, but that'd really put it over the top. There isn't a single goalie available via Free Agency that is capable of being the #1 on any team. Roloson? Niittymaki? Huet? Auld? And are there any available via trade? I don't think Harding is going anywhere, or else they wouldn't have signed him. There isn't any other "#2 capable of being a #1" left out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsp393 Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Lou for lecav seems equal value to me. I am also one of the people who think lou if highly over rated in every way. Unfortunatly the nucks don't need lecav unless they deside to put him on the wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zirakzigil Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Lou for lecav seems equal value to me. I am also one of the people who think lou if highly over rated in every way. Unfortunatly the nucks don't need lecav unless they deside to put him on the wing. Except the whole thing of Tampa having already traded for a goalie and not wanting to move their captain.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eliar Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 It seems as though Luongo might be softening his stance on the Hawks as a possibility... I have to wonder how the Nucks faithful would feel about that... Honestly, I just respect the guy too much to cheer against him. If he goes to the Hawks then I'll probably soften my stance on the Hawks, too. But I'm afraid that he'll be walking a razor-thin line in Chicago. The smallest gaffe and the entire city will chew him up and spit him out, simply because of the rivalry. I would however, enjoy a good return from Chicago, such as Bolland. He's one of those guys you love to hate when you're playing him but so easy to love him when he's wearing you colours. Kind of like Burrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Honestly, I just respect the guy too much to cheer against him. If he goes to the Hawks then I'll probably soften my stance on the Hawks, too. But I'm afraid that he'll be walking a razor-thin line in Chicago. The smallest gaffe and the entire city will chew him up and spit him out, simply because of the rivalry. I would however, enjoy a good return from Chicago, such as Bolland. He's one of those guys you love to hate when you're playing him but so easy to love him when he's wearing you colours. Kind of like Burrows. Bolland is not enough of a return. Max Lapierre will be a good #3 center for us, and Bolland is not that much better than Max. Since Chicago is a rival, in our conference and also a cup contender, we would have to get A LOT better in order for us to help Chicago get better. This means overpayment. I don't think a deal should be done with Chicago unless one of the big 6 are coming to Vancouver (Toews, Kane, Sharp, Hossa, Keith Seabrook) which I don't say happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Bolland is not enough of a return. Max Lapierre will be a good #3 center for us, and Bolland is not that much better than Max. Since Chicago is a rival, in our conference and also a cup contender, we would have to get A LOT better in order for us to help Chicago get better. This means overpayment. I don't think a deal should be done with Chicago unless one of the big 6 are coming to Vancouver (Toews, Kane, Sharp, Hossa, Keith Seabrook) which I don't say happening. Since Chicago is a rival, I agree, you would only want to trade with them if they overpaid. But Bolland is exactly the 3rd line C you need. Sorry, but Lapierre is nothing close to what Bolland brings. If it were Bolland and anything (like a 2nd or something - no chance of Bolland + Saad like I read somewhere), I would take that if I were a Nucks fan. Fortunately, I am not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Since Chicago is a rival, I agree, you would only want to trade with them if they overpaid. But Bolland is exactly the 3rd line C you need. Sorry, but Lapierre is nothing close to what Bolland brings. If it were Bolland and anything (like a 2nd or something - no chance of Bolland + Saad like I read somewhere), I would take that if I were a Nucks fan. Fortunately, I am not! Adding a second round pick doesn't make the Canucks better in the next 5 years, if ever. If we are trading with Toronto or Florida, those kind of future pieces are fine, but with a conference rival like Chicago we need to squeeze every ounce of value out of the current Blackhawks and onto the current Canucks. With Bolland, it would have to be another solid "now" piece like Stalberg or Kruger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derftrocity Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Adding a second round pick doesn't make the Canucks better in the next 5 years, if ever. If we are trading with Toronto or Florida, those kind of future pieces are fine, but with a conference rival like Chicago we need to squeeze every ounce of value out of the current Blackhawks and onto the current Canucks. With Bolland, it would have to be another solid "now" piece like Stalberg or Kruger. Hi Donnie, I agree, Canucks will likely not take the 2nd rounder for the Canucks to be better. With the ages of their core going up, the window to win was a couple years ago. Majority of the Canucks core are coming off from their prime so pieces added will need to be helpful to the team now. I don't know if Chicago will be willing to let go of Bolland. That kid has a couple more gears come playoff time. He might be a bit quiet during the regular season but in the playoff Bolland is highly effective. I think this trade would be more likely for both teams. To Chicago (Tier 2 goalie gained): Luongo, 2nd Rounder in 2013 To Vancouver (3 assets gained): Mayers (Addresses lack of physical play on the Canucks, Salary cap friendly), Emery (Canucks will need a NHL ready back up) Oduya (Good replacement of Ballard, Matches the Canucks age requirement of +30), 5th rounder 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Adding a second round pick doesn't make the Canucks better in the next 5 years, if ever. If we are trading with Toronto or Florida, those kind of future pieces are fine, but with a conference rival like Chicago we need to squeeze every ounce of value out of the current Blackhawks and onto the current Canucks. With Bolland, it would have to be another solid "now" piece like Stalberg or Kruger. The Hawks would want to give future rather then "now" players to a conference rival for the same reason. With few destinations the Canucks aren't in the driver's seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 The Hawks would want to give future rather then "now" players to a conference rival for the same reason. With few destinations the Canucks aren't in the driver's seat. Nope... The one driving that bus now is Lou... The only Nuck I can see getting a good return on this deal is Lou with his contract... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derftrocity Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Nope... The one driving that bus now is Lou... The only Nuck I can see getting a good return on this deal is Lou with his contract... Luongo must have used his poker skills to sign that contract. He went all in and doubled up and now is ROFLing. If only Luongo's poker skills are as good as his goalie skills, then he might actually win something significant one day. (and please Vancouver fans, that gold medal was practically giving to Luongo) Any goalie could have won that gold medal game even Devan Dubnyk wouldn't have let that gold medal game get into OT. Way to choke Luongo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 The Hawks would want to give future rather then "now" players to a conference rival for the same reason. With few destinations the Canucks aren't in the driver's seat. I've said all along Chicago is not a good fit to trade with. Luongo must have used his poker skills to sign that contract. He went all in and doubled up and now is ROFLing. If only Luongo's poker skills are as good as his goalie skills, then he might actually win something significant one day. (and please Vancouver fans, that gold medal was practically giving to Luongo) Any goalie could have won that gold medal game even Devan Dubnyk wouldn't have let that gold medal game get into OT. Way to choke Luongo! Serious question: Is Luongo the only player in the history of team championships of any kind that doesn't get credit for being a part of said championship? Is it unique to Team Canada that year (like it was so deep, no player gets credit)? Is it unique to goalies who play on stacked teams (Grant Fuhr or Ken Dryden have their Stanley Cups discredited)? Or is Luongo the only, or most extreme, case of a player not deserving credit for being on a team that wins a championship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
403Loyalty Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 I've said all along Chicago is not a good fit to trade with. Serious question: Is Luongo the only player in the history of team championships of any kind that doesn't get credit for being a part of said championship? Is it unique to Team Canada that year (like it was so deep, no player gets credit)? Is it unique to goalies who play on stacked teams (Grant Fuhr or Ken Dryden have their Stanley Cups discredited)? Or is Luongo the only, or most extreme, case of a player not deserving credit for being on a team that wins a championship? My reply to your question of Luongo without being a hater. Lu doesnt receive his dues for 2 reasons, 1) Hes playing for Vancouver who people love to hate ( and with the recent year here being the scapegoat for the team to trade or however you want to put it) People do not give the same worth in topic as any other player due to the team he plays for, regardless of them being pres winners etc. 2) i think a lot of people look at the gold medal game and think Lu wasnt GREAT but he was good, I also think they feel Lu shouldve had the tying goal in the 3rd period (which is a moot point because it led to a historic moment for OT) I think for those 2 reasons Lu doesnt receive the same accolades that others do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 My reply to your question of Luongo without being a hater. Lu doesnt receive his dues for 2 reasons, 1) Hes playing for Vancouver who people love to hate ( and with the recent year here being the scapegoat for the team to trade or however you want to put it) People do not give the same worth in topic as any other player due to the team he plays for, regardless of them being pres winners etc. 2) i think a lot of people look at the gold medal game and think Lu wasnt GREAT but he was good, I also think they feel Lu shouldve had the tying goal in the 3rd period (which is a moot point because it led to a historic moment for OT) I think for those 2 reasons Lu doesnt receive the same accolades that others do. That's all fair. But he is far from the first one to play good not great in a championship game, and still win. But somehow it gets taken away from Luongo, but no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.