Page 22 of 68

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:26 am
by dbr
Reefer2 wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Reefer2 wrote: Have I missed anything or why is Tampa not in the picture?
Yes and run "Lindback" through the search engine good buddy. :thumbs:
You mean the goalie that has played a total of 40 NHL games, drafted 7th round and has a 2.58 GAA and a 0.913 SV%?

You still didn't answer the question :thumbs:
Stevie Y sees him differently than you, me, and pretty much everyone else I guess.

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:33 am
by RoyalDude
A bit out of touch with Tampa and Brett Connolly's progress but I don't see him the Lightnings line-up, did they send him back to the AHL?

I was hipped to the idea that if we do a trade with Tampa that Connolly be part of the package coming this way but not so sure about that now.

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:49 am
by dbr
So I don't know if this is taken out of context but TSN.ca is running a story in which they quote Gillis saying there is a potential deal in place, pending a mystery trade partner making a move with another one of their players.

This seems really out of character to me, I don't know if Gillis has just decided to throw this out in public for the hell of it or if the story is blowing some off-hand remark way out of proportion but something doesn't sit right.

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:53 am
by Diehard1
dbr wrote:So I don't know if this is taken out of context but TSN.ca is running a story in which they quote Gillis saying there is a potential deal in place, pending a mystery trade partner making a move with another one of their players.

This seems really out of character to me, I don't know if Gillis has just decided to throw this out in public for the hell of it or if the story is blowing some off-hand remark way out of proportion but something doesn't sit right.
This is what we've been talking about - I'd love to read the whole transcript but it sounds like exactly what TSN is saying, there's a deal on the table that Gillis likes but the other team has to do something first. Whether this is a trade, clearing cap space or what I don't know.

My guess is it's Philly, they don't have the cap room to take Lu and don't have any bad contracts to dump in return aside from Bryzgalov (not happening) and Pronger (they're stuck with that too). That's simply a guess though.

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:57 am
by dbr
Right, of course.

Anyway I reiterate my .. befuddledness. I can't think of any other occasion on which Mike Gillis has disclosed anything even close to specific details about trade negotiations in public.

(Of course the Luongo situation is obviously unprecedented, but still.)

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:23 am
by Reefer2
dbr wrote:Right, of course.

Anyway I reiterate my .. befuddledness. I can't think of any other occasion on which Mike Gillis has disclosed anything even close to specific details about trade negotiations in public.

(Of course the Luongo situation is obviously unprecedented, but still.)
So to me Mike is either

a) a sadistic bastard who is playing the media/fans like TO did last week
b) really does have a deal and is sending a message to other teams they have a few days to get the final offer in or he is gone

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:43 am
by dbr
Reefer2 wrote:b) really does have a deal and is sending a message to other teams they have a few days to get the final offer in or he is gone
I've always been skeptical of this. What does floating a juicy quote to a reporter accomplish that calling up a GM and saying "look I've got an offer that should pan out in the next couple of weeks" wouldn't?

Unless he thinks there's a team or two out there where the GM does not have complete control of the bus and someone else is going to hear the story and apply some internal pressure..

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:51 am
by wafflecombine
hard to say what the game is. If there is a deal in principle I really doubt its with Toronto cause they just don't have the pieces we need (IMO). But realistically I'm not sure who this dance partner might be. Guess we will find out in due time.

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:01 am
by Uncle dans leg
Florida Panthers Injury Report
Kris Versteeg 2013-01-21 on injured reserve hip surgery/groin
Sean Bergenheim 2013-01-22 undisclosed undisclosed
Marcel Goc 2013-01-22 undisclosed undisclosed
Erik Gudbranson 2013-01-22 undisclosed undisclosed


Florida wanting to see how the injuries look in a week?

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:09 am
by herb
I agree with Dave - not sure why Gillis would say anything. I believe that interview was conducted with Cam Cole and done last week before the season started, so who knows really.

To UDL's point:
Versteeg has a groin strain, and could be a guy that could help out the Canucks. Gudbranson is still recovering from shoulder surgery, but I doubt he'd be coming back in a Luongo trade. The injuries to Goc and Bergenheim are mysteries, but we don't need any more 3rd liners anyway.

One thing that could, I suppose, hold up a potential trade with Florida is that Theodore nas a NTC. If the Canucks didn't want him, or he didn't want to come here, than that could hold up things if Florida is looking to move him and keep Clemmensen.

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:20 am
by dbr
I wonder if Gillis wasn't speaking in a much broader sense (in terms of timeframe - ie. something along the lines of 'we have a potential deal with a team that needs to make a compliance buy out to clear cap space,' in other words teams are talking to MG about acquiring Luongo this summer) than people are now inferring..

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:30 am
by Eddy Punch Clock
dbr wrote:I wonder if Gillis wasn't speaking in a much broader sense (in terms of timeframe - ie. something along the lines of 'we have a potential deal with a team that needs to make a compliance buy out to clear cap space,' in other words teams are talking to MG about acquiring Luongo this summer) than people are now inferring..
As in Philly buying out Bryzgalov.

But apparently Philly does have the cap room for both so I'm not sure if thats the case.

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:34 am
by Uncle dans leg
Cam Coles' column:
Not sure if everyone has read it or not...

Like the concept of a Coach of the Year one season who gets fired midway through the next because (evidently) he suffered a sudden and incurable attack of stupidity, the notion that Mike Gillis no longer knows how to manage a National Hockey League team does not strike me as terribly sensible.

Wherever you think he found the Vancouver Canucks team that won the last two Presidents' Trophies in a row, and got to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final in 2011 - whether you are from the ever-popular "inheritance" school (Brian Burke and Dave Nonis handed him the nucleus) or whether you think he has done pretty well, with assistant Laurence Gilman's help, at re-signing and extending that core and picking up a piece here and there to enhance it while it matured - you will grudgingly admit that it's not such a bad thing to have won more regular season games than any team except San Jose during his four-plus seasons in Vancouver.

Has their draft record during Gillis' time here been pretty awful? Yes, with the exception of his initial first-rounder, Cody Hodgson, whose trade last spring yielded Zack Kassian, who scored a goal and fought Edmonton's Ben Eager on Sunday, offering a rare glimpse of the potential the Canucks had hoped to be seeing more regularly by now.

Would Gillis have been any further ahead if he had dropped a grenade into the scouting department upon his arrival here in 2008, and hired a whole new staff? Doubtful. Drafting late is a crapshoot.

Has the Ryan Kesler injury reverberated throughout the lineup so thoroughly that it has exposed all the places the Canucks are weak on the forward lines?

Indubitably.

Has Gillis' inability to trade Roberto Luongo for a second-line centre exacerbated the shortcomings of his forwards, or is it a good thing he didn't trade Luongo, given how much the Canucks might depend on goaltending this season, or would they not be as reliant on goaltending if they could score more, or ... which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Did Gillis inherit a pretty darned good nucleus from Burke and then Nonis? Yes, he did.

"But inheriting something and making it better is also OK," Gillis said Monday in an hour-long interview that was set up before the Canucks' two opening-weekend losses.

He knows that every one of the questions above is being asked, exhaustively, by writers and broadcasters and fans as this Canucks team lurches through early days this 48-game season.

But Gillis, maddeningly to some, has his plan for the team and the organization, and makes it clear he's not going to be stampeded into deviating from it by pressure from the outside.

For instance: how likely is it both Cory Schneider and Roberto Luongo will remain happy campers sharing a job that was supposed to be Schneider's by now, with Luongo starting somewhere else?

"Well, they're both professionals," Gillis said.

"You know, there is an element of professionalism that goes along with your entitlement to the kind of money you get paid. And having both of them may give us the best opportunity to win - I don't know."

Why he hasn't already dealt Luongo is simple.

"Roberto has a no-trade, so in discussions prior to the lockout, he had a say in where he was prepared to go. Once the lockout starts, you're not permitted to even talk about player transactions, subject to huge fines and loss of draft picks. Then the lockout ends and suddenly, you're trying to make a decision in four or five days about a premier player in this league, and it's tough to make a trade of this magnitude in eight months, let alone four days. So we have him here, and we're happy having him here.

"There wasn't really time to do anything but this. And we're going to let it play out. Lots of stuff is going to happen here in the first month."

The Kesler injuries - and to a lesser extent, one to the erratic David Booth - have meant that the first month may be more painful than it might have been otherwise.

"The reason professional sports are so great is that you're always dealing with human frailty," Gillis said.

Kesler and Booth are a few weeks away, at minimum, from returning. In the meantime, the Canucks are apt to look like a shadow of the team that was one win away from the Cup just one full season ago.

"I think this team is as good," Gillis said. "I think our defence is as good, I think Jason Garrison has a chance to be a real good player with Alex Edler - they eat minutes, they're big guys.

"But you have to avoid injuries, and you have to have great goaltending. That's what L.A. got last year. They wouldn't have even been close to being in the playoffs if Jonathan Quick was not the best player in the National Hockey League last year. And they get in the playoffs, avoid injuries, play the same six defenceman all the way through, some guys rise to the occasion, they get good matchups and great goaltending ..."

And win the Stanley Cup.

"The way I see it, if you're constantly knocking on the door, sooner or later the puck doesn't hit the post but goes in. Your guy doesn't get hurt but someone on the opposition does."

Gillis doesn't spend a lot of time ruing draft-day decisions. He knows the Canucks have no can't miss, whiz-bangs coming up - "You're going to get good players if you lose in this business, that's the way it's set up," he said. "We've been a good team" - but thinks they have a handful of good young prospects percolating in college, and in the minors, paying dues. Just not ready yet.

"You trade away picks when you're trying to win a Stanley Cup, not just make the playoffs. You give up young assets to try to get to the next level. Would we do it again? Certain things for sure. Other things, in hindsight, probably not.

"But it's kept us near the top of the league."

The Luongo trade, or nontrade, which has taken on a life of its own with the way Schneider started the season (five goals on 14 shots before being pulled Saturday), could happen soon, or in a month, or not at all.

"We have a potential deal in place with one team that has to do something with another player that they have - and it's not who anybody thinks it is - and so we have to wait. (But) we've been offered packages that don't fit what our plan is, what we need," said Gillis.

Like, how?

"Excess salary coming back with a (throw-in) player who can't play in our lineup. They say, 'OK, we'll do this, but you've got to take this.' Well, we're not taking it. We've had lots of proposals like that with good pieces that can help us, but the other part doesn't help us, and oftentimes they have term attached to them, so we'd just be turning around and buying out a guy.

"I'd rather keep the guy we know, who's a good person."

That Luongo has been a prince through this whole trade/no trade fiasco goes without saying, but Gillis said it anyway. "We have a really good player here who brings a tremendous amount to the team, his professionalism, his willingness to work - he's the kind of player that changes the culture on a team and shows players what it means to be an elite-level player," he said. If that sounds like a sales pitch, it probably is. It's also, quite possibly, true.

ccole@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Gill ... z2IjM6X5jm

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:40 am
by Boston Canucker
Reefer2 wrote:
dbr wrote:Right, of course.

Anyway I reiterate my .. befuddledness. I can't think of any other occasion on which Mike Gillis has disclosed anything even close to specific details about trade negotiations in public.

(Of course the Luongo situation is obviously unprecedented, but still.)
So to me Mike is either

a) a sadistic bastard who is playing the media/fans like TO did last week
b) really does have a deal and is sending a message to other teams they have a few days to get the final offer in or he is gone
My sense is it is a b) with a caveat. I don't think he's got a deal that is that close - it seems counterintuitive as the other gm would likely say "what the fuck? keep your yap shut" - and it could burn the deal. But I would not be surprised if he has spitballed scenarios with another GM in which a GM has said "well, if I do this other thing, then yeah I could do the deal you want," and Gillis is seeking to publicly leverage that to pressure other teams not feeling like he has endangering a deal that is really on the verge of being done.

Fact is, the Booth and Kassian deals came out of the blue. Gillis' M.O. is to keep his trap shut till it's done. The major difference here, which may be changing his approach, is that everyone knows the trade he is seeking to make...

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:55 am
by Jovocop
Boston Canucker wrote:
Reefer2 wrote:
dbr wrote:Right, of course.

Anyway I reiterate my .. befuddledness. I can't think of any other occasion on which Mike Gillis has disclosed anything even close to specific details about trade negotiations in public.

(Of course the Luongo situation is obviously unprecedented, but still.)
So to me Mike is either

a) a sadistic bastard who is playing the media/fans like TO did last week
b) really does have a deal and is sending a message to other teams they have a few days to get the final offer in or he is gone
My sense is it is a b) with a caveat. I don't think he's got a deal that is that close - it seems counterintuitive as the other gm would likely say "what the fuck? keep your yap shut" - and it could burn the deal. But I would not be surprised if he has spitballed scenarios with another GM in which a GM has said "well, if I do this other thing, then yeah I could do the deal you want," and Gillis is seeking to publicly leverage that to pressure other teams not feeling like he has endangering a deal that is really on the verge of being done.

Fact is, the Booth and Kassian deals came out of the blue. Gillis' M.O. is to keep his trap shut till it's done. The major difference here, which may be changing his approach, is that everyone knows the trade he is seeking to make...
Totally agreed. Unlike previous trades, everyone knows that Luongo wants out.