Page 27 of 68

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

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:55 pm
by Jovocop
Adding more fuel to the fire:
TEAM Radioā€¸@TEAM1040

Mike Gillis says best team on ice, right now, includes Roberto Luongo. Says if that changes, he'll feel pressure to further pursue a trade

Gillis: "Absolutely comfortable" having Luongo here.

Gillis: Because Schneider is comfortable with situation, there's less pressure to get a Luongo trade done

Gillis: Says in-conference trade is okay for Luongo, as long as it makes the Canucks a better team
:?:

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

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:25 pm
by SKYO
It appears that ROR's two year contract with Metallurg was terminated by mutual agreement this morning and he is returning to the US. No real mention of what this means with respect to this his contract negotiations with the Avs.
Maybe this was the team nobody thought of, the AV's bring back ROR package him with Giggy for a deal involving RL? :hmmm: :eh:

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

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:45 pm
by Hockey Widow
SKYO wrote:
It appears that ROR's two year contract with Metallurg was terminated by mutual agreement this morning and he is returning to the US. No real mention of what this means with respect to this his contract negotiations with the Avs.
Maybe this was the team nobody thought of, the AV's bring back ROR package him with Giggy for a deal involving RL? :hmmm: :eh:

Isn't this great? Every single piece f information that comes out regarding player movement. No matter how small, or large, will trigger the speculation that this must be related to Luongo. Can't help but think MG is laughing at the thought of it. :D :D

Someone gets waived, oh that must be it. Someone gets sent back to the minors, oh that must be it. Someone gets recalled oh wait that fits. Just wait until there is a non Vancouver trade and the speculation will be wild.

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

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:19 pm
by SKYO
Hockey Widow wrote: Isn't this great? Every single piece f information that comes out regarding player movement. No matter how small, or large, will trigger the speculation that this must be related to Luongo. Can't help but think MG is laughing at the thought of it. :D :D
lol yeah, much more fun than the dog days of summer though! ;)

However I have a feeling Ballard might get traded before Luongo imo.

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:36 am
by DavidPratt_
Nuckertuzzi wrote: Sigh....

Remember the good old days when only half the sched was televised?....when Dan Russell was the only call-in sportstalk radio show in town that only broadcast a couple hours a night?....when there wasn't a TSN or a TSN2, Sportsnet, SN1, SN Ontario, Pacific, West, Africa..etc, etc...and Hockey 2Nite, Hockey Central, That's Hockey, and all those hot stove panel discussion shows on every half hour??...
I REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS WHEN THE LIONS WERE THE TICKET IN THIS TOWN...WHEN JERRY TAGGE AND THE CARDIAC KIDS PUMPED UP EVERYONE AT EMPIRE FIELD.....WHEN THE CANUCKS WERE ON TV MAYBE ONCE A WEEK ON BCTV WITH MCGOOCH DOING THE INTERMISSIONS....WHEN THERE WAS A SEA FESTIVAL EVERY SUMMER IN KITSILANO....WHEN GARY 'SUITCASE' SMITH WAS DOING HIS THING..WHEN MIKE 'SHAKY' WALTON AND DEREK SANDERSON WERE CANUCKS......WHEN THE ONLY 'SPORTS' TV SHOW ON WAS SPORTS PAGE.....WHEN THE EASY WAY TO GET LAID WAS TO HANG OUT AT RICHARDS ON RICHARDS AT CLOSING TIME.....THOSE WERE THE DAYS KIDS.

AS FOR LUONGO.....SCRIVENS JUST GOT LIT UP TONIGHT BY THE ISLANDERS....IT'S DAVE NONIS' HEAD IF THEY MISS THE PLAYOFFS AGAIN BECAUSE OF BAD GOALTENDING...

DP

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:48 am
by RoyalDude
If the mystery team is Edmonton, ain't nobody I want on that team I want outside of Hall, Eberle, Yak, RNH, Schultz, Klefbom or their 2013 1st round pick. The only two pieces that I could see Tambo willing to part with are the 1st and Klebom but trading Klefbom wouldn't make sense cause it's the Oilers defense that needs the most help and he is a legitimate young defenseman that would fit in nicely with that group.

I get the sense that if it is Edmonton, Gagner is what they are offering, and Gillis might be mildly interested cause of Dave Gagner, but Sam doesn't make us better, too small and weak, decent skill set but not what this team needs. We need top 6 forward presence. Sam Gagner is one of those tweener types, to small and weak to be considered a 3rd line shut down player and not dominant enough to be a 2nd line player.

Gillis should be kicking the tires for Kuznetzov out of Washington. I know he has stated that he will never leave the KHL but it's a risk worth taking, cause if he ever decides to leave, LOOK OUT! Our 2nd coming of Pavel Bure.

I still get the feeling that Gillis is gonna shit the bed again with what he gets in return for Lou. His trade record speaks for itself, SHITE and he don't have the Holmgren gonads to pull off this so called BOLD MOVE. The return will be more of a 'quick fix' type of trade than something 'Forward' looking that will help seal the future of this club beyond the Sedin years, in which, probably at best they only have 2 good full seasons of dominant play left in them beyond this shortened one. At best.

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:19 am
by Zedlee
RoyalDude wrote: I still get the feeling that Gillis is gonna shit the bed again with what he gets in return for Lou.
I thought the Luongo contract was a huge blunder when it was first signed and would come back to haunt us. Gillis is now stuck with a problem of his own making and how he gets out of this one is a career defining moment for him. I will be very surprised (and delighted) if Gillis gets back anything close to what he is supposedly asking for.

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:26 am
by Uncle dans leg
What is the issue with his trading record?
Grabner for Ballard? Nobody won. Florida waived him and we got an underachiever. Meh.

Samuelsson/Sturm for Booth? We win. Honestly, we got the best player and the other 2 are gone via UFA for nothing. We win.

Kassian or Hodgson? We win. It's still up in the air I suppose but I like what we got back more every game and CoHo looks like what we gave away.

Ehrhoff for White? Come on. That was a HUGE win. Unless, of course, you want to give credit to the cheeseburgler for drafting White( :rofl:)

So what trades has he lost outright? Are you going to say the Grabner deal? Really? He was waived by FLA. WAIVED! That means "please take this floater for NOTHING". I know he resurrected his career as soon as he was thrown away but as far as the trade goes we surely can't have lost it if he got waived.

That isn't a bad trading record in my books. Now the Luongo contract is another story...

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:33 am
by Topper
Uncle dans leg wrote:Now the Luongo contract is another story...
Under the old CBA that the deal was signed under, the Luongo contract was brilliant. Not GMMG's fault the goalposts were moved.

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:48 am
by Jovocop
Uncle dans leg wrote:What is the issue with his trading record?
Grabner for Ballard? Nobody won. Florida waived him and we got an underachiever. Meh.

Samuelsson/Sturm for Booth? We win. Honestly, we got the best player and the other 2 are gone via UFA for nothing. We win.

Kassian or Hodgson? We win. It's still up in the air I suppose but I like what we got back more every game and CoHo looks like what we gave away.

Ehrhoff for White? Come on. That was a HUGE win. Unless, of course, you want to give credit to the cheeseburgler for drafting White( :rofl:)

So what trades has he lost outright? Are you going to say the Grabner deal? Really? He was waived by FLA. WAIVED! That means "please take this floater for NOTHING". I know he resurrected his career as soon as he was thrown away but as far as the trade goes we surely can't have lost it if he got waived.

That isn't a bad trading record in my books. Now the Luongo contract is another story...
According to RD, every trade needs to be similar to the White and Rahimi for Ehrhoff in order to be a good one. Anything else sucks.

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:53 am
by dbr
The most valuable asset we gave up in the Ballard deal was not Grabner, it was the first round pick.

Hell, I'm sure RD is pissed we traded that pick because it almost certainly would have been used to select a player he could be moaning about not having made the NHL yet..

But anyway I think it's fair to say the Ballard trade was a loss in that we gave up something of value and we didn't get what we thought we were getting back. Part of that is due to Ballard's many injuries, part of that might be due to the coaching staff, a lot of it is on Ballard himself (which unless he just plain got worse at hockey, is on the Canucks too).

Frankly I'm fine with losing a deal here and there, as long as its not too costly and as long as you deal with your mistakes. Gillis has dealt with most of his mistakes pretty promptly, I guess with Keith Ballard until we have to dump him we won't know the full story of his tenure here. If we get a 2nd round pick back that's a decent silver lining, if we spend $8m on a compliance buy out and stops us from making another move, then many fans will probably be left with the impression that the Ballard trade hurt us coming and going.

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:17 am
by Vader
Uncle dans leg wrote:What is the issue with his trading record?
Grabner for Ballard? Nobody won. Florida waived him and we got an underachiever. Meh.

Samuelsson/Sturm for Booth? We win. Honestly, we got the best player and the other 2 are gone via UFA for nothing. We win.

First of all, Reinprecht was in that deal so it was basically Reinprect for Sturm (as Sturm was likely heading to minors anyways) straight accross and in essentially a seperate deal, Booth + 3rd for Samuelsson straight across. Your "analysis" completely ignores what Gillis could have done with the cap hit of $4.25M.

Furthermore, just because you have a player under contract for next year doesn't mean you win the trade. Cap space is an asset. Malholtra is UFA this year. Want to swap him for DiPietro? I mean Malholtra will be gone but I think DiPietro has a couple years left on his deal. Maybe a backup for Schneider? It's a good trade since we're ignoring cap space opportunity and it's better to have an asset at the end of the year rather than letting one leave for nothing, amirite?

Ditto the Grabner / Ballard deal. Who cares what mistake Tallon did/didn't make. Not relevant. Gillis wasted a first and $4M of cap space on a guy who had trouble staying in the lineup. Furthermore, do you think NYI would've sent a 2nd rounder for Grabner? Probably would have.

Just curious - is it OK to acknowledge Gillis made a bad trade or two on this site?

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:40 am
by Blob Mckenzie
Absolutely its ok to acknowledge Gillis has made a bad trade or two on this site. I like the job Gillis has done but I am definitely not impressed with some of his moves. The Ballard trade has turned into a very poor move but unlike others I didn't jump up and down and kick and scream 1 month into Ballards first season here. The Booth trade I am willing to give this season before I write it off. The guy deserves more than 50 games to show whether or not he can be an asset to this team. I could definitely see different ways of spending 4.25 million though.

The Ehrhoff trade was Doug Wilson dumping cap space to pursue Dany Heatley. It worked out great for Gillis.

Krajicek for SOB was flat.....slight edge to Vancouver.

The trades of 3rd round picks for Higgins and Lappy are good hockey moves. Andrew Alberts for a 3rd rounder has been ok. Steve Bernier for a 2nd and 3rd rounder didn't work out great but it's not the collossal blunder that the dude makes it out to be.

Gillis really hasn't made a big deal except for the swap of Cody for Zack . That trade will take a long time to judge. So far it looks like a win - win for both clubs.

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:47 am
by Uncle dans leg
Vader wrote:
First of all, Reinprecht was in that deal so it was basically Reinprect for Sturm (as Sturm was likely heading to minors anyways) straight accross and in essentially a seperate deal, Booth + 3rd for Samuelsson straight across. Your "analysis" completely ignores what Gillis could have done with the cap hit of $4.25M.
It's hard not to look at the fact that we got the best player from the deal(arguably of course) and we still have him. I know Samuelsson was a decent player but he also was a bit of a floater. Booth for all his warts is exactly what this team needs(when healthy). he had seemingly found his game just before having his knee blown out by Kevin Porter(12 games 5 goals/5 assists) so it's fair to say that the chances of him playing considerably better are defintely there.
Vader wrote:Furthermore, just because you have a player under contract for next year doesn't mean you win the trade. Cap space is an asset. Malholtra is UFA this year. Want to swap him for DiPietro? I mean Malholtra will be gone but I think DiPietro has a couple years left on his deal. Maybe a backup for Schneider? It's a good trade since we're ignoring cap space opportunity and it's better to have an asset at the end of the year rather than letting one leave for nothing, amirite?
That isn't really what we are debating here honestly. Booth has more to give for sure but comparisons to DiPietro are not exactly relevant. He can and will play better. I would say this is a good bet. DiPietro...not a good bet.
Vader wrote:Ditto the Grabner / Ballard deal. Who cares what mistake Tallon did/didn't make. Not relevant. Gillis wasted a first and $4M of cap space on a guy who had trouble staying in the lineup. Furthermore, do you think NYI would've sent a 2nd rounder for Grabner? Probably would have.
I think it's completely relevant because the player we traded was a floater and that's exactly what Florida acquired. It took this player having his ego "checked" to actually realize that you need to buckle down and give it your all. I acknowledge that the 1st we gave up in addition to Grabner was actually the key to the deal and I'm sorry that I forgot this.
Vader wrote:Just curious - is it OK to acknowledge Gillis made a bad trade or two on this site?
Forgetting the 1st is a blunder by me, sorry. It actually does change this deal from a draw to a loss. Quinton Howden! How could I forget the Dudes' rant!!

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

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:07 pm
by Aaronp18
Cap space is an asset if there is someone to spend it on.

The free agency group the last few years has been abysmal at best. Does anyone truthfully think we missed out on signings because of a lack of cap space?