Goaltending conundrum v3.0-Reimer or Bernier?

[Zee]

Sources say Vancouver reached out to Toronto this week to revisit Loungo talks.Flames hoping for a better read on Kipper's future this wknd.


As I said earlier...as much as there's interest in considering goalie options, Leafs likely do nothing. We need the speculation for April 3.

If the sources are accurate it's got to be rewarding for Nonis to have Gillis coming back "hat in hand" so to speak. 

 

[cw]

The Star link

As Cox says, we really have Gillis over a barrel if we want to get Luongo.  The idea of giving up Bozak to get him is ridiculous, though.  I've said from the beginning, the only way I'd trade for Luongo is if we get him for essentially nothing.  If we could do that, I'd think seriously about it, especially if we can stick VAN with part of his salary.

Getting Kipper could be OK too, I guess.

Overpaying on a limited term for Kingston, ON native Mike Smith this summer as a UFA costing no talent makes a bunch more sense to me than getting handcuffed by Luongo's contract for another 9 years or whatever.

At this point, I can't think of any reasonable circumstances right now where I'd take Luongo. They'd have to throw in the Sedins or eat half his contract - something crazy like that which they won't do.

 

[Zee]

Luongo trending on twitter. I tip my hat to Dreger/Cox for drumming up hype for the trade deadline show next week.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Luongo for Scrivens and they eat 25% of his contract going forward.

Mike Smith worries me, I suspect he is heavily protected by a really well coached defensive system.

 

[ZBBM]

The Star link

As Cox says, we really have Gillis over a barrel if we want to get Luongo.  The idea of giving up Bozak to get him is ridiculous, though.  I've said from the beginning, the only way I'd trade for Luongo is if we get him for essentially nothing.  If we could do that, I'd think seriously about it, especially if we can stick VAN with part of his salary.

Getting Kipper could be OK too, I guess.

Overpaying on a limited term for Kingston, ON native Mike Smith this summer as a UFA costing no talent makes a bunch more sense to me than getting handcuffed by Luongo's contract for another 9 years or whatever.

At this point, I can't think of any reasonable circumstances right now where I'd take Luongo. They'd have to throw in the Sedins or eat half his contract - something crazy like that which they won't do.

Is it really crazy?  They are hard up against the falling cap next year and simply can't keep both goalies.  The beauty of Reimer & Scrivens' decent play is that Nonis is absolutely in the driver's seat.  He can demand a major keepback from Gillis and walk away if he doesn't get it.

The crux of this debate -- at this point -- is not whether any team can afford to take on Luongo's contract as-is.  It's whether it would be worth it to take him for 9 years at a huge discount.  Would that be better than Kipper or Smith -- or standing pat.  That's the question.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Wow, and people think Grabovski's contract is becoming an albatross.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I gotta say one of the reasons I would like Lou here is how much of a good guy he comes off as on twitter.

He knows he could be gone by Wednesday and isn't afraid to have a little fun with it.

@strombone1 1m

2 game road trip and one of these bags is mine...... #justincase #neverknow
pic.twitter.com/GDzYMzaSnp]link

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I should start sarcastically b*tching on twitter about my work and perhaps I'll get a raise.

 

[Kin]

Is it really crazy?  They are hard up against the falling cap next year and simply can't keep both goalies.  The beauty of Reimer & Scrivens' decent play is that Nonis is absolutely in the driver's seat.  He can demand a major keepback from Gillis and walk away if he doesn't get it.

The crux of this debate -- at this point -- is not whether any team can afford to take on Luongo's contract as-is.  It's whether it would be worth it to take him for 9 years at a huge discount.  Would that be better than Kipper or Smith -- or standing pat.  That's the question.

On the one hand I think that you're making a relatively sound, logical argument. The problem, though, is that I really do think that if Gillis were looking at this situation rationally and logically then in the few instances that he had where it seemed as though a deal with another club were possible, he wouldn't have crapped the bed by asking for a return that was, on it's face, insane.

I agree that if you told me that Gillis wouldn't add in a sweet kicker to get rid of Luongo at this point I'd say he was nuts but I've basically been saying this throughout the whole process. Getting rid of that contract should be his priority #1. That he's been unable or, bizarrely, unwilling to do it doesn't make me think he's going to get straight with it any time soon.

 

[cw]

The Star link

As Cox says, we really have Gillis over a barrel if we want to get Luongo.  The idea of giving up Bozak to get him is ridiculous, though.  I've said from the beginning, the only way I'd trade for Luongo is if we get him for essentially nothing.  If we could do that, I'd think seriously about it, especially if we can stick VAN with part of his salary.

Getting Kipper could be OK too, I guess.

Overpaying on a limited term for Kingston, ON native Mike Smith this summer as a UFA costing no talent makes a bunch more sense to me than getting handcuffed by Luongo's contract for another 9 years or whatever.

At this point, I can't think of any reasonable circumstances right now where I'd take Luongo. They'd have to throw in the Sedins or eat half his contract - something crazy like that which they won't do.

Is it really crazy?  They are hard up against the falling cap next year and simply can't keep both goalies.  The beauty of Reimer & Scrivens' decent play is that Nonis is absolutely in the driver's seat.  He can demand a major keepback from Gillis and walk away if he doesn't get it.

The crux of this debate -- at this point -- is not whether any team can afford to take on Luongo's contract as-is.  It's whether it would be worth it to take him for 9 years at a huge discount.  Would that be better than Kipper or Smith -- or standing pat.  That's the question.

That's fair and well put.

I'm not sure Gillis is there though or very close - which is part of where I was coming from. It's a tough spot for him to be in now because of what he's said to the media. And the signs of Luongo's decline, typical of goalies hitting his age, continue to mount with his .904 save% ....

If they put Luongo on waivers right now, I bet he'd clear.

 

[ZBBM]

Is it really crazy?  They are hard up against the falling cap next year and simply can't keep both goalies.  The beauty of Reimer & Scrivens' decent play is that Nonis is absolutely in the driver's seat.  He can demand a major keepback from Gillis and walk away if he doesn't get it.

The crux of this debate -- at this point -- is not whether any team can afford to take on Luongo's contract as-is.  It's whether it would be worth it to take him for 9 years at a huge discount.  Would that be better than Kipper or Smith -- or standing pat.  That's the question.

On the one hand I think that you're making a relatively sound, logical argument. The problem, though, is that I really do think that if Gillis were looking at this situation rationally and logically then in the few instances that he had where it seemed as though a deal with another club were possible, he wouldn't have crapped the bed by asking for a return that was, on it's face, insane.

I agree that if you told me that Gillis wouldn't add in a sweet kicker to get rid of Luongo at this point I'd say he was nuts but I've basically been saying this throughout the whole process. Getting rid of that contract should be his priority #1. That he's been unable or, bizarrely, unwilling to do it doesn't make me think he's going to get straight with it any time soon.

Well, I agree with you that Gillis is nuts. 

And I agree with you (and cw) that, in consequence, it may not be possible for Nonis to strike a deal.

Still, that doesn't answer the question.  IF you could get Gillis to agree to eat part of the salary, how much would you hold out for?  25%?  50%?  More?

Put another way, what would be a fair contract to sign a goalie who (a) could be your starter for, say, 2-3 years, followed by (b) 6-7 years as mentor/backup?  I would say, for that total package, no more than $27M ($5M/yr per the starter years, $2M/yr the rest).  I forget what Luongo's currently signed for in total, but whatever the difference is between that number and $27M is the percentage I'd demand that they eat.

 

[dappleganger]

Luongo and 2013 1st rd for Scrivens and Blacker.

I use an amnesty buyout on Luongo in 2014.

And Gillis should thank me.

 

[leafplasma]

The Star link

As Cox says, we really have Gillis over a barrel if we want to get Luongo.  The idea of giving up Bozak to get him is ridiculous, though.  I've said from the beginning, the only way I'd trade for Luongo is if we get him for essentially nothing.  If we could do that, I'd think seriously about it, especially if we can stick VAN with part of his salary.

Getting Kipper could be OK too, I guess.

Overpaying on a limited term for Kingston, ON native Mike Smith this summer as a UFA costing no talent makes a bunch more sense to me than getting handcuffed by Luongo's contract for another 9 years or whatever.

At this point, I can't think of any reasonable circumstances right now where I'd take Luongo. They'd have to throw in the Sedins or eat half his contract - something crazy like that which they won't do.

Is it really crazy?  They are hard up against the falling cap next year and simply can't keep both goalies.  The beauty of Reimer & Scrivens' decent play is that Nonis is absolutely in the driver's seat.  He can demand a major keepback from Gillis and walk away if he doesn't get it.

The crux of this debate -- at this point -- is not whether any team can afford to take on Luongo's contract as-is.  It's whether it would be worth it to take him for 9 years at a huge discount.  Would that be better than Kipper or Smith -- or standing pat.  That's the question.

That's fair and well put.

I'm not sure Gillis is there though or very close - which is part of where I was coming from. It's a tough spot for him to be in now because of what he's said to the media. And the signs of Luongo's decline, typical of goalies hitting his age, continue to mount with his .904 save% ....

If they put Luongo on waivers right now, I bet he'd clear.

I agree with that statement. I think that Gillis will try to get something out of him right up to the deadline.  Maybe he believes rather than give him away he would rather use the amnesty buy out in the off season.  That is a lot of money to  simply throw out the window though and I can't see ownership being on the same page as that.  I would think that if Gillis cant simply rid himself of this contract even if it meant giving him away or throwing in something in addition for someone to take him, that should be grounds for his dismissal.

 

[Rebel_1812]

I am just trying to figure out what part of a 34yr old goaltender with a .904 save percentage and 10yrs remaining on a contract would be appealing.

Didn't Ed Belfour play till he was 44.  Not saying he played well, but it is possible.

 

[Rebel_1812]

The Star link

As Cox says, we really have Gillis over a barrel if we want to get Luongo.  The idea of giving up Bozak to get him is ridiculous, though.  I've said from the beginning, the only way I'd trade for Luongo is if we get him for essentially nothing.  If we could do that, I'd think seriously about it, especially if we can stick VAN with part of his salary.

Getting Kipper could be OK too, I guess.

Overpaying on a limited term for Kingston, ON native Mike Smith this summer as a UFA costing no talent makes a bunch more sense to me than getting handcuffed by Luongo's contract for another 9 years or whatever.

At this point, I can't think of any reasonable circumstances right now where I'd take Luongo. They'd have to throw in the Sedins or eat half his contract - something crazy like that which they won't do.

Is it really crazy?  They are hard up against the falling cap next year and simply can't keep both goalies.  The beauty of Reimer & Scrivens' decent play is that Nonis is absolutely in the driver's seat.  He can demand a major keepback from Gillis and walk away if he doesn't get it.

The crux of this debate -- at this point -- is not whether any team can afford to take on Luongo's contract as-is.  It's whether it would be worth it to take him for 9 years at a huge discount.  Would that be better than Kipper or Smith -- or standing pat.  That's the question.

That's fair and well put.

I'm not sure Gillis is there though or very close - which is part of where I was coming from. It's a tough spot for him to be in now because of what he's said to the media. And the signs of Luongo's decline, typical of goalies hitting his age, continue to mount with his .904 save% ....

If they put Luongo on waivers right now, I bet he'd clear.

I think Gillis won't admit he was wrong until it is too late.  So he won't make a bad deal until to send Luongo away until late summer.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Wow, and people think Grabovski's contract is becoming an albatross.

It is.  QED

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Wow, and people think Grabovski's contract is becoming an albatross.

It is.  QED

I'm not even sure what that means. Pardon my internet lingo.

 

[cw]

The Star link

As Cox says, we really have Gillis over a barrel if we want to get Luongo.  The idea of giving up Bozak to get him is ridiculous, though.  I've said from the beginning, the only way I'd trade for Luongo is if we get him for essentially nothing.  If we could do that, I'd think seriously about it, especially if we can stick VAN with part of his salary.

Getting Kipper could be OK too, I guess.

Overpaying on a limited term for Kingston, ON native Mike Smith this summer as a UFA costing no talent makes a bunch more sense to me than getting handcuffed by Luongo's contract for another 9 years or whatever.

At this point, I can't think of any reasonable circumstances right now where I'd take Luongo. They'd have to throw in the Sedins or eat half his contract - something crazy like that which they won't do.

Is it really crazy?  They are hard up against the falling cap next year and simply can't keep both goalies.  The beauty of Reimer & Scrivens' decent play is that Nonis is absolutely in the driver's seat.  He can demand a major keepback from Gillis and walk away if he doesn't get it.

The crux of this debate -- at this point -- is not whether any team can afford to take on Luongo's contract as-is.  It's whether it would be worth it to take him for 9 years at a huge discount.  Would that be better than Kipper or Smith -- or standing pat.  That's the question.

That's fair and well put.

I'm not sure Gillis is there though or very close - which is part of where I was coming from. It's a tough spot for him to be in now because of what he's said to the media. And the signs of Luongo's decline, typical of goalies hitting his age, continue to mount with his .904 save% ....

If they put Luongo on waivers right now, I bet he'd clear.

I think Gillis won't admit he was wrong until it is too late.  So he won't make a bad deal until to send Luongo away until late summer.

But by then, with the cap dropping by $6 mil or so, after the GMs have gone nuts spending what silly money they have on UFAs, it may well be too late.

I think it's heated up some because reality might be starting to set in for Gillis and company. .

The Province media link
If a draft pick and a low-rent prospect is all the Canucks are going to be offered for Roberto Luongo, they are not likely trading him, meaning, of course, he will play again in a Canucks uniform. Or rot on the bench.

Just days from the deadline, the Canucks seem to still believe they can get a player to help them immediately plus a piece, or even two, for the future.
It sure looks like wishful thinking this year anyway.

What they could be banking on is an offseason which is set to be the summer of the goalie. Call it The Great Goalie Scramble.
Yes, it means there could be more teams looking for a goalie, and that?s alluring to the Canucks.
But, keep in mind, it?s mostly because of the big number of goalies who could be available.
Consider the free agents could include Mike Smith, Jimmy Howard, and Niklas Backstrom.
The trade market could include Ryan Miller, Jonathan Bernier, Jaro Halak and either Ben Bishop or Craig Anderson.
The wild cards promise to be Tim Thomas and Ilya Bryzgalov, if the Flyers buy him out.

That?s some list right there, and it would leave teams in need of a goalie, but it would also give those teams a lot of options.

The salary cap is declining which the Canucks are willing to bet will actually make Luongo?s deal more palatable because of his relatively low cap hit of $5.3 million.
But if he is still on the Vancouver roster after July 5, it could impact plans the Canucks have in free agency. And if you get to August and he?s not traded, what then?

Age is becoming an issue. Luongo is about to turn 34 and the save percentage leaders are not loaded with old timers. Just one in the top 20 in save percentage is older.

The other thing going on is that the clock is ticking on the Canucks roster. They need to win soon. And the way the Pens, Bruins, Ducks & Hawks are playing, the Canucks have about a 4% chance of winning a Cup this season. Could be worse if the Hawks land the Sabres Miller and he plays well for them.

Gillis is under a lot of pressure because he was brought into a good roster with one mandate: win a Cup. Can you imagine how a compliance buyout for Luongo meeting would go over for him?

If the Canucks make an early exit from the playoffs, Luongo may remain with the Canucks longer than Gillis.

 

[Corn Flake]

Luongo for Connolly and Liles.

Nucks get a centre and some defensive mobility, we send them a long-ish contract we probably don't need going forward, which helps offset the Luongo contract. 

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Luongo for Connolly and Liles.

Nucks get a centre and some defensive mobility, we send them a long-ish contract we probably don't need going forward, which helps offset the Luongo contract. 

That's about the only deal I'd consider for Luongo and even at that, I would still regret the 10 years on his deal and dry heave every time I look at the cap.

And then who else goes? Reimer or Scrivens?