Goaltending conundrum

[Britishbulldog]

I'm going to beat a dead horse here and go on my own personal crusade but the answer clearly lies with:

Mikka Kiprusoff.

-  35 years old
-  Signed for 2 more years at $5.8M
-  Has played at least 70 games in last 7 seasons so the guys a workhorse
-  Posted a .921 SV% last year so he's not slowing down
-  Used to seeing a lot of shots and playing on "bad" teams
-  He's shown he can be a winner, lots of experience, used to pressure in a CDN market and he's well liked by fans and teammates


The nice part is, you don?t marry the guy.  He will for sure be very good for the next 2 years? that gives Reimer or Scrivens 2 years of a great mentor, and 2 years to learn and be groomed as possibily the starter.  It's a perfect fit.  Worst case, if in 2 years Scrivens/Reimer arent the answer then you can still re-sign Mikka to a 1 or 2 year deal? at 37 that?s not unreasonable (Nabokov is doing it right now for example).

Rumour has the Flames starting their rebuild and he could be avail? the problem is what they would want in return.

Though I'd be happy with Luongo, I'd be happier with Kiprusoff, given all those arguments.  The Leafs have a number of young goalies with potential.  It wouldn't be unlikely that one of them truly emerges in the next few years.  Luongo would potentially put us in a Cory Schneider type of situation in a few years, but then would be of an age that makes him far more unmovable.  Kiprusoff doesn't create that problem.

But what price would Calgary be looking for...?

I would think that anyone younger that '86 would be reckless to give Calgary for a goalie born in '76.  If we were on the verge of a Cup then I could justify it. 

I would like Kiprusoff added to the other goalies hoped for by the Leafs.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Hmmm..

On Tuesday, when Luongo first revealed he was willing to accept a trade, the goaltender revealed he had started to work with Allaire again. Speaking in a mostly empty Vancouver Canucks locker room after cameras and most reporters had left, Luongo mentioned that Allaire had bought a home in Florida, where Luongo lives in the offseason, and they were on the ice together last August.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/torontos-goaltending-connection-to-luongo/article2415082/

So they're BFFF?

 

[Deebo]

I think if the asset cost is reasonable, I'd make the deal, we can count on him for being pretty good for 3-5 years.

If he starts to decline after that, then we can find a way to deal with it then. The calibre of goaltending he could provide for the next few years is too tempting for me.

Again, if the asset cost is reasonable.

If he can't give us stability in goal, then I don't know if there is a goalie in the world who can.

 

[rdowdall]

I know I said I was torn on Luongo but the more I think about it, the more I'm not a fan of making a deal for him. - Partly because I'm not prepared to close the door on Reimer's career. I want an insurance policy on Reimer - I don't want to be married to someone for eternity. 

If you are married, I hope your wife doesn't read these.

 

[maplesyrup]

I know I said I was torn on Luongo but the more I think about it, the more I'm not a fan of making a deal for him. - Partly because I'm not prepared to close the door on Reimer's career. I want an insurance policy on Reimer - I don't want to be married to someone for eternity. 

If you are married, I hope your wife doesn't read these.

Haha.... Nope, I'm safe.

 

[cw]

I know I said I was torn on Luongo but the more I think about it, the more I'm not a fan of making a deal for him. - Partly because I'm not prepared to close the door on Reimer's career. I want an insurance policy on Reimer - I don't want to be married to someone for eternity. 

I don't think having Luongo would cap Reimer's career. Luongo would be the starter for a couple years then Reimer will take over.

... and then we'd have a 35 yr old backup with 8 years @ $5.3 mil/yr left on his deal - which would obviously be even harder to move then than it is now.

In the longer term view of contending for a Cup, Vokoun, Kipprusoff, Thomas, Harding, Biron, etc all look rosier to me as shorter term solutions - even though some of them may not be as good.

And this business of "we'll just waive him to the minors and eat the $5.3 mil/yr for the 5-8 yr balance of his contract", even for the Leafs and if the CBA doesn't address it, there are limits to that. MLSE isn't going to bury tens of millions mil in the minors. A reasonable Leafs GM is going to get a Jeff Finger down there annually but he can't plan on having a few guys at $3-5 mil a pop. The "budget" for that should be for the mistakes that happen to nearly every GM signing UFAs. With this Luongo deal, consensus seems to be that we'll just burn that margin for error so we can have a decent goalie for a few years.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Doesn't Luongo have an 'out' clause in 3 years and the team has one the year after that?

His no trade clause changes but there's no "out" of the  $5.3 mil/yr x 10 yr deal. Each year that goes by, he gets tougher to trade with that deal because the heavy odds are he's washed up at playing at a top level before he hits 40 and goalies are often in decline after 35.

There are exceptions to every rule like Roloson but the vast, vast majority of the other 300 or whatever candidates for NHL goalies that came and went since Roloson started didn't play nearly as long or didn't play at a top level beyond 35-36 or so.

As Hurricane points out, his pay slips to $1.6 mil and then to $1mil during the last three years of his deal. Since it's a pre 35 yr old contract, he can walk away after seven years with most of his dough and the team  won't have to carry the cap hit for the final years of his deal. So I think it's fair to argue that it's effectively a seven year deal.

But one should also bear in mind that the only two over 35 goalies to finish in the top 10 of Vezina voting since the lockout are Brodeur & Thomas. In other words, odds are that Luongo who is 33 now has a couple of good years left in him and five more after that at $5.3 mil of probably sub top 10 goaltending. If this Leafs club is ready for a parade in the next couple of years, it might make more sense .... but I don't see that franchise center nor that stud dman (or some significant talent infusion beyond a goalie) on this roster that are probably needed before they can rationally hope for a parade.

Getting Luongo still doesn't make a ton of sense to me in terms of winning a Cup beyond taking some heat off Burke because by the time they're ready to take a serious shot, there's a good chance Luongo will be in decline if he hasn't started that decline already.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I posted this in another thread, but this guy looked at goalies after the age of 31 who faced >=1000 shots per season and found that they don't really drop off significantly until 38-39.

http://theleafsnation.com/2012/4/25/luongo-liability

 

[cw]

I'm going to disagree with cw here.  I think the next CBA will give teams an out clause for these mega-year contracts and so the risk of Luongo becoming a complete albatross is not that high.

link
Media Question: "Are you going to ship a lot of big contracts to the minors through waivers?"

Burke: "You?re assuming you?ll still be able to do that, I?m not sure that?s the case. We?re going into a new CBA."

NHL teams that have not been sending big contracts to the AHL have a legit gripe as it being a way to circumvent the CBA. The above is just one example of it being acknowledged. I wouldn't bet on the practice surviving the new CBA. It might but I'd say the odds are against it because it's pretty tough to defend as not circumventing the CBA and a much smaller portion of NHL teams can afford and therefore, would continue to support the practice. Naturally, the NHLPA would favor continuing the clause but the NHL could counter to adjust the cap and giggle the rules in a more equitable way.

If it were not for that expectation, I'd be far more open to taking on Luongo because according to Capgeek, he doesn't have a no move clause - just a NTC. The Leafs could afford to eat the latter years of his deal if he didn't retire and couldn't maintain his level of play.

I expect we'll have a better indication before July 1 because I would anticipate a record number of buyouts this summer if the GMs collectively feel this is the way it's going to go.

But another point here is that GMs will have an important say on what's in the new CBA.  They obviously have the ear of their owners.  My feeling is that if the big market teams want to be able to continue burying contracts -- and if the little-market teams want to keep get shared revenue from the big markets  -- then a way will be found around it.

If you review the P&Ls of the teams, most are roughly break even or losing a few mil. A very small handful are actually making big money => (from 2009) the Leafs & Habs take home 60% of the profits - and the Leafs alone take home 43% of the league profits.

Some of that will be improved with the players taking less of the revenue in this go round - probably dropping from 56-57% to something closer to 50%.

But rather than the old revenue sharing formula of the highest revenue team kicking in $10 mil, 2nd $9 mil, 3rd $8 mil, etc (or whatever the actual amount is), I expect it will get more exponential - rather than straight line or tied to actual revenues. When the Leafs & Habs whine about it, the vast majority of the other 28 teams will tell them to get stuffed in a vote. The Leafs lost much of what they wanted in the current CBA for the same reason.

28 teams and the NHLPA can't help but gun more for a bigger piece of the Leafs big dough. If I'm one of the other 28 teams, why not? My team wouldn't exist purely to line MLSE's pockets - which for many clubs, it's the way that it currently is. And before someone rips my head off for saying so because the Leafs do contribute a bunch to the league, I'm just presenting it from the other guy's perspective with some regard to how the league is governed => each team gets one vote.

In my opinion, the OTPP knew the return on investment was going to take a hit with the new CBA and their valuation was likely to take a hit with the increasing (and ultimately inevitable) threat of a second Toronto team which fueled their desire to dump it. They're not stupid people when it comes to evaluating return on investment and when to get out.

I think the odds of the Leafs having to pay increased revenue sharing under the new CBA are very strong. They only get one vote. And with that, there will be some correction to burying contracts via waivers. Along with that, Burke will probably be granted his desire that teams don't have to trade 100% of the dollars in a contract - a portion could be carried like buyouts in a team cap calculation. And maybe to help sell that to larger market teams and the NHLPA, the overall cap goes up a point or two more (landing at 51-52%) or the cap floor doesn't go up quite as much. There are a bunch of tradeoffs available. But the bottom line will be the Leafs won't be as well off.

Because of that, Luongo's contract would make me nervous for cap reasons and MLSE themselves may find potentially eating his contract even less appealing if they're having to also kick in more to revenue sharing.

I don't think the changes to the current CBA will be nearly as large a step as they were the last time but I do think changes roughly like the above are darn near inevitable.

You may be right, but those are a lot of suppositions (as, of course, my argument is too).  I think it's equally likely that the Leafs and other big-market teams will be able to negotiate "perks" like burying contracts than they will get screwed by the majority of the team that aren't so well off.  It makes no sense for the league to try to bilk its most profitable franchise.

What's the Leafs recourse? Start another league? They're largely between a rock and a hard place with one say in thirty and few other in their position to dictate league direction. The current CBA limited what the Leafs could spend on payroll so they made out like bandits financially. They will continue to do well over the life of the next CBA. I can't help but feel the majority of the other teams, with the voting control to do so, want a bigger piece of that action and there are not enough votes in the way to stop them.

And as for the teachers' sell-off, the new buyers must still think it's going to be very, very profitable.  I really don't see the MLSE valuation going down for reasons intrinsic to the CBA.  (Extrinsic economic factors are another story, of course.)

The Leafs will continue to climb in value. The financial growth rate just isn't going to be as exciting as it was.  And therefore, the Teachers have probably found what they think are better ways to invest their money - though few that are probably as secure.

The new arena is built with all those revenue streams largely tapped and now online. The financial advantages of reduced overhead with the bundling of the Leafs with the Raptors, etc has largely been tapped and is now online. The new CBA that dramatically boosted NHL franchise value has been tapped. Going forward, the Leafs are part of a more mature business that isn't likely to see the exponential asset and revenue growth that it has over the last decade or so. The broadcasting frontier has possibilities but the Teachers couldn't do that nearly as economically as Bell-Rogers who have much of that infrastructure already in place and a bunch of that money will stay within those associated broadcasting companies - not all of it will go to the Leafs. So it was time for the Teachers to move on to places where they'll get a better return.

 

[Kin]

What's the Leafs recourse? Start another league? They're largely between a rock and a hard place with one say in thirty and few other in their position to dictate league direction.

Lots of teams in pro sports history have been in a similar situation to the Leafs in having one vote among whatever but have still wielded a disproportionate(or proportionate if you think a team should wield influence relative to their financial success) influence in how their leagues made decisions.

 

[cw]

I posted this in another thread, but this guy looked at goalies after the age of 31 who faced >=1000 shots per season and found that they don't really drop off significantly until 38-39.

http://theleafsnation.com/2012/4/25/luongo-liability

So by that chart, a goalie hits his prime/peak save% at age 36?
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1083507/Aggregate_SV__By_Age_From_2000-12.png

I suspect we have a data sampling issue skewing the results.

This chart, although based upon the subjective nature of Vezina voting, was more meaningful to me:
http://houseofpuck.com/?p=513#more-513
Again, since the lockout, only Brodeur & Thomas finished in the top 10 of Vezina voting after the age of 35. The age of starting goalies suggests that there is some sort of a drop off that we do not see in the  save% chart (in part maybe because two exceptional goalies: Thomas and Brodeur bolstered those older age groups with few others playing at that age).

 

[cw]

What's the Leafs recourse? Start another league? They're largely between a rock and a hard place with one say in thirty and few other in their position to dictate league direction.

Lots of teams in pro sports history have been in a similar situation to the Leafs in having one vote among whatever but have still wielded a disproportionate(or proportionate if you think a team should wield influence relative to their financial success) influence in how their leagues made decisions.

I think that is so. But like anything else, there are limitations when it comes down to a system of board voting that makes the final decisions. It did not do them tons of good in the last CBA - which was pretty much a sweeping loss for much of what they were reported as wanting. No team got it any worse by the CBA than the Leafs - it curtailed their spending on a roster while leaving them shipping the most bucks to revenue sharing.

They probably have a disproportionate louder voice at the table as an influence but only one vote of thirty in the league bylaws when it comes time to make a decision. That's the simple mathematical reality.

 

[Kin]

I think that is so. But like anything else, there are limitations when it comes down to a system of board voting that makes the final decisions. It did not do them tons of good in the last CBA - which was pretty much a sweeping loss for much of what they were reported as wanting. No team got it any worse by the CBA than the Leafs - it curtailed their spending on a roster while leaving them shipping the most bucks to revenue sharing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect Leafs' ownership to stake out a position at a BoG meeting that resembles in anyway a position that would put them at a competitive advantage at the expense of dollars from their pocket. The salary rollback, cap and the tying of their payroll to league-revenues led to some pretty spectacular financial growth on their part and they voted away the competitive advantage that the franchise had earned happily in that pursuit.

I'm just saying that if you look at, say, the relative influence of the Rooneys or Maras in the early years of the NFL or the influence of Walter O'Malley or George Steinbrenner in MLB then you'll see how one team can exert virtual control over a league even if what they want isn't necessarily in line with what would be good for the majority of the league. There's machinations and maneuverings before and after every up or down vote.

 

[cw]

I think that is so. But like anything else, there are limitations when it comes down to a system of board voting that makes the final decisions. It did not do them tons of good in the last CBA - which was pretty much a sweeping loss for much of what they were reported as wanting. No team got it any worse by the CBA than the Leafs - it curtailed their spending on a roster while leaving them shipping the most bucks to revenue sharing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect Leafs' ownership to stake out a position at a BoG meeting that resembles in anyway a position that would put them at a competitive advantage at the expense of dollars from their pocket. The salary rollback, cap and the tying of their payroll to league-revenues led to some pretty spectacular financial growth on their part and they voted away the competitive advantage that the franchise had earned happily in that pursuit.

My recollection of the CBA is that the Leafs were not too keen. Sure, they were happy to make money but they had plenty of issues with the CBA and were not jubilant about the result. Nor were they happy with losing a season of profits. As I recall, the league was also more than a little annoyed with the backroom Lemieux-Domi-Tannebaum chats where they tried to exercise some influence.

I'm just saying that if you look at, say, the relative influence of the Rooneys or Maras in the early years of the NFL or the influence of Walter O'Malley or George Steinbrenner in MLB then you'll see how one team can exert virtual control over a league even if what they want isn't necessarily in line with what would be good for the majority of the league. There's machinations and maneuverings before and after every up or down vote.

I'm sure there is and has been. But
a) I don't think the Leafs are lead by such domineering personalities who have the ear of the other owners in the way that the Rooneys, Steinbrenners, etc did.
b) The profit growth picture was significantly different for those leagues where one team wasn't taking 43% of all the profits (or two teams 60%) while half of the league was losing dough
c) For decades, those men reigned without free agency, unions that had teeth, cap payrolls, antitrust, etc and without bylaws implementing more formal corporate governance and federal laws dictating their behavior. Times have changed substantially and as those times changed, the power these few wielded eroded or was dispersed as the leagues expanded. Some disproportionate influence beyond 1 in 30 exists but those days of a few domineering owners having real control are largely over.

 

[Kin]

My recollection of the CBA is that the Leafs were not too keen. Sure, they were happy to make money but they had plenty of issues with the CBA and were not jubilant about the result. Nor were they happy with losing a season of profits. As I recall, the league was also more than a little annoyed with the backroom Lemieux-Domi-Tannebaum chats where they tried to exercise some influence.

There were rumblings, sure, but they certainly didn't ever publicly make the case, vote against the CBA or certainly not try to actually lead any opposition to it. In the end they voted for it like everyone else and have seen their influence in the league diminish next to people like Peter Karmanos and Jeremy Jacobs which will probably make itself more evident in this round of CBA negotiations.

I'm sure there is and has been. But
a) I don't think the Leafs are lead by such domineering personalities who have the ear of the other owners in the way that the Rooneys, Steinbrenners, etc did.

Agreed. Or, at the very least, the Leafs don't see the need to exert that sort of influence.

b) The profit growth picture was significantly different for those leagues where one team wasn't taking 43% of all the profits (or two teams 60%) while half of the league was losing dough

I don't think anyone can really speak with any sort of confidence the NFL's finances in the 50's or MLB's in the 70's. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if Mara's Giants in the 50's or O'Malley's Dodgers in the late 60's/early 70's were in a roughly comparable position to the Leafs right now.

That said, I think the MLB player's strike in '94/the ouster of Faye Vincent as MLB's commissioner was a case where a guy like Steinbrenner used his influence when there were vast arrays of smaller market clubs lined up against him and he ultimately prevailed.

c) For decades, those men reigned without free agency, unions that had teeth, cap payrolls, antitrust, etc and without bylaws implementing more formal corporate governance and federal laws dictating their behavior. Times have changed substantially and as those times changed, the power these few wielded eroded or was dispersed as the leagues expanded. Some disproportionate influence beyond 1 in 30 exists but those days of a few domineering owners having real control are largely over.

I don't necessarily know that I'd chalk up the decline in influence of individual owners to any of that(if for no other reason than none of it is true about Steinbrenner) as opposed to the centralization of authority within the various commissioners offices.

Sometimes that's been voluntary, such as when the Rooneys and the Maras agreed to the massive revenue sharing for NFL TV money, but in the cases of the NBA and NHL I think it's been the result of concerted efforts by the commissioners themselves to exert more power and influence over their sports. I think one of the reasons that the commissioners in both of those sports have pushed expansion as hard as they have is because, as you say, the more teams in the league the smaller the voting power of the old guard. Both Bettman and Stern have added a large number of friendly owners to their leagues that have taken influence away from the older and established franchises.

That said, I think there's real untapped power and influence within the larger franchises in those sports, similar to what you're currently seeing in MLB, but that's been largely unexplored because revenue growth in those sports have been pretty good under those commissioners tenures.

 

[Corn Flake]

Hmmm..

On Tuesday, when Luongo first revealed he was willing to accept a trade, the goaltender revealed he had started to work with Allaire again. Speaking in a mostly empty Vancouver Canucks locker room after cameras and most reporters had left, Luongo mentioned that Allaire had bought a home in Florida, where Luongo lives in the offseason, and they were on the ice together last August.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/torontos-goaltending-connection-to-luongo/article2415082/

So they're BFFF?

Gillis is 8 digits into dialing: 1-888-TAMPER5

 

[bustaheims]

Gillis is 8 digits into dialing: 1-888-TAMPER5

And, it's only 2 numbers off from his most frequently called number, 1-888-PAMPERS.

 

[Corn Flake]

I know I said I was torn on Luongo but the more I think about it, the more I'm not a fan of making a deal for him. - Partly because I'm not prepared to close the door on Reimer's career. I want an insurance policy on Reimer - I don't want to be married to someone for eternity. 

I don't think having Luongo would cap Reimer's career. Luongo would be the starter for a couple years then Reimer will take over.

... and then we'd have a 35 yr old backup with 8 years @ $5.3 mil/yr left on his deal - which would obviously be even harder to move then than it is now.

In the longer term view of contending for a Cup, Vokoun, Kipprusoff, Thomas, Harding, Biron, etc all look rosier to me as shorter term solutions - even though some of them may not be as good.

And this business of "we'll just waive him to the minors and eat the $5.3 mil/yr for the 5-8 yr balance of his contract", even for the Leafs and if the CBA doesn't address it, there are limits to that. MLSE isn't going to bury tens of millions mil in the minors. A reasonable Leafs GM is going to get a Jeff Finger down there annually but he can't plan on having a few guys at $3-5 mil a pop. The "budget" for that should be for the mistakes that happen to nearly every GM signing UFAs. With this Luongo deal, consensus seems to be that we'll just burn that margin for error so we can have a decent goalie for a few years.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I agree. I don't think you take on a contract operating on the assumption you are going to unload the guy in the minors some day.  I don't think you sign a contract or take on a player not expecting them to live out the full tenure and perform up to expectation.  If they end up flopping somewhere along the line, you can make the decision at that point but not before hand.  It just doesn't make good business sense to take that approach and I doubt MLSE likes it either.  Burke certainly has spoken out against it and he's also suggested he isn't convinced they can play that demotion game in the future either.

The Leafs have enough goaltending prospects, including Reimer, to not sell their souls to Luongo at this ridiculous contract price just to buy 3'ish years of hopeful legit #1 service and then deal with the disaster contract. 

Trading for Kipper or Thomas, signing Biron or Brodeur makes far more sense to me as well and shores things up just as nicely... maybe better.. for 2-3 years.  Harding and Vokoun I'm not so sure about but any of the first four names I mentioned solve the riddle for a good amount of time.

 

[ZBBM]

I know I said I was torn on Luongo but the more I think about it, the more I'm not a fan of making a deal for him. - Partly because I'm not prepared to close the door on Reimer's career. I want an insurance policy on Reimer - I don't want to be married to someone for eternity. 

I don't think having Luongo would cap Reimer's career. Luongo would be the starter for a couple years then Reimer will take over.

... and then we'd have a 35 yr old backup with 8 years @ $5.3 mil/yr left on his deal - which would obviously be even harder to move then than it is now.

In the longer term view of contending for a Cup, Vokoun, Kipprusoff, Thomas, Harding, Biron, etc all look rosier to me as shorter term solutions - even though some of them may not be as good.

And this business of "we'll just waive him to the minors and eat the $5.3 mil/yr for the 5-8 yr balance of his contract", even for the Leafs and if the CBA doesn't address it, there are limits to that. MLSE isn't going to bury tens of millions mil in the minors. A reasonable Leafs GM is going to get a Jeff Finger down there annually but he can't plan on having a few guys at $3-5 mil a pop. The "budget" for that should be for the mistakes that happen to nearly every GM signing UFAs. With this Luongo deal, consensus seems to be that we'll just burn that margin for error so we can have a decent goalie for a few years.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I agree. I don't think you take on a contract operating on the assumption you are going to unload the guy in the minors some day.  I don't think you sign a contract or take on a player not expecting them to live out the full tenure and perform up to expectation.  If they end up flopping somewhere along the line, you can make the decision at that point but not before hand.  It just doesn't make good business sense to take that approach and I doubt MLSE likes it either.  Burke certainly has spoken out against it and he's also suggested he isn't convinced they can play that demotion game in the future either.

The Leafs have enough goaltending prospects, including Reimer, to not sell their souls to Luongo at this ridiculous contract price just to buy 3'ish years of hopeful legit #1 service and then deal with the disaster contract. 

Trading for Kipper or Thomas, signing Biron or Brodeur makes far more sense to me as well and shores things up just as nicely... maybe better.. for 2-3 years.  Harding and Vokoun I'm not so sure about but any of the first four names I mentioned solve the riddle for a good amount of time.

Shores us up for 2-3 years until ... what?  None of our prospects is an obvious heir apparent like Rask or Schneider.  They are all huge question marks.

The real issue here is not whether you think Luongo can be effective until he's 42.  It's whether he will be until he's 38 or 39.  Potvin adduced some stats to say that there's a good likelihood; cw's Vezina analysis casts doubt.

To me, I see a big guy like Luongo who plays a butterfly style as perhaps having injury/mobility issues a little earlier than, say, a Brodeur.  That militates against going after him.  But if the dropoff is only marginal (and who can say? this is all necessarily guesswork) and you've gotten, e.g., 5 good years out of him, is it worth it?

It's a really intriguing issue.  Luongo is just old enough and his play (in the playoffs at least) has cast just enough doubt so that it's not a no-brainer.  But the payoff for taking a chance on him could be very high.  If he maintains his level of play for 5-6 years, that should be enough time for the Leafs to position themselves to make a couple of runs at it in a high-parity league.  Just look at this year's playoffs.

 

[moon111]

I thought the Leafs were trading away for a mid-1st round pick so they could get Subban?

 

[Bonsixx]

With all due respect, I almost find it funny how people can possibly debate, regardless of price of trade, whether Luongo is worth having on the team.

If the Leafs were to get him, after years of brutal goaltending, we'd all be in love with Luongo after about 15-20 games, and that's even with his typical October slow start. Not to mention he's only 33, he probably has five years of great goaltending left in him.