Luongo
- Thread starter slapshot
- Start date
OldTimeHockey said:
The problem is the team will be penalized for his contract regardless. So the team eating his contract will really have to be ok with the fact that it is
A) A long contract that probably won't be fulfilled in its entirety
B) A goaltender on the back 9 of his career
C) Cap recapture penalties to acquire
D) Have to give up assets
This does not a very valuable commodity make unless a team was desperate. Nik is right, even taking him for free the other team does Vancouver a favour by paying out the cap recapture penalty AFAIK (have to re-read the Mirtle/Lebrun articles). He may not be bought out but I probably would be thinking long and hard about the implications of his contract under the new CBA and unload him before the window closes.
Rebel_1812
New member
kadri/gartner, bozak and a 2nd is more then NYR gave for Nash. Why should the leafs pay more for a goalie on the downside of his career with a horrible contract. I hope Nonis has the balls to refuse to do the deal despite the pressure to do it.
Sudafederov
New member
Where is the pressure point for this deal (if there is one)?
I'm thinking it's probably like the Dany Heatley scenario with training camp being the pressure point. He showed up a couple of times at training camp and then he was dealt right?
I'm thinking it's probably like the Dany Heatley scenario with training camp being the pressure point. He showed up a couple of times at training camp and then he was dealt right?
J
Jalili
Guest
Rebel_1812 said:
Depends.. If it's Kadri and not Gardiner then I would strongly disagree with that, it's less.
Zee
Active member
drummond said:
So? What if Luongo helps get the Leafs into the playoffs the next 4 seasons? That's not inconceivable that he could still be a great goaltender when he's 37-38. Is 4 years of quality goaltending and playoffs enough to warrant that contract that goes for a few more seasons? Gives the Leafs the ability to try and develop a younger guy like Owuya or Sparks or Rynnas in the meantime.
bustaheims
Active member
Zee said:
It's not exactly just a few more seasons. Using your 4 years, that would mean they'd have 6 years of him under contract where they didn't receive quality goaltending from him. To me, that tips the scale past the point of the value of those 4 seasons he provided - I mean, unless those 4 season were 4 Cups wins, and, if we're being honest, that's not going to happen.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Zee said:
It's his opinion, he's enti--nah, screw it.
Bullfrog
Active member
bustaheims said:
True, but if he retired at 40, the cap recapture penalty of $2M (more or less) per season isn't that bad. They're paying $2M in buyouts right now. Sure, there's a bit of a squeeze since the cap's coming down, but it could be quite high when Luongo's play diminishes to a point of being a backup (if it does.)
Rebel_1812
New member
the contract is big factor. The contract is almost guaranteed to be bought out or to pay a cap penalty. The leafs are a team capable of paying right up to the cap so this should be seen as a big negative to them.
Leafaholic99
New member
I am on the fence, every time I think about Luongo, I want him, as I feel he can help us out and win some games, but is that what we want right now? It would be nice to draft a couple of blue chip prospects to help us out long term, with Luo in net that won't happen. Then there is the fact of his contract, 10 years left, ouch. I think it is in the Leafs best interests to stay away from Luo, let him be traded to Florida and then try get Theodore from Florida to help out Reimer/Scrivens.
I would love for the Leafs to get Luongo. Given the consistency of high level play he is likely to provide, I think four years of good service, followed by performance beneath his cap hit and/or cap penalty, would on the whole be a plus.
Trying to assess the trade value for that is more difficult. For instance, I don't think I would trade potentially 15 year of Jake Gardiner for that return. On the other hand, I would happily give away decent players, who are unlikely to be core pieces for the long term. To my mind that means i'd be willing to part with Bozak, Franson, even Frattin, or a package involving each of these guys.
When it comes to Kadri, I'm really torn. I think he projects to a good 2nd line player long term in the NHL. Is 15 years of Kadri worth about 4 years of top level goaltending, followed by 6 years of below cap/cap penalty performance? Tough call. I would probably chance Reimer/Scrivens rather than lose Kadri on this deal.
Trying to assess the trade value for that is more difficult. For instance, I don't think I would trade potentially 15 year of Jake Gardiner for that return. On the other hand, I would happily give away decent players, who are unlikely to be core pieces for the long term. To my mind that means i'd be willing to part with Bozak, Franson, even Frattin, or a package involving each of these guys.
When it comes to Kadri, I'm really torn. I think he projects to a good 2nd line player long term in the NHL. Is 15 years of Kadri worth about 4 years of top level goaltending, followed by 6 years of below cap/cap penalty performance? Tough call. I would probably chance Reimer/Scrivens rather than lose Kadri on this deal.
Hurricane said:
That's the issue. I think we'd get 4 good years too. It's the remaining 6 that's the problem and I don't think (by what I read and hear) that BelRog
is taking that into account - for that matter it appears the Canucks think this is a hockey deal. It's NOT. It's getting them out of a circus and a 10 Yr remaining deal that crushes their Cap space and will cost them 10's of millions of dollars.
We're getting him :-\ but we'd better not give up much of anything.
BlueWhiteBlood
New member
Corn Flake
New member
Regarding Gardiner... This feels more and more like the time JFJ could have had Pronger but didn't go for it because Edmonton wanted Steen in the deal. We know how it turned out for Anaheim and how things went for Toronto after that.
I think its really about when you have the chance to get a player of this caliber you need to stop freaking out about the pieces you are giving up. Even if the scale tips a little bit in their favor in that regard, you are getting the best player in the deal - one who can solidify a position that has been a gaping wound for SEVEN YEARS.. you need to just do it.
I don't want to give up Gardiner either but if it means Luongo arrives and we stop freaking out about the goaltending (at least until he struggles for us in the SCF's) and this team finally moves forward, then let's do it.
I think its really about when you have the chance to get a player of this caliber you need to stop freaking out about the pieces you are giving up. Even if the scale tips a little bit in their favor in that regard, you are getting the best player in the deal - one who can solidify a position that has been a gaping wound for SEVEN YEARS.. you need to just do it.
I don't want to give up Gardiner either but if it means Luongo arrives and we stop freaking out about the goaltending (at least until he struggles for us in the SCF's) and this team finally moves forward, then let's do it.
Corn Flake said:
When this whole thing first started I said I would move Gardiner for Luongo if that's absolutely what it took to get the deal done. I've been quiet about it since then as I'm obviously in the vast minority, but I'll speak up again to support you on this.
The way I see it is this: how many games in the next 5 years will Gardiner win us vs. how many games will Luongo win us? Is a top-4 powerplay defenceman worth more than a top-15 league-wide goalie?
With that said, I don't think Gardiner is going anywhere. If he were available this trade would likely be done already.
CarltonTheBear said:
Right, but is Luongo the right goaltender? You're right for the five year plan but it's irrelevant if those five years mean you win games and are out by the second round. We need to contend and find a solution to contend long term. Luongo is a short/medium term solution.