WQF (3) Vancouver Canucks vs (6) San Jose Sharks (Sharks win 4-0!!!!).

[driveway]

So long as the Canucks have a man whining about the refs immortalized in bronze they deserve lopsided penalty statistics.

Spoiler!

[Locke]

And so we're right back where we started.

Everyone not wearing Canucks' blue stated quite clearly; 'Luongo has negative trade value because of his boat anchor of a contract.'

Those wearing Canucks' blue disagreed, including Gillis, believing that they would not trade Luongo if they didnt get value of the deal. So they held him.

Now Gillis realizes that Luongo has negative trade value because of his boat anchor of a contract.

I think we can all agree now that Roberto Luongo has negative trade value because of his boat anchor of a contract.

Yes.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Luongo's Twitter:
"Strombone ‏@strombone1 7m So............ Shall we try this one more time??? #offseason"




At this point, does Luongo even hold trade value? Or does he have negative value?


If I were a GM, I'd rather go after Miller(1yr), Fleury(2yrs), Smith(UFA), Hiller(1yr), Fasth(2yrs), Thomas(UFA), Nabokov(UFA), Bernier(RFA), Backstrom(UFA), Halak(1yr)....


Honestly... is there a market for Luongo and his contract? I'm not seeing it.

Hahahahaha FUnny tweet Luongo! Almost makes up for his remaining 9 years on that monster pad size contract!

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think its become pretty obvious that Gillis is now dealing from a position of, if not weakness, desperation.

Luongo has sold his place and both he and Gillis have publically said its unlikely that he will return.

The 'if the return isnt good enough we can just keep him and have a 1 - 2 goaltender punch' card was played this year, and I think it backfired and it certainly cant be played again.

it completely depends on who wants him now

the buyouts for every team open up tons of possibilities and I think this is why Gillis waited

The Penguins can't waste year's of their core with MAF in net, if they don't win the cup this year I could see them being very interested

Toronto is still clearly interested, Florida probably is as well

the Flyers might be depending on Bryz

there's a few options

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

it completely depends on who wants him now

the buyouts for every team open up tons of possibilities and I think this is why Gillis waited

The Penguins can't waste year's of their core with MAF in net, if they don't win the cup this year I could see them being very interested

Toronto is still clearly interested, Florida probably is as well

the Flyers might be depending on Bryz

there's a few options

I'll say it again though, why would teams be interested in Luongo and his contract when there are a whole lot of other (better?) options out there.

Philly/Toronto/Pitts should all be chasing Miller/Smith/Thomas/Nabokov/Hiller/Bernier/Backstrom/Halak.

4 - UFAs
1 - RFA
2 - 1yr remaining

Luongo - 9yr remaining

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I'll say it again though, why would teams be interested in Luongo and his contract when there are a whole lot of other (better?) options out there.

Philly/Toronto/Pitts should all be chasing Miller/Smith/Thomas/Nabokov/Hiller/Bernier/Backstrom/Halak.

4 - UFAs
1 - RFA
2 - 1yr remaining

Luongo - 9yr remaining

all those goalies have their own question marks

Miller has had 1 good season
Smith is great in a Tippet system, so was Bryz
Thomas is retired
Nabokov is close to being retired
Bernier will cost a ton
Backstrom has never been the same since losing Lemaire

Hiller/Halak aren't as good as Luongo

look at the link posted above

Luongo is 6th, Thomas (2nd) and Smith (7th) are the only other's in the top 18

and to bring up Thomas, the last 3 years of that Luongo deal are extremely attractive to a cap floor team when he's barely getting paid but his cap hit is still 5.2

Jimmy Howard just signed a deal which is basically the same as Luongo's the next 6 years, I imagine Smith will (and it will be a mistake) get something close

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Locke

And so we're right back where we started.

Everyone not wearing Canucks' blue stated quite clearly; 'Luongo has negative trade value because of his boat anchor of a contract.'

Those wearing Canucks' blue disagreed, including Gillis, believing that they would not trade Luongo if they didnt get value of the deal. So they held him.

Now Gillis realizes that Luongo has negative trade value because of his boat anchor of a contract.

I think we can all agree now that Roberto Luongo has negative trade value because of his boat anchor of a contract.

Yes.

Not sure what you are saying? Also depends on what you mean as negative value?

Up until the deadline Loungo did not have negative value. What the Luongo situation had was an inept GM, that thought he could get a top 6 player and prospect for him. If he lowered his price Lou would have been traded.

Going forward i don't think they will get much or anything. Negative value to me would be Buy Out. I don't think they have to go that route. Maybe a 6-7th rd pick or waivers.

[868904]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

all those goalies have their own question marks

Miller has had 1 good season
Smith is great in a Tippet system, so was Bryz
Thomas is retired
Nabokov is close to being retired
Bernier will cost a ton
Backstrom has never been the same since losing Lemaire

Hiller/Halak aren't as good as Luongo

look at the link posted above

Luongo is 6th, Thomas (2nd) and Smith (7th) are the only other's in the top 18

and to bring up Thomas, the last 3 years of that Luongo deal are extremely attractive to a cap floor team when he's barely getting paid but his cap hit is still 5.2

Jimmy Howard just signed a deal which is basically the same as Luongo's the next 6 years, I imagine Smith will (and it will be a mistake) get something close

And Luongo has no question marks whatsoever. He's never imploded at crucial times. Plus, he's funny as hell.

Fact is, none of the goalies you listed above have had massive meltdowns in big games on the scale that Luongo has had. Sure, most of them haven't had the chance to play in big games, but at least they don't have that failure hanging over their head and in the back of their minds.

The only starting goalie who is similar to Luongo is Fleury, with the exception of Fleury having a cup ring.

I'm not saying Luongo isn't a good goalie, cause he is, but it's hard for any GM to just overlook his knack for imploding, especially when you look at the investment term. Certainty is paramount in any investment, and Luongo does not provide any certainty.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by 868904

And Luongo has no question marks whatsoever. He's never imploded at crucial times. Plus, he's funny as hell.

Fact is, none of the goalies you listed above have had massive meltdowns in big games on the scale that Luongo has had. Sure, most of them haven't had the chance to play in big games, but at least they don't have that failure hanging over their head and in the back of their minds.

The only starting goalie who is similar to Luongo is Fleury, with the exception of Fleury having a cup ring.

I'm not saying Luongo isn't a good goalie, cause he is, but it's hard for any GM to just overlook his knack for imploding, especially when you look at the investment term. Certainty is paramount in any investment, and Luongo does not provide any certainty.

He did not implode in their Stanley Cup run. The Sedin sisters imploded. Realy not sure where this "massive meltdown" that you mentioned occured?

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

He did not implode in their Stanley Cup run. The Sedin sisters imploded. Realy not sure where this "massive meltdown" that you mentioned occured?

he had bad games in Boston in the finals no one is doubting that, and AV should have pulled him

but he also had 2 shutouts on a team that was completely dominating his

he's had more great games when it matters than poor games

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

He did not implode in their Stanley Cup run. The Sedin sisters imploded. Realy not sure where this "massive meltdown" that you mentioned occured?

23 GA in the finals.....but thats not on him.

The Sedins should be blamed for it....amirite?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by transplant99

23 GA in the finals.....but thats not on him.

The Sedins should be blamed for it....amirite?

The refs man, always the refs.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by transplant99

23 GA in the finals.....but thats not on him.

The Sedins should be blamed for it....amirite?

Loungo let in 20 goals. Sedin sisters could not score. They had 2 goals between them in the finals.

Loungo played well enough for the team to win in 7, but the top scorers could not score.

[868904]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

He did not implode in their Stanley Cup run. The Sedin sisters imploded. Realy not sure where this "massive meltdown" that you mentioned occured?

Green text?

21 goals against in 4 losses?

Also 21 goals against in 4 losses to the Blackhawks the year before?

[868904]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Loungo let in 20 goals. Sedin sisters could not score. They had 2 goals between them in the finals.

Loungo played well enough for the team to win in 7, but the top scorers could not score.

I do agree with you that the main problem with the Canucks is an inability to score goals, but I think you are wrong when you say Luongo didn't implode. He played great in his wins, but he was atrocious in his losses.

Most great goalies are at least still competitive in their losses. Luongo just loses it when things don't go right.

[OILFAN #81]

Originally Posted by transplant99

23 GA in the finals.....but thats not on him.

The Sedins should be blamed for it....amirite?

To be fair, Vancouver scored a whopping 8 goals in a 7 games series with 3 of those goals coming in a game 2 win.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Not sure what you are saying? Also depends on what you mean as negative value?

Up until the deadline Loungo did not have negative value. What the Luongo situation had was an inept GM, that thought he could get a top 6 player and prospect for him. If he lowered his price Lou would have been traded.

Going forward i don't think they will get much or anything. Negative value to me would be Buy Out. I don't think they have to go that route. Maybe a 6-7th rd pick or waivers.

What I'm saying is:

Pros:

- Luongo is a pretty good goalie, but probably not for much longer
- Reasonable cap hit

Cons:

- 9 more years (34 - 43)
- $40,570,000

He'll likely be good for less than half of his remaining contract. At this point they should be happy if he just walks away and they get nothing except cap relief and dont have to actually fork out the cash to him.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Locke

What I'm saying is:

Pros:

- Luongo is a pretty good goalie, but probably not for much longer
- Reasonable cap hit

Cons:

- 9 more years (34 - 43)
- $40,570,000

He'll likely be good for less than half of his remaining contract. At this point they should be happy if he just walks away and they get nothing except cap relief and dont have to actually fork out the cash to him.

I get what you are saying now, and i fully agree.

What i was trying to point out earlier was that some posters thought Luongo had negative value before the season started. I do not believe that to be true. What they had was an inept GM who was greedy. Luo could have been traded for a 2nd and Bozak (according to Vancouver media), that return would not have been negative value. Vancouver could have really used Bozak this year and not had to trade a 2nd and D prospect for useless Roy.

While mentioning Roy, a word for Feaster: Do not go after him.

[Miniac]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The refs man, always the refs.

Haha! I coach a U14 boys soccer team and I always tell them don't blame the lose on the refs. Just like we don't tribute a win because of the refs.

[DionTheDman]

I don't know the specifics of how retaining salary works, but if Vancouver is willing to eat some of his salary, even 1 mil/season, would that be enough for someone to bite?