Gillis rips Maple Leafs, Toronto media for propagating the notion that the Canucks have "asked for too much" in a Luongo trade

Thomas Drance
January 18 2013 11:48AM

Canucks General Manager Mike Gillis appears poised to enter this season with star goaltender Roberto Luongo - the subject of endless trade rumours for the past seven months or so - still on the roster. In an appearance on the Team 1040 morning show hosted by Scott Rintoul and Vancouver Province beat-writer Jason Botchford, Mike Gillis was asked by Botchford to directly address whether or not the team was in fact "asking for too much" in return for the league's second best goaltender and his monster life-time contract.

Not one to mince words or dance around the issue, Gillis responded with guns blazing and took a shot at the Maple Leafs and what he obviously sees as their manipulation of the sports media in the Toronto market:

"Fair value is different for every team that you speak to because they have different players, they have different concerns and different contractual issues that play into what they have available that you might want. The notion that we were asking for too much was floated in the Toronto media by a team that was extremely interested in acquiring Roberto and were using every means possible to try and force us to do something that we didn't think was right. That's nothing new in this business and it's' not the type of pressure that I'm going to succumb too."

Thems fighting words! Read on past the jump.

Lots of credit here belongs to Jason Botchford, who along with Matt Sekeres, is the Vancouver sports radio personality we can count on to press the subject when he's got a guy like Mike Gillis dropping solid gold. Botch followed up Gillis' answer on the "too much" question by asking the Canucks President and General Manger to address the notion that " a potential deal with Toronto" is  "dead." What did Gillis think of that?

"I don't care, there's a lot of stuff that's going to happen in the first two weeks of this season. If you start giving all-star players away you'll be at the bottom of this league in a hurry. So we have two really good goalies, I don't know what's going to happen with others team - players might not play well, there may be injuries that they have at that position which may change the landscape. But as it sits today, we need to get something in return that is going to help our team and we're not in the business of just helping other teams so...

I'm comfortable with both these guys starting the season here, I'll be comfortable if we finish the season with them. If something happens and comes our way that allows us to improve, then we're going to do it. And it's all subject to Luongo wanting to go to that city. So, it is a little bit more complicated than people like to think but we feel very comfortable with where we sit today with our goalies."

Translation: "have fun with Reimer and Scrivens Mr. Nonis, I'm just going to sit back and watch Luongo and Schneider both post .930 even-strength save percentages until someone comes to their senses, remembers how ridiculously good Luongo is, and offers me something helpful for his services."

Ultimately, I tend to think that Mike Gillis is playing with fire here and that the same things that could alter the trade market landscape in Vancouver's favour (Gillis specifically mentioned injury and lacklustre performances by other team's goaltenders) could also work against the Canucks should Luongo falter in the early going, or get hurt. But I do appreciate him calling a spade a spade, mocking the mittenstringers in the Toronto sports media and I  admire his unyielding insistence (a clear euphemism for: stubbornness) on the subject of getting "fair value" for one of the league's best goaltender.

Whether Gillis' patient gambit works out for the Canucks long-term, or not, I really have no idea and we won't be able to analyze that until we see specifically what the return looks like. But from a hockey-ops paradigm, it certainly does make more sense to keep Roberto Luongo around this season, than to settle for a return in which Tyler Bozak (and his expiring deal) is the best piece coming the other way.

3136ae487fac57943f99a50e66e4d6cf
Thomas Drance lives in Toronto, eats spicy food and writes about hockey. He is an NHL News Editor at theScore, the ex-managing editor of CanucksArmy.com and an opinionated blowhard to boot. You can follow him on twitter @thomasdrance.
Avatar
#1 Cam Charron
January 18 2013, 12:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

For clarity here, Damien Cox suggested that Roberto Luongo was a "backup goalie" on his Twitter feed yesterday.

Avatar
#2 UInknown Comic
January 18 2013, 01:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Damien Cox is Nonis' lap dog? No way.

Let's also consider the player evaluation pedigree of Nonis vs Gillis.

Avatar
#3 253QuakesFan
January 18 2013, 01:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Haven't we learned to ignore the Toronto media? No? I mean I know there's the Toronto Sports Network, but expecting Damo to be anything other than a Leafs Lapdog is expecting too much.

Avatar
#4 Will
January 18 2013, 01:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Gillis is speaking nothing but the truth. A certain Mr. D. Cox has been going overboard with discrediting the value of Luongo at a time where it's easiest to do so -- when he hasn't played for a long time, and when the last time he played, he was replaced for another guy who played phenomenally. What many are failing to acknowledge is that Luongo, however you put it, is still an elite goaltender.

I completely agree with what Gillis is doing -- in a shortened season, with so many back-to-back games and x games in x+3 nights, you want to have two capable goaltenders to share the increased load. Keeping Luongo around may be a risk, but it's one that's outweighed by the benefits. If one goalie gets hurt, it's okay -- you've got another. If Luongo plays well, it increases his market value. If Schneider falters, well you've still got Lu. Ultimately, both guys with be more fresh from the increased rest, and I think the competition will bring out the best of them, just as it has for the past few years.

The only real risk I can see is that Luongo doesn't play well. All this does is lower his trade value, but a team desperate for a goalie (which very well may occur in the shortened season, since most teams will still be in the running for a playoff spot) will surely be willing to overlook recent struggles, hoping that fresh scenery will be the spark he needs.

Avatar
#5 Cheops
January 18 2013, 02:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The irony of all this is that Bluebird Banter spent a good chunk of last season and early this winter bitching that the Boston Red Sox media was doing this same thing to the Blue Jays.

Avatar
#6 Pinch
January 18 2013, 03:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

People like to make Gillis out to be some stubborn misguided idealist in this whole affair, but what I really hear him saying is that he's not going to make a trade unless it improves his team. And why should he? People like to view trades in a sort of vacuum, but from the Canuck's standpoint, whether or not a trade is made should be entirely based on one question; will this make our team better? Gillis doesn't think that trading Luongo at this point in time will improve the Canucks, so he's not trading him, and its to the betterment of the organization that he's hasn't.

Avatar
#7 Kurt
January 18 2013, 03:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Sorry, but a players value is what the market will pay. Nothing more, nothing less. If Gillis has an idea in his mind of value but nobody will pay it, well the price is too high. Plain and simple. There is no conspiracy to drive down the value and steal him away, that is ridiculous. Columbus learned they had to lower their price and they had multiple teams interested, not just the Leafs.....

As the article suggests, Gillis is playing with fire. But why single out Lou when saying its risky and that he could falter out of the gates... I'd say it is much more potentially toxic, and arguably much more likely for Cory to flounder early on. Lou is a proven all-star goalie. Cory has played 60 NHL games. I'd put the odds of him faltering under this crushing pressure more likely and then the whole thing could seriously blow up into a complete sideshow.... WAY worse than Lou faltering out of the gates would be Cory faltering. I can only imagine the media circus....

Gillis' stubborness is reckless and risky. It could work, but it really could blow up. He needs to realize that as a seller you don't set the price. THe buyers do.

Avatar
#8 KleptoKlown
January 18 2013, 03:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Funny thing about all this Luongo/Vancouver/Toronto stuff is that if the Leafs held onto there 1997 first round pick...they would already have Luongo!

Avatar
#9 Nat
January 18 2013, 03:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Huh, very interesting. Does him speaking out so stroongly like this burn bridges with TO mgmt?

I get what he's saying, but it does make me nervous...will it back fire, waiting like this?

Avatar
#10 LUONsgottaGO
January 18 2013, 03:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Gillis is a terrible GM. Only he would get in a piss fight with Toronto media to try and keep his job lollll. He's done nothing for this team. He got rid of the very solution we seek in Cody Hodgson, he got us into this predicament by signing Luo to a HORRIBLE deal, and now our only trading partner to get rid of this bloody horrendous contract is gone, because Gillis wants to act macho to keep his job. Yeah we hate the Leafs, and obviously his hatred for them will get Canuck fans loving him, but lets think about our team for a second, the guy has done nothing.

Avatar
#11 leafer93
January 18 2013, 03:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I understand Gillis' position that he will no give Luongo away. if u look at TML perspective, why would u give up anything more than Bozak+ mid round prospect for elite goalie who is 34 yrs old,was pulled in the first round..has awful contract to really handicap u in future..i rather finish in bottom five with reimer and scrivens than mortgage the future..ask any leaf fan, they hate toronto sports media..could careless what they hv to say in regards to any player..hope lu does well in Van..not sure TO needs him right now..

Avatar
#12 LUONsgottaGO
January 18 2013, 03:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Will

Nobody has ever discredited Luongo's ability. 10 years is ridiculous though, especially considering he's been slighttttly declining already, and if he retires early he still counts against the cap for the amount of years left on the deal + the salary they saved on the cap, divided by the amount of years remaining. ex: Luongo plays 7 years. The amount saved on the cap = 6 million over the alleged time giving an additional 2 million dollar hit for years he wont play. Why Gillis doesn't understand this is the reason he should be fired. They're offering Bozak, Franson/Gunnarsson and a 2nd. We should bloody take it.

Avatar
#13 Mix
January 18 2013, 03:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The best time to trade Lou was at last year's draft. Van could get something (not much) before this season. Even if other goalies get injured teams will look for other options for sure.

Clock is ticking. In the summer Van would need to PAY Toronto to take Lou from them.

Avatar
#14 fiShdonkey
January 18 2013, 04:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@leafer93

I agree in principal with what ur saying, Leafs might be better served to let it ride with Reimer/Scrivens & either draft high or be pleasantly surprised. However I dont agree with ur smear on Lu. 34 year old elite goalies are still elite goalies, his contract is cap friendly (not to mention the $$ his name is worth as a marketing tool) and he wasn't "pulled" so much as he was 'usurped' by Cory Schneider.

If TO doesn't want to pay the price fair enough, but dont send ur media hounds after Vancouver's star player. Great call out Mr. Gillis.

Avatar
#15 Clyde Frog
January 18 2013, 04:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

If Luongo was on a 3-5 year contract you would have way more interest.

But he isn't, he was extended for a ridiculous amount of time. That is the reason why other teams are gun shy, because they are accepting huge caphit risk for pretty much the entire tenure of whichever GM makes the move (and possibly 1-2 more).

When talking about Luongo you can't just focus on his short term value because every GM has to accept his contract length as well.

Avatar
#16 thickskinnedalive
January 18 2013, 04:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Gillis is not reading the new CBA properly. Thanks to the entire recapture clause Luongo's value actually declined. Yes he is an all-star goalie teams would love to have but his age and contract are a major hindrance especially if his play drops off and he retires. The contract is an anchor even though it is cap friendly now for what he offers. If the case was any different there would be multiple suitors and he would be gone already.

Avatar
#17 Colin
January 18 2013, 06:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I think Gillis and the Vancouver Fanbase that thinks that Loungo is worth his production are dead wrong and need to give their heads a shake.

There isn't a team in exsistence that is going to have an injury this year and think "Let's trade for a 34 year old goalie with a decade of contract left....." same thing with decline in performance goalies. For what Gillis wants, there are any number of young goalies that a team can take a flyer on that better fit the situation.

And with the salary cap going down by about 6 million and all the contracts Vancouver needs to reup to remain comepetitive, it's not like next offseason Gillis will be under any less pressure to trade him, in fact he may be under MORE pressure to trade him, and Loungos no trade will still be in full effect next year, it won't be for another year(I think) that the no trade clause opens up a little. If GIllis doesn't wisen up, he may end up using a compliance buy out on Loungo, which quite honestly if I'm Loungo is the best option, you get money and get a whole new contract.

Avatar
#18 Colin
January 18 2013, 06:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Further to my comments, with the new CBA penalties for these back diving deals, it may not matter to a non cap spending teams, however the type of team that is currently able to take on a Loungo deal, are cap spending teams, and they look at that deal and worry they may end up with cap penalties should he retire rather than pull a pronger and live on LTIR.

As well non cap teams may not want Loungo's deal without Van taking a portion of the deal through the new trade rules that allow for teams to retain a portion of players salaries. Looking at middling teams in general, most of them have an internal cap number they can spend, yeah it's cool that Lou's deal has his cap hit 1.5 million lower than whats owed, but for those middling cap teams, that's the opposite of what they want. As good as Lou is, he is NOT a 5.3 million goalie, he is closer to a 7 million a year goalie. And the question is, yeah he was an All star, but when we are paying him 7 million in the 17/18 season is he still going to be an all star.

Gillis is either completely delusion as to the REAL Market for Loungo, or he has a huge pair on him and figures he's gonna hold onto Lou as close as possible and hope for the single biggest sucker in the world phones him up. Between what Loungo is actually owed(NOT his cap hit), the NTC Lou has, the lowering salary cap, the cap penalties for his contract, how he was utilized by Vancouver(if he's so good and worth so much why was he usurped so easily), the fact that Loungo is probably one of the top 5 goalies in the NHL DOESN'T MATTER! You can have one of the best goalies in the game, but it doesn't matter if market forces make his play on the ice moot.

If Lou was actually being paid what his salary cap is and was signed for maybe another 5-6 years, I think Lou is worth almost a couple of 1sts and more, but thats not the case.

I think Gillis is in a tight spot, maybe he works out a trade, but he's going to have to keep salary to make the other team happy enough to get what he wants in a return. Keep no salary and expect much less of a return. Or simply use a compliance buyout on him or hope someone is desperate enough to pick him up off waivers(somewhat likely surprisingly).

Avatar
#19 Leafs4Life
January 18 2013, 06:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

We don't want Roberto Luongo and his ridiculous contract. - Maple Leafs Fan. Go Leafs Go!

Avatar
#20 Toronto Sports Network
January 18 2013, 07:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Why is everyone in such shock that the Toronto Sports Network is undervaluing Luongo in order to help the Leafs out?

It's what we do. We're TSN. After all, haven't you seen our twitter feed?

@TSN_Toronto

Check it out!

Avatar
#21 Fred-65
January 19 2013, 12:22AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

MG is not interested in the Leafs. As he said who cares what the Leafs management or media have to say. He's there to do the best for Vcr end of story. He'll take what he can. If he starts giving away all star golaies we'll end up like the Leafs .... :-)

Who cares if Luongo is in Vcr for another season. When he gets what he wants he'll be gone and not a day before that. No one cares if he goes to the Leafs or Florida or who ever. If the Leafs were to get Luongo for Bazak suddenly he'd be the greates thing since sliced bread, but it ain't going to work like that.

In MG we trust :-)

Avatar
#22 KleptoKlown
January 19 2013, 01:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Colin

You're absolutely ridiculous to think that a buy out is even remotely possible.

According to capgeek's buyout calculator, it would cost $27,046,667. 27 million...just to male Lou go away?

Worse case scenario is and always has been a poor trade return or, less likely, waivers.

Avatar
#23 JCDavies
January 19 2013, 08:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Colin

"I think Gillis and the Vancouver Fanbase that thinks that Loungo is worth his production are dead wrong and need to give their heads a shake."

I don't understand where the idea that Luongo is an under performing goaltender came from. Last season there were 9 other goaltenders that had a cap hit of $5million+ and 6 of those were paid $6million or more last season. This season Carey Price joins that list and next season Jonathon Quick will also be on that list. That is 12 goaltenders in a 30 team league, more than one-third of the teams. He clearly isn't drastically overpaid. And if you look at his production, it doesn't look out of place amongst the other 11 goalies either. This comment doesn't really make sense to me.

"there are any number of young goalies that a team can take a flyer on that better fit the situation."

They might be younger and more affordable but that doesn't make them better goalie than Luongo. Not all of those options would actually improve Toronto's (or any other team's) chances of making the playoffs.

"and Loungos no trade will still be in full effect next year, it won't be for another year(I think) that the no trade clause opens up a little. If GIllis doesn't wisen up, he may end up using a compliance buy out on Loungo, which quite honestly if I'm Loungo is the best option, you get money and get a whole new contract."

This is ridiculous. There is no way ownership will approve a buyout. Also, I don't buy the no trade clause as the major stumbling block to the trade. Luongo wants to be a starting goalie and knows there are only so many places he can go to start. If anything is holding back this trade it is Gillis and the other GMs, not Luongo.

Avatar
#24 JCDavies
January 19 2013, 09:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Colin

Your concerns about the salary cap are overblown. Sure the cap is going down by $6 million but that is only for one season and it will soon be going up again. By the time Luongo's deal is nearing it end the cap could be as high as $80-90 million and the cap penalties would be easily manageable. There is also the LTIR you mentioned in your post or Luongo could retire early and the cap penalty could be even less than $2 million per season. Also, there will be another CBA negotiation (one Bettman probably won't be there for) before his contract expires and the players and some teams could ask for the penalties to be eliminated. Or Luongo could get traded again and have the cap penalty spread amongst a third team. So many different things can happen that it is ridiculous to believe that the situation is as dire as you say it is or that we know what teams are going to do.

"As well non cap teams may not want Loungo's deal without Van taking a portion of the deal through the new trade rules that allow for teams to retain a portion of players salaries. Looking at middling teams in general, most of them have an internal cap number they can spend, yeah it's cool that Lou's deal has his cap hit 1.5 million lower than whats owed, but for those middling cap teams, that's the opposite of what they want."

We just saw Minnesota dump a tonne of money on Suter and Parise, so ... I basically have NO IDEA what "middling teams" want or would do.

"if he's so good and worth so much why was he usurped so easily"

You get that the decision to go with Schneider was an age-based decision and not an ability-based decision, right? Luongo did nothing to lose his job, but when you have two comparably skilled goalies you choose the younger/cheaper goalie (I think you said as much in your first post).

"If Lou was actually being paid what his salary cap is and was signed for maybe another 5-6 years, I think Lou is worth almost a couple of 1sts and more, but thats not the case."

Gillis doesn't want draft picks that "might" be ready to contribute in a couple years. They want players that can contribute now while their core is still together.

I don't know what kind of market actually exists for Luongo but I don't think Gillis is going to lose out on any value by waiting a couple weeks ... unless Luongo gets injured during that time.

Avatar
#25 DCR
January 19 2013, 11:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The other thing to consider is that the conventional wisdom that he has a terrible/horrible/awful contract might actually not be the case.

Bad contracts are their own punishment, leagues don't need to change the rules to penalize teams that sign them to offset the advantages they give because they don't give any. The simple fact that the league felt the need to change the rules to prevent contracts like Luongo's from being signed in future is a clear sign that it's not the albatross so many think it is.

In the end it's going to come down to how badly the teams involved want the pieces the other is offering, just like any other trade scenario. Taking a trade that makes the team worse just to get Roberto off the books is a bad move and Gillis knows that.

Avatar
#26 Colin
January 19 2013, 03:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

@KleptoKlown

Again, depeding on what the goalie landscape is next summer, there might not even be a team(that lou will wave his NTC for of course) that will give Gillis a poor return, or hell, even take him on waivers, and if he clears waivers, what do you do then? The only option is a buy out(with no cap penalty of course ;) ).

@JCDavies

The first comment wasn't about how good he is, I've said he's a good goalie, but because of all the circumstances surronding Loungo, he just isn't worth what he should be worth. Statistically he's worth first round picks and top prospects, but because of the market, the position he plays, age and contract you'll never get fair market value.

And no, he's isn't drastically overpaid THIS year, but his 6.7 million per year carriers on to the 17/18 season. Right now other than Backstrom(Minn) and Kipper(Flames), Loungo is the OLDEST goalie within the top 15 highest paid goalies(#3) and also on the longest contract. And unlike a bunch of other goalies on that list, he is just starting his stupid contract while guys like Lundqvist and Miller are halfway or more through it already.

"They might be younger and more affordable but that doesn't make them better goalie than Luongo"

For how long will Loungo be a better goalie? Again he's not getting younger, and he's not getting cheaper for another 5 years, so can you say right now that in 17/18 when Loungo will be 38/39 years old and making 6.7 million he will still be a top 3 or top 5 goalie?? Taking the younger guy gives you better option in terms or contracts or trades, with Loungo, if his performace faulters in the next 2 to 3 years, do you want to be stuck with that contract?

"Also, I don't buy the no trade clause as the major stumbling block to the trade. Luongo wants to be a starting goalie and knows there are only so many places he can go to start."

Yeah there are only so many places to start, it doesn't mean he wants to play there, theres more to it than just starting, if that was the case a trade would have been done already. He may want to be a on a competitive or a team that has a chance to actualy compete in the playoffs as well. Or maybe he feels he can still win the job on the Canucks, so maybe he just doesn't want to leave. His NTC is a barrier, every NTC for any player is always a barrier, ask Ottawa about that with Heatly, or Columbus about that with Nash.

"but that is only for one season and it will soon be going up again"

Actually no it's not just for one season, it goes down to a further 60 million from there asuming revenues stay about where they were this year and the lockout hasn't done any considerable damage to revenues. As well that also assumes the Canadian dollar stays at Par or above, even a dip to .95 or .90 cents would considerably drop NHL revenues and thus the cap.

"We just saw Minnesota dump a tonne of money on Suter and Parise, so ... I basically have NO IDEA what "middling teams" want or would do."

The Wild are not a middling team, what it means is a team that is a middle of the road in terms of cap spending, the Wild have for the most part been Cap spenders, other than last year, look closer at the bottom 15 or so teams, teams that traditionally spend less than the salary cap, for ANY of those teams Loungo's deal isn't attractive period, not till you get past 17/18 where dollars are LESS than the cap. Middle of the road cap teams are generally not interested deals that save them cap space, because it doesn't matter to them as they don't spend to the cap, a Loungo type deal doesn't do them any good it only takes REAL dollars away from other deals.

"You get that the decision to go with Schneider was an age-based decision and not an ability-based decision, right?"

So you are contradicting your earlier arguement(They might be younger and more affordable but that doesn't make them better goalie than Luongo.). Loungo has a much longer track record, but still Vancouver went with the younger option with a smaller sample size. So why would any other GM want a long term Loungo over maybe a lot younger goalie who maybe doesn't have the track record when Vancouver didn't even want him. If there are other younger goalies with somewhat similar stats in all be it a smaller sample size, why should they instead take Loungo?? If this decision was simply aged based, why would other NHL gms want an old goalie?

"Gillis doesn't want draft picks that "might" be ready to contribute in a couple years. They want players that can contribute now while their core is still together."

Here's the thing, no team is going to give that to Gillis. A team that wants to win NOW, isn't going to give up contributing players for Loungo, they will want to give up picks/prospects. If thats not what Gillis wants, well then he's stuck with Loungo for the length of that deal or till he changes what he wants.

"I don't know what kind of market actually exists for Luongo but I don't think Gillis is going to lose out on any value by waiting a couple weeks ... unless Luongo gets injured during that time."

Actually every week/month that he waits it only gets worse. The chance of Injury or Decline in performance(especially in limited games) makes a hard trade even harder. Also what happens if say another teams starter gets injured and their backup or farm kid takes over and does a better job than the starter, thats potentially ANOTHER starting goalie on the trade market. Or in the case of teams using Tandems(IE STL) there is always he chance either of those goalies gets traded. Or Goalies coming up from the AHL/KHL/Europe/College come and take spots as well. Every spot that gets taken by another trade or new signing makes Gillis job even harder than it needs to be.

The Goalie market isn't the most open market in the league to start. Look at all the teams in the NHL that NEED(not just an 'upgrade' but a glaring NEED) a starting goalie to start, then look at what teams off that list can take on Loungo with his cap without having to make a significant change to exsisting personel with the salary cap going down by 6 million, then cross off the Islanders and Columbus and you are not left with a big list. There are other factors that no one even mentioned, like what part of Lou's deal is covered by insurance(how many years exactly) and how expensive is that insurance, to a team like Nashville or other non cap teams those things matter, look what Nashville had to give up to get rid of Lombardi's non insured contract.

Again, Loungo is a good goalie, even a great goalie but to expect you are going to get back a top 6 forward/top 4 D or a high first plus top prospects is silly. Loungo is the oldest player among the top 15 highest paid goalies that still has a SIGNIFICANT amount of years at his high salary.

Other than the fact he's a good goalie, there is NOTHING positive about trading for Lougno, and that there in lies the problem. He's among the oldest and most expensive goalies in the NHL, and unless you have a crystal ball that tells you he won't get injured and will continue putting up the stats he currently did with the Canucks for the next 6-7 years, there are pretty well ZERO teams lining up right now to give Gillis what he wants. And the longer he waits, the less chance that becomes any more likely because there a larger number of factors that could realisticly decrease his trade value rather than increase it.

Avatar
#27 JCDavies
January 19 2013, 06:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Colin

"now other than Backstrom(Minn) and Kipper(Flames), Loungo is the OLDEST goalie within the top 15 highest paid goalies(#3) "

*Brodeur

"Statistically he's worth first round picks and top prospects, but because of the market, the position he plays, age and contract you'll never get fair market value."

I don't believe Gillis wants prospects and I don't expect then to be the key part of the deal. If teams don't offer roster players then the deal won't happen quickly. I don't know what kind of value Vancouver will get for Luongo but I don't agree with you that it is a certainty that they could never get it. I still believe Edmonton, Chicago, Florida are options and there might be other teams (the Islanders can almost always be counted on to do something stupid). The "will never get fair market value" seems like an overreaction.

"For how long will Loungo be a better goalie? Again he's not getting younger, and he's not getting cheaper for another 5 years, so can you say right now that in 17/18 when Loungo will be 38/39 years old and making 6.7 million he will still be a top 3 or top 5 goalie?? Taking the younger guy gives you better option in terms or contracts or trades, with Loungo, if his performace faulters in the next 2 to 3 years, do you want to be stuck with that contract?"

I can't disagree with you on this, it is very risky and anything can happen. But trading picks and prospects for a young goalie (such as Bernier) could also be risky. Can those goalie not get injured or under perform? Giving up a lot of young assets for a goalie that never becomes a good starting goalie is also a risk that teams face. The Luongo deal isn't the only risky deal.

"Loungo will be 38/39 years old and making 6.7 million he will still be a top 3 or top 5 goalie?? "

I don't know what the market for starting goalie will be five years from now. He is not drastically over paid now and their will be salary inflation between now and then. Will he still be expensive? Yes. Will he be ridiculously overpaid? I don't know; its not a certainty he will be.

"Yeah there are only so many places to start, it doesn't mean he wants to play there, theres more to it than just starting, if that was the case a trade would have been done already. He may want to be a on a competitive or a team that has a chance to actualy compete in the playoffs as well. Or maybe he feels he can still win the job on the Canucks, so maybe he just doesn't want to leave. His NTC is a barrier, every NTC for any player is always a barrier, ask Ottawa about that with Heatly, or Columbus about that with Nash."

I would argue that goalies are different in that backup goalies don't get to play much. If Luongo wants to be a starter (and I think he does) he will have to open up the list of teams he is willing to go to. I also think he has more character than to two players you mentioned and if he doesn't have more character then Toronto isn't even an option and we should give him his Florida jersey now. Toronto should probably hope he isn't that guy.

"it goes down to a further 60 million from there asuming revenues stay about where they were this year and the lockout hasn't done any considerable damage to revenues. "

Yea, we are both making assumptions here. But I don't believe the the salary cap is going to fall like you do. The players now have a smaller share for the revenue pie (so the cap could grow a little slower) but the revenues will continue to rise as they have in the past when this happens.

"The Wild are not a middling team"

The Wild were a middling team as far as all the other numbers are considered. They were 19th in revenue and ranked 17th in terms of franchise value and they had a negative operating income even before they signed those two players. And the year before Columbus acquired Jeff Carter, what the heck was that?I have no idea why unprofitable teams sign or do trade for big contracts but it happens all the time.

"So you are contradicting your earlier arguement(They might be younger and more affordable but that doesn't make them better goalie than Luongo."

This argument was about COMPARABLY SKILLED goalies. There are not "any number of young goalies" available as you would suggest and the ones that are available are difficult to acquire.

"Here's the thing, no team is going to give that to Gillis. A team that wants to win NOW, isn't going to give up contributing players for Loungo"

Teams deal from positions of strength. If a team has a surplus of forwards and needs a goalie why wouldn't they make that trade? The Flyers do this sort of thing all the time. It is difficult to believe every team that needs a goalie also can't afford to part with roster players. Also, after a couple games some teams might realize they don't have the team to "win now" and begin to prepare for next year.

Also, it makes no sense to trade Luongo mid-season for only draft picks. The team would be better off with two starting goalies that can share the load. They can trade after the season if that's the case.

"Actually every week/month that he waits it only gets worse"

This argument can go both ways. You are only presenting one side of the argument. Injuries and poor play could also force teams to find new starting goalies mid-season. There is also the possibility that Lunongo plays extremely well and raises his trade value. That could also happen, right?

"Other than the fact he's a good goalie, there is NOTHING positive about trading for Lougno"

This is ridiculous. Luongo is clearly better than a "good goalie".

I agree with a lot that you have said and I agree that there is a lot of risk to the deal but the situation is not as dire as you say it is. I don't believe his salary is unbearable and I don't believe the future cap penalties will be unmanageable either.

You clearly don't want your team to trade for Luongo and that's cool but that doesn't mean that Vancouver is destined to give him away or that new markets can't develop mid-season. This could develop exactly like you say it will or it could turn out differently. It is not as one-sided as you present.

Avatar
#28 Colin
January 19 2013, 08:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

Brodeur is #16 out of top salary goalies: http://capgeek.com/leaders/?type=SALARY&position=G&limit=25

"I still believe Edmonton, Chicago, Florida are options"

Florida has no desire to trade for him, they have Theodore for now who put up similar stats as Loungo did last year, as well they have Markstrom in the minors who looks to be the real deal, why they would want 10 years of Loungo is silly talk. Unless Crawford bombs out this year Chicago will have no interest in Lou, Chicago is a cap team and with the cap dropping to 64 million they will already have a hard time in managing the cap without trying to take on Loungo. As or the Oilers, I doubt they are willing to give up what Gillis would want and make a division rival all that much stronger for it. They already went down the old goalie with a big contract rode and I don't see them lining up to go down it again. Again this is all based on Lou wanting to go there, but his NTC. And as much as you think Lou is a character guy, he's not just gonna up root himself/family or go to a team in a crappy situation just cause he's got character, he is still going to do what is best for him.

"Can those goalie not get injured or under perform? Giving up a lot of young assets for a goalie that never becomes a good starting goalie is also a risk that teams face. The Luongo deal isn't the only risky deal."

The difference being cost, if you take the young guy and he falters, maybe you only have 3 or 4 years of his contract at a manageable amount(say 5 million a season), not another 5 years at almost 7. If Lou falters after the first or second year you still have an out of this world amount of time left on his contract not to mention actual real dollars.

"I don't know what the market for starting goalie will be five years from now. He is not drastically over paid now and their will be salary inflation between now and then."

That's not really the question, what the market is going to be, the question is, will he even be a starting goalie in 17/18? Is there a team that can have a back up with a cap hit of 5.3M and a salary of 7M, you can't hide money in the minors, there will be no more compliance buy outs, not a single team will want to take that contract(maybe, MAYBE a cap floor team) but at that point there is a real chance he retires and sticks teams with those new cap penalties.

Yeah most general managers usually don't think that far ahead, however they are worried about what happens if he gets hurt and there is a drastic decline in immediate performance, now you have a ailing goalie on the books, worth not near what you are paying him.

As for the trades/signings of forwards, not really comparable, but still, those guys are all younger than Loungo and there is a lot more potential for value out of those guys, those guys should still be in the prime of their career while Loungo is more than likely entering the twilight of his.

"There are not "any number of young goalies" available as you would suggest and the ones that are available are difficult to acquire."

You got the second part right, they are difficult to acquire, STL isn't just going to give up either Elliot or Halak, however when you look at what you are going to give up when trying to acquire difficult goalies, are you willing to maybe give up a little more for a younger goalie on a better contract, or a little less for a much older goalie on a terrible contract? Gillis is making Loungo very difficult to acquire, and the worse he makes it, the more other GMS are going to look for other solutions, and if the choice is younger, less expensive and better contract goalie for maybe an extra draft pick or prospect, Gillis may price himself right out the market and hopefully doesn't put himself into a situation where there is NO market, because then it doesn't matter what assest you have if theres no market for it.

"If a team has a surplus of forwards and needs a goalie why wouldn't they make that trade?"

Because that's their position of strength, why would they give that up. Look at lots of the past cup winners, they could roll ALL four lines, by dealing away what you have, you've lost your advantage. In order to give up that advantage Lou would have to give that team a considerable upgrade in goal to make it worth it.

"It is difficult to believe every team that needs a goalie also can't afford to part with roster players. Also, after a couple games some teams might realize they don't have the team to "win now" and begin to prepare for next year."

Depends on how big their NEED for a goalie is, does Toronto need a better goalie, yes. Will acquiring Loungo at the cost of good roster players help Toronto(both short and long term) in any measureable way, probably not. They might move a step or two forward in their goalie department while taking a hit on forwards or D. And then while they wait to acquire new F/D or develp their own, how much older does Lou get?

Also teams that realize they don't have the team to win now and prepare for next year are not just going to dump roster players to add a decade of Loungo contract. The kind of roster players that you say Gillis wants are not the kind of Roster players teams are willing to give up in order to get an aging goalie. Especialy if they are going through a rebuild, those teams tend to not agressively trade for older goalies on big contracts.

"Also, it makes no sense to trade Luongo mid-season for only draft picks. The team would be better off with two starting goalies that can share the load. They can trade after the season if that's the case."

I agree with you here, it doesn't make sense to trade Loungo during the season as there is ZERO market for him during a season, it will be the offseason, however depending on the coming offseason goalie landscape and how they used Loungo during the season, the trade market for Loungo may be a lot worse than this past off season, Gillis best strategy was to aggresively pursue trading Loungo this past offseason.

"You are only presenting one side of the argument. Injuries and poor play could also force teams to find new starting goalies mid-season. There is also the possibility that Lunongo plays extremely well and raises his trade value. That could also happen, right?"

NO team is going to trade for a decade of loungo because of an injury or one bad year out of their current starting goalie, not even the islanders are that mismanaged. In those situations teams are much more likely to trade for a known backup or sign a goalie without a deal, or promote an AHL guy in the interm, if they were to trade for the contract that is Loungo they would make the decision in the offseason.

Sure he could play well, but in what circumstances? Only as a backup and against crappy teams? GMs are going to see right through that. If he platoons with Schnieder and does well, it could help Gillis case, of course, but he's been playing well for the last several seasons and there wasn't a huge rush to get him this offseason either, other factors would have to change in order to generate more interest.

"You clearly don't want your team to trade for Luongo and that's cool but that doesn't mean that Vancouver is destined to give him away or that new markets can't develop mid-season. This could develop exactly like you say it will or it could turn out differently. It is not as one-sided as you present."

I would love to trade for a Loungo, I would hate to trade for Loungo's contract. Vancouver isn't destined to give him away, but they will be forced to change what their asking for him. Worst case scenario for Vancouver is that a bunch of goalies get injured this year and a whole pile of good young goalies step in and do great. If the goalie market gets a little more saturated it puts Gillis in a hard place to trade an old guy on a big contract.

It's not entirely one sided, but the world is essentially against Gillis here. If Gillis wants some Vet players, why not take a bunch of picks/prospects form a team and flip the picks/prospects for some veteran players? Maybe even make the trade a three way trade? If Calgary falters a bunch this year and finaly opts for that rebuild, why not get Lou to Toronto, picks/prospects to Calgary, vetern forwards or D to Vancouver. I use Calgary as an example, but it could be any team that does poorly this season. That IMO is Gillis best bet to get what he wants, find a third team that needs picks and prospects.

Avatar
#29 Colin
January 19 2013, 08:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

"Yea, we are both making assumptions here. But I don't believe the the salary cap is going to fall like you do. The players now have a smaller share for the revenue pie (so the cap could grow a little slower) but the revenues will continue to rise as they have in the past when this happens."

Sorry, missed this. The Salary cap is already 60 million, its been set at 70 million for this season only and at 64 million for next season at the request of the NHLPA, if the NHL had their way it would have already been 60 million next year.

Yes the players get a smaller share of the revenue pie. But revenues are not garuanteed to grow. Again no one knows if the lockout did any real damage to the NHL brand if they have any long lasting revenue loss. if revenues remain at where they were during the 11/12 season the cap will remain at 60 million. Unless revenues continue to grow as pre-lockout the slaray cap will not rise, the salary cap is tied to revenues, if revenues don't go up, neither will the cap.

As well the salary cap is significantly affected by the Canadian dollar, if the canadian dollar loses says 10 cents, thats a HUGE loss of revenue for the Canadian clubs as all salaries are calculated in US dollars.

Avatar
#30 JCDavies
January 19 2013, 11:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Colin

15. Niemi, Antti » $4,000,000 16. Brodeur, Martin » $4,000,000

If you look at that list it actually looks like Brodeur is tied for 15th with Neimi and Brodeur's cap hit is higher. And I am not sure if DiPietro ($4.5 million) should really count anyways.

Also, like I said before, I don't disagree with a lot of what you have said, I am just trying to point out that it is not as black and white as you have made it out to be. Also, you must have some pretty good insider information to know whit such certainty what all those teams want to do. I am only speculating.

"will he even be a starting goalie in 17/18"

The unproven young goalies are an even longer shots to be starting goalies in 17/18.

"real chance he retires and sticks teams with those new cap penalties"

If he retires in 17/18 then great. The earlier he retires and the lower the cap penalties. If he retires with 4 years left then the total cap hit would be divided by 4: about $1.5 million per season for the Canucks and even less than that for the team that acquires him. Not exactly unmanageable.

"STL isn't just going to give up either Elliot or Halak"

You can't be seriously saying these guys are equal replacements to Lunongo.

"Because that's their position of strength, why would they give that up. "

I thought it was obvious, but most teams that trade away depth do it to improve areas of weakness. Also, by definition "areas of strength" implies that those teams can afford to trade some of those players without hurting the team too drastically.

"Will acquiring Loungo at the cost of good roster players help Toronto(both short and long term) in any measureable way, probably not. "

I don't necessarily agree with this but I get your position. The Leafs do have quite a bit of depth coming through their system and I think you are undervaluing Luongo quite a bit. The only issue is the contract but I believe the Leafs are a good enough organization to find a way to make it work.

"Gillis best strategy was to aggresively pursue trading Loungo this past offseason."

The Lockout basically made this impossible.

"NO team is going to trade for a decade of loungo because of an injury or one bad year out of their current starting goalie, not even the islanders are that mismanaged. "

I wasn't saying that a team that didn't want Luongo would suddenly want him, but a team that was thinking about trading for him might decide to improve their offer if they have a chance to make the playoffs.

"Sure he could play well, but in what circumstances? Only as a backup and against crappy teams? "

The Canucks typically don't play their goalies in back-to-back games and there will be a lot of those this season. I wouldn't be surprised if Luongo plays almost half of Vancouver's games angainst some very difficult competition. It's not like not like Luongo is an unproven backup goalie.

" Worst case scenario for Vancouver is that a bunch of goalies get injured this year and a whole pile of good young goalies step in and do great. "

I'm not really sure how realistic this concern is. The real concern for me is that Luongo gets a serious injury and doesn't recover early enough to play and prove to other GMs he is 100%. If there are health concerns the Canucks might not get anything back.

"If Gillis wants some Vet players, why not take a bunch of picks/prospects form a team and flip the picks/prospects for some veteran players? Maybe even make the trade a three way trade? "

This is what I have been trying to say. There are still several different ways this could still play out; new teams could become involved or there could be several trades involving multiple teams. Many things can still happen. Your example is a good one and another possibility is that Vancouver acquires a top-six center in a separate trade (perhaps giving up a defensemen and a prospect) and is now looking is defenseman in exchange for Luongo to replace the one they lost.

" The Salary cap is already 60 million, its been set at 70 million for this season only and at 64 million for next season at the request of the NHLPA, if the NHL had their way it would have already been 60 million next year."

Yes, next season the cap will fall to 64 million which does make if difficult for the Canucks and some other teams but after that the cap will again (as you said) be tied to revenues and will most likely will continue to rise. All of the other leagues have been through this and their salaries have continued to go up and the last NHL lockout didn't put a dent in player salaries. Until I see something different, I expect this to continue.

I agree, the exchange rate issue you point out would definitely impact the cap in a negative way and it would be even more disastrous for the Canadian teams. That is exactly the type of thing that could make NHL teams unprofitable in Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Ottawa again. It would be horrible for Canadian hockey. On the bright side some of the struggling American teams might become more profitable and would be more willing to acquire large contracts.

Avatar
#31 Colin
January 20 2013, 03:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'm only gonna comment on this one:

"Also, like I said before, I don't disagree with a lot of what you have said, I am just trying to point out that it is not as black and white as you have made it out to be. Also, you must have some pretty good insider information to know whit such certainty what all those teams want to do. I am only speculating."

I'm not trying to make it black and white, what I'm trying to show is that trading Loungo isn't so simple as waiting on someone needing an all star goalie, as most VAN fans seem to think it is. There are market factors most VAN fans either want to ignore, overlook or discount. There are personal factors about Loungo himself, his NTC biggest among them. Then there's the price that VAN wants for Loungo biggest amoung them relative to all those factors.

Most people think that a Lou trade will get you either a top 6 F or top 4 D, a high prospect(or another middle roster player) and a pick in the first three rounds.

The rumoured trade with Toronto would have been Kadri, Franson and a pick. Kadri isn't a legit top 6, but he is good, Franson isn't a guy that just slides in an a top 4 but I think he with VANs top 4 he makes a perfect fit in the bottom pairing and a pick.

The question you have to ask is, will the return likely get any better??? What team that NEEDS a goalie, now remember how to define that need, they have an extremely poor goalie situation that they would be willing to pay a price higher than that for Loungo. Between other teams going for younger, cheaper options, or Loungo's preformance having peeked and there is a decline in his perforamce, that return for Loungo may be the highest it ever goes.

Avatar
#32 JCDavies
January 20 2013, 06:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Colin

"The question you have to ask is, will the return likely get any better??? "

I could get better and holding on to Luongo and there is nothing to guarantee that holding on to him will make the return any worse.

"they have an extremely poor goalie situation that they would be willing to pay a price higher than that for Loungo"

The goalie situation doesn't have to be extremely poor for teams to make deals. They could always acquire Luongo and then trade their other goalie for positional help.

"Loungo's preformance having peeked and there is a decline in his perforamce"

I'm not sure why people continually argue that Luongo has peaked. He is only one season removed from having a 28 win season with a 0.928 save percentage. And there have been several goalies older than Luongo that have performed at elite levels. Brodeur, Thomas, and Hasek, for example.

Comments are closed for this article.