Kiprusoff vs Luongo in the Goalie Trade Market



It’s no secert by now that Roberto Luongo is on his way out of Vancouver. All but usurped by the younger and cheaper Corey Schneider this year, word is the latter won’t sign with the team this offseason while the former is around. Also, the older guy has asked for a trade anyways.

When we discussed Kipper and the Flames other goaltending assets recently I noted this might be a good time to trade Kiprusoff this year, in part because of the dearth of other starter options on the market. There will probably be at least six teams looking for solutions in net this summer: Toronto, Tampa Bay, Chicago, Columbus, Florida and New Jersey (probably). Two of those clubs are likely to land Harding and Vokoun, who are the only worthwhile UFA options. That would have left the Flames auctioning Kipper to up to four motivated trade partners.

Luongo entering the fray obviously complicates things.

Different Assets

Although both Kipper and Luongo offer solutions for clubs desperate for competent netminding, they are very different assets for a variety of reasons:

– Luongo is 4 years younger, has a better recent track record and is signed long term.

– Kipper is older and not as good, but his contract is significantly less risk. While Luongo is signed until 2020, Kipper’s real salary falls to $5M next year and just $1.5M in the final season.

Luongo is a better long-term solution and more likely to put up a few more elite seasons. Kipper, on the hand, is a substantially smaller commitment. So while the Flames and Canucks will be marketing their wares to the same general collection of teams, each potential partner’s interest will not just swing on the availability of Kipper and Lou as well as other options (Harding, Vokoun), but also how they weight the particular benefits and risks associated with each guy.

Other Factors

Another variable in this dance is the fact that Vancouver more or less has to deal Luongo this off-season and he will have significant influence over where he ends up owing to his NTC. That should limit the Canuck’s leverage when it comes to some of the, uh, less desirable markets like Columbus.

The Flames, on the other hand, have the option to wait out Kipper’s NMC (which expires this July) and then auction off his services at their leisure. While this off-season represents perhaps the Flames best opportunity to leverage Kipper for a quality return, they aren’t going to be forced by external factors like a trade demand. The Flames can therefore market Kipper to a wider range of teams and can afford to wait for the best possible deal.

It will be interesting to see what happens with both guys going forward. Goalies are rarely dealt and don’t often command massive returna. Luongo has been a an elite puckstopper for years (albeit with a "choker" reputation) but his contract is onerous and his NTC and the impetus to deal him before the new years starts might limit the return for Vancouver. Kipper is older, closer to average, but has a less risky deal and can be traded to anyone at any time after July 1, so the Flames can afford to wait for the best trade possible.

Related: Mitch Smith of M&G has a thorough post on potential trade partners and returns for the Flames and Kipper this summer.

Related Posts on the Nation Network

    • RexLibris

      Agreed Arik.

      I read Mitch’s article and there were some valid points (namely that, while painful, Toronto is likely the best fit solution for a trade) however I also think that he has overvalued Kiprusoff by contrasting this situation with one that is eleven years older and happened under an entirely different business/hockey strategy.

      Buffalo moved Hasek because they couldn’t afford him anymore. Calgary is moving Kiprusoff because they need to leverage assets for a strategic rebuild. Not because his play has outclassed their owner’s chequebook.

      If we were to take circumstances and shuffle them around a little so that Kiprusoff could be traded come June 1st rather than July 1st, then perhaps he could be moved for two middle-first round picks such as Washington has this year. Perhaps. But to suggest that he is worth Toronto’s 5th overall, Joe Colborne and Cody Franson is a stretch. While I don’t doubt that Burke will have interest in moving his 1st round pick, the package Mitch proposes is closer to the asking price for Rick Nash.

      The Chicago and Florida Panthers scenarios are closer to what I would estimate for Kiprusoff’s market value this summer.

      I will say, though, that I am glad there wasn’t a suggestion that Scott Howson move their 2nd overall pick for Kiprusoff. That would have jumped the shark.

      • Mitch2

        My review is that top G are a rare commodity to hit the trade market. When they do, they have been undervalued. History shows that.

        The risk is more minimal for a older top G because the fact is they are proven, if they are still a starter in their mid-30s. It means they are good. The young unproven net minder may or may not hold up.

        Here is a good article which drives home the point from Leafs nation. Numbers and graphs included.

        Again – I went to the Hasek trade because of age and again the Wings won that trade easy. They got Hasek for a cheap cost and that is why I use that low trade return for Hasek as the bar for Kipper.

        You even note the fact Buff was under pressure to move him and had to take that lower return but don’t acknowledge the Flames are under no such pressure and can wait for a better offer ?

        Kipper is not worth the 5th overall pick, it is a 1st round draft swap with Toronto, they get Calgary’s 14th overall pick. Toronto HAS a 1st round pick.

        You neglect to mention that the other player included in the trade is Mike Komisarek, who in my calculations has considerable negative value. 4.5 million Cap hit and playing the bottom pairing in Toronto? He doesn’t up the Leafs side of the trade he lowers it.

        Once again the trade is

        Kipper / Carson / Calgary’s 1st (14th overall)

        Toronto’s 1st (5th overall) / Joe Colborne / Mike Komisarek / Franson / rights to Gust.

        The thing with Toronto is there is many, many ways to turn the dials. Kipper can not get the first round pick swap AND Joe Colborne.

        If there is an error for me in this trade it may be because I see Komisarek with HUGE negative value. He is a bottom pairing Cap Hog for 2 years but taking him means Colborne and Franson can be included with the Flames throwing Carson back.

        I don’t think you saw the details of the trade. Nash would get the 5th overall pick outright, no draft swap, Kipper certainly won’t unless the Flames sweeten their side of the deal.

        And for the record the very suggestion that Kipper is worth the 2nd overall pick is outrageous.

        I want to stress that it is not Kipper for Toronto’s pick, it is Kipper and Calgary 1st for Toronto’s 1st and Colborne, that is the core of it and even that requires imo, a negative value player coming back from Toronto because it is too heavy for Calgary.

        Now if that is overvaluation, I don’t know what to say…

    • Mitch2

      That’s a hit and run comment.

      (1) Composing trade scenarios are extremely difficult. Which might be why I have never seen you even attempt it.

      (2) I never said Hasek = Kipper. I said the trade was a bar of comparison for trade value due to the player’s same age. Hasek had the negative factor of injuries. He missed the prior season completely and after the trade missed another full season. Kipper has perfect health.

      Buffalo was also forced to trade him due to cost and his trade return was lessened by this, they were on the phone trying to move him – (minus) for Buff. The Flames are not desperate to trade Kipper, the market should want him (plus) for the Flames.

      I used Hasek’s return of a 1st line player, first round pick and a conditional as a strike point in calibrating trade value and the proposed trades are all lower than it. I am not sure if you are aware of that.

      (3) I also reviewed over ten years of trades involving top G. Not a single one, even in the pre or post Cap era had the team dealing the G winning. That lead me to conclude that in the rare case of a top G being moved, the return should be higher.

      (4) Nonetheless, there is a BIG difference between comparing players and comparing their trade value.

      Many factors go into it. When Luo is traded you may be running around talking about how top G are worth the dismal return he will generate. That is false, Luongo’s contract will significantly reduce his trade value. Kipper’s contract is much more appealing.

      (5) Finally, the Hasek trade was a steal by the Wings. Buffalo was forced to trade him for financial reasons. Hence the error you make in the hit and run comment with the /facepalm – is that the trade here is not Hasek for Kipper.

      It is a low trade return for Hasek that is setting the trade return bar for Kipper and my proposals are even lower than the paltry return Hasek got.


      Hasek > Kipper.

      Hasek > then Hasek 2001 trade return therefore

      Kipper = Hasek 2001 trade return

  • RexLibris

    Isn’t Luongo 33 and Kipper 35?

    In Kipper’s favour – better numbers this year on a worse team with a much heavier workload… also he’s a goaltending robot, uh phased while Luongo has the mental strength of a meatloaf.

  • SmellOfVictory

    Of note on Kipper: although Luongo is agreed upon as the better goaltender by those into statistics (not even advanced ones, necessarily), the narratives around Kipper (for those who are into those sorts of things) favour him; he’s the quintessential “big save when his team needs it, nerves of steel, team carrying goalie”, whereas Luongo, as you noted, is considered to be a guy who will make most saves, but chokes when it matters most. Also, Kipper does make some insanely cool saves (probably a larger proportion of his saves are of the ridiculous variety than any other tender in the NHL).

    As many smart GMs as there are, we’ve seen and read enough interviews to consider the possibility that these narratives could have a very real effect on goaltender value.

    • ChinookArchYYC

      I agree SoV. He may be overvalued in Calgary, but he still regarded a a big time commodity around the league, and narratives matter where trades are concerned.

  • SmellOfVictory

    Toronto is the best option. I doubt Burke takes Luongo’s contract and he needs a goalie. The Flames aren’t going for pure youth though. They still want to win. Perhaps Kipper for Madrid. Do Schen. Addresses a need for a potential 1C prospect and a top 4 D for Calgary. Both players are young but ready to play. Meanwhile Burke gets his goalie and gets rid of two guys that he hasn’t been high on.

  • I know this may sound biased but I have to disagree with the “Kipper is older and not as good” comment. Yes he is older, but you can’t compare the two teams skill wise at all, and Kipper steals a lot more games then Luongo, with less help in front of him by far.

    Anyways, still a very good read as always Kent !

  • Adding to my last comment, I also realize that you will get more years out of Luongo, but if you’re a manager, and believe your team has a bracket of 2 years or so to make a solid push, i’d go with Miikka. Even though he’s 36 this year, he is still just as athletically capable as any tender in the NHL, and has proven to be clutch.

  • ChinookArchYYC

    Is anybody else looking at the western conference playoffs and thinking if we would have snuck in we would have as good a chance as anybody? I think we have the pieces to play a lock down game and we have a stud goalie as good as anybodies. Dont trade Kipper or Iggy, we still have a chance with this group! I think if we could land a number two dman to play with Bouwmeester, we would have one of the best shut down pairs in the league. Just tweak it, don’t burn it down!

    • ChinookArchYYC

      You are crazy – sorry no offense.

      The Flames are not better than a single team that has advanced. They would have met the Canucks (in a best case scenario) and would have been clobbered. LA is better than an 8th place seed, and we’re able to outlast Vancouver. Blow it up now, or wait for a 5 – 6 year rebuild after blowing it up, in a year or 2.

  • ChinookArchYYC

    Good analysis Kent.

    I expect that the list of potential suiters for Kipprusoff is longer than all of the potential goalie targets this year. Price is determined by how much the other guy will pay, so both Vokoun and Harding could go for a lot more than Kipper’s pay over 2 years. Kipper is also a great target for both Floor teams and bargain hunters, given he’s a $12M cap hit, while being paid $6.5 in real money. At the end of the day the question is how many teams would take Kipprusoff for 2 years at for $6.5M.

  • Matty Franchise Jr


    Hasek > Kipper.

    Hasek > then Hasek 2001 trade return therefore

    Kipper = Hasek 2001 trade return

    This is fundamentally not true. Ask anyone who’s had to learn sentential or boolean logic.

    @don’ttradeourcore: No. No one else is thinking that.

    • Mitch2

      Of course it isn’t true in logical notation, but again I needed to strike a comparable to frame Kipper’s value. I needed a starting point to work from, a point of reference.

      Ultimately the value of a player or anything for that matter, is in the mind of the buyer.

  • Matty Franchise Jr

    We are going to have to rebuild regardless, I dont think we will get assets for Kipper and Iggy that will turn this around quick anyway, so why not take a couple more cracks at it. Anybody who thinks we will get a top five pick or a, for example, matt duchene or anything useful in the imediate future for either kipper or iggy is a f**king idiot, so why not try and augment what we have and stay competitive. Unless of course we want to take the oiler route…..

    • Graham

      None of us can definitively answer the question: should you trade Iggy/Kipper?

      Because the answer is it depends on the return.

      If the right return is available then we should absolutely trade both of them.

      If all we are getting is a Horak level prospect, a late first rounder and/or a Stempniak level forward then we wouldn’t trade them unless Management feels they need to to prompt culture change.

  • The other factor is that that Luongo needs to be traded prior to July 1st. Luongo and Kippersoff will not be on the market at the same time unless Calgary asks Kippersoff to remove his NMC prior to July 1. Canucks need to have Schneider locked up by July 1st so that he is not exposed to offer sheets. A deal for Luongo and a Schneider contract will be announced at the same time, I’m guessing in or around the draft.

  • One thing for sure, I think both of these goalies carried the team during some stretches this year.

    Calgary minus Kipper would have been Oilers bad.

    Canucks playing Schneider for 70 games and a back up for 12 games – 8th place team.

    Just my opinion but I don’t think there are Luongos and Kippers out there right now. These goalies are incredibly good.

  • supra steve

    Correct, Kipper is 2 & 1/2 years older then Bobby Lou. Not sure why but Kent wants Kipper to be older then he is (second time I have noticed this). Having said that, another excellent article. I might have included Tim Thomas in the discussion.

    This is not a competative team, three years now with no playoffs. Whenever they get close, this “core” chokes. Sorry, but trading our “core” IS the logical way to shorten these dark times. Had we done so over the past year we may well be drafting in the top 5 this June instead of 14th. The player you get in the top 5 is far more likely to be an impact player in the near future. Yes, we seem to have got very lucky last year with Sven, but that does not happen every year (look at the Flames draft history). Continuing to bang our heads against the wall with this “core” is not the logical/smart/responsible thing for management to do.

    • supra steve

      I think we need to temper our enthusiasm for Sven. I understand he put up some pretty nice numbers this year, but he is playing for an offensive juggernaut. Here is a little comparison for when the CHL tightens up in the playoffs and ringing up points is not as easy.

      Bartschi 13th overall 2011

      15gp 7 18 25

      Rieder 114th overall 2011

      16gp 13 14 27

      I think what we see here is yes, Bartschi had a nice season, but it is difficult to say that he will step in and be a major contributer right away. It is not that hard for good players to light up junior, and I am not going to look at an adrenaline fueled 3 goal stint in the nhl and proclaim this guy our saviour. I don’t think edmonton is sitting around saying here comes tobias rieder look out, yet rieder is outproducing our best prospect in the toughest circumstances the chl can offer.

      Easy on who we are proclaiming as impact players.

      • loudogYYC

        After reading your first post, I sincerely thought you were being sarcastic. I respect your opinion but completely fail to see the logic. Sounds like Dinosaur Sutter talk to me.

  • Graham

    The problem in trading Kipper is that we would be left with a couple of really unproven

    The Flames could find themselves trading Kipper, then having to shop mid season for a replacement. The return from a Kipper trade could well be negated (or even ecxeeded)in trading for any replacement.

    We have a huge downside risk in trading Kipper, so the return would have to compensate for it. Didn’t Feaster have a bad experience in a past life, trading and then having to replace his #1?. I wonder if Feaster is really willing to go down that road…

    • Mitch2

      You nicely and maybe accidentally summed up the problem. (Its the same with Iggy)

      We can’t trade them, cause we need them to stay competitive. If we trade either we have a gaping hole in their position. BUT we need the assets they would bring back in a trade because our team is trending down or to middling mediocrity at best. So we NEED to keep them AND trade them at once in order to stay competitive now. Also we need to trade them quick, cause they are declining assets on the cusp of becoming washed up veterans.

      Something has to give. The way I see it the ONLY thing that can give is the next 2-3 years of having any hope of being competitive.

      We need to get past this whole concept of how we can trade Iggy/Kipper AND still stay competitive. Thats not the purpose of trading them. If we do trade, its to rebuild. There is literally no other option.

      I’d like someone who disagrees to lay out a scenario that works.

      And don’t say you are going to get Toronto’s 5th, Joe Colborne and Cody Franson for Kipper cause that’s asinine.

      Trade Kipper AND Iggy for some draft picks. Let Sven play some soft minutes this year, maybe even part in the AHL and lets suck big time for a few years. Its inevitable, the sooner we start the better.

      • Mitch2

        It is easier to burn it to the ground and throw everything into draft picks. It is just simpler to do but it is also riskier.

        You want to lay out a scenario on the big two.

        Trade Iggy for Krejci or J Staal. (Tweak up with prospects / 3rd pick if you want for Boston)

        Trade Kipper / Byron / Carson for Frolik / Leddy / Emery

        Away you go – you still got younger and you did it with roster players who are more proven and less riskier than draft picks.


        Boston is weak on RW, Krejci is expendable at C now with Seguin. Does Crosby and Pitts want Iggy? J Staal is going to want a big raise and they are not going to be able to afford it, he may get moved by cap necessity.

        Chicago needs a better G – Kipper can be it. Frolik is a good C and Leddy is a up and coming D. Emery is proven and adequate in net.

        Get ready for next season.

        It is just easy for people to talk about throwing players away in exchange for picks but it isn’t always better.


        You can strike Franson out of the deal if you want but Kipper and Calgary’s 14th for Toronto’s 5th and Colborne is not out of reach if Calgary is willing to tweak it up.

        • Mitch2

          I completely agree the draft pick scenario is risky. It doesn’t work many times (see New York Islanders).

          If Feaster can pull off any of your trades, I’m in. I’ll run naked downtown if we trade Iggy for Staal. Book it. I promise you I will do it.

          I guess we will see between now and July 1. Only time will tell if Iggy/Kipper are worth what some hope, or merely a few middling draft picks.

        • loudogYYC

          I like the idea of trading Iginla for Krejci. I think the Bruins would do it too when you look at their depth at C. I’d like to see the Flames snag Ryan Skinner in that deal too.
          I think Staal is more valuable to the Penguins than Krejci to the B’s, can’t see just Iggy being enough for Shero.

          As for Kipper, Florida’s gonna need a goalie too. That Markstrom kid is good but he hasn’t even played 10 games in the NHL. 2 years with Kiprusoff so they can ease the kid into the starter role and Kipper still gets to play 40-50 games, probably what he needs at his age anyway.
          Florida’s drafted 23 players in the past 2 years so they have more than enough prospects to deal. I’d love to see a deal that brings Huberdeau to Calgary but I doubt the Panthers would let him go.

          • Mitch2

            With Luo on the market, I think the dynamic changes quite a bit.

            I think Huberdeau is untouchable. Regardless I see 6 teams taking a hard look at starting G this off-season. Tim Thomas like Kipper has his NMC expire this off-season too, so he is rumored to be potentially on the market as well.

    • Mitch2

      The Flames could take any number of below average G into a three way rotation. They could even ship Karlsson back to Sweden and pick up a couple.

      There is a actually a fair number of them on the market and they would likely be under a million to sign on a one-year deal.

      Chris Mason / Leighton

      There may be another Brian Elliot in the bunch, you just never know with young G, which is why . I would go for one like Gust who is in his late 20s.

  • BobB

    Don’t forget Tim Thomas!I laughed a little at this: Luongo is 4 years younger, has a better recent track record and is signed long term. Kipper is older and not as good….

    I gotta say, that could use more accuracy.

    First, Luongo just turned 33 (April 4th) and Kipper turns 36 October 26th. So, the age difference is about 2 and a half years. Rounding up to three I could see, but four? That’s a stretch. (Edit: I see a few people caught this)

    Second, since 03/04:

    Kipper is .925evsv% reg.season (10860/11735) and is .928, .916,.928 his last three. He’s saved 262 more ev goals at his rate vs his backups rate (.903) over that time on Calgary.

    Kipper also has a raw .921 career playoff sv%.

    Luongo is .930evsv% reg.season (11199/12037) and is .925, .934,.929 his last three. He’s saved 92 more ev goals at his rate vs his backups (.920) over that time in Vancouver.

    Luongo has a raw .916 playoff sv% (.908 his last four, of 5 total, playoff seasons)

    Certainly, there is a distinction, and Luongo is a better reg season performer than Kipper. Playoffs, Luongo struggles with inconsistency, as we know. The one thing about this conversation that seems certain is that any potential return for these four of the arguably top 7 elite regular season goalies (1. Luongo, 2. Thomas, 3. Vokoun and 7. Kipper) likely just got less.

    The difference with the four teams is Vancouver, Boston and Washinton are headed in the other direction and have succession plans in place: Rask, Schneider and Neuvirth/Holtby.

    Calgary has next to “nothing” Irving/Karl and Ramo is a question mark in more ways than one.

    What to do? What to do?

  • supra steve


    I’ve said it before…who cares who is in net if the goal is to tank for a lotto pick? My only concern would be that we don’t “ruin” a young goalie along the way. Bring in Fred Brathwait for all I care because if we trade Kipper, we are not going to improve in the near future. Kipper will not play forever, and by the time the Flames have a competative team, he will be retired in Finland.


    I understand (and agree) that we can’t pencil Sven in for 100 points next year (if ever). I did not proclaim him an “impact player”, I said we “seem to have got lucky”. Do you disagree?. But you gotta admit, he looks like the closest thing to an impact player that the Flames have drafted since Dion (and for how long before Dion?)

  • RexLibris


    I agree that starting goaltenders, when traded, then to be undervalued historically in the trade market. However, I feel that this trend is likely one that will continue whereas the general assumption of your article implies that the Flames either ought to or will somehow reverse that trend by contrasting Kiprusoff’s potential trade with one of the better goaltending trades to have occurred in the past fifteen years.

    I don’t really disagree with the overall trend of your article. I think Feaster would be doing a disservice if he didn’t at least try to get back the package you have outlined. However, I think that there is a distinction that needs to be drawn between the trade you have proposed and one that is more likely to occur.

    I failed to mention Komisarek, but not to take his inclusion into account on the reckoning between the two teams in the trade. I agree that his performance relative to cost/cap hit makes his movement more of a “do me a favour” part of the deal.

    I looked over the details of the trade pretty carefully, even checking up on Colborne and Franson to re-estimate their value.

    I also agree that Toronto is a likely trade partner for the Flames, however, I think if you are going to put this much effort in (and it looks like you have researched this fairly well, in my opinion) then it would have been beneficial to the argument to also look at the other moves that Burke is likely to budget towards this summer when allocating his various assets.

    Burke has gone on record as saying he breaks down his teams assets into players, prospects, picks and then cash.

    My guess on Burke’s targets for this off-season are to trade for Rick Nash as well as one of Kiprusoff, Luongo, or perhaps Lindback.

    In order for Kiprusoff to be traded for Toronto’s 5th overall pick (and, as you have emphasized, Calgary’s 14th overall pick) he would have to waive his NMC at or before the draft. Not impossible, but that is one more domino that has to fall before the trade can go through.

    If I recall correctly there was some buzz about Regehr being traded at the draft last year but his reluctance to waive his NTC delayed that deal.

    I would also put myself in Burke’s position at the draft and I think he would value one of Forsberg, Galchenyuk, Grigorenko, Murray, Reinhart or Dumba more than Kiprusoff at this point. More so if he felt that he could trade Kadri or Schenn (not both, sorry SinCity1976, I think that’s a bit steep) and perhaps Franson for Kiprusoff without having to move that pick.

    And there is the possibility of trading that pick as well as some prospects or players for Rick Nash. As you have mentioned, that wouldn’t necessarily return another 1st round pick, but he may feel it would be a better return on that asset.

    When I weigh that trade of Kiprusoff, Carson and the 14th overall for Komisarek, Franson, Colborne and the 5th overall is just looks more and more like an overestimation of relative values in my eyes.

    I understand your logic, and all things being equal it probably makes sense. But all things are not equal between GMs and the value of players is relative to each team’s strengths and weaknesses.

    There was a suggestion earlier in another FN article about the Flames trading Iginla for Edmonton’s 1st overall pick. Same thing. On paper it appears to balance, however, the relative value that the one team places on it’s assets (in this case the Oilers and their pick) far outweighs the benefits that may arise from such a move. In this case I don’t think that Burke feels trading down nine places at the draft and giving up a depth defenseman and big centre prospect is worth the relative gain.

    I should clarify and perhaps apologize for saying that I was thankful there were no suggestions that Howson move his 2nd overall pick for Kiprusoff. That wasn’t really directed at your article, but more so at the many rumours and comments that tend to come from other sites and less-introspective fans.

    So, having said all of that I’d like to try and add something constructive to this (and I apologize for the length of this post): How about Kiprusoff to the Leafs for Kadri, Matt Lashoff, the Leafs 2nd round pick this year and their 2rd round pick next season with the condition that if the Leafs make it to the conference finals in 2013 the 2rd round pick becomes a 1st round pick?

    • Mitch2

      How about Kiprusoff to the Leafs for Kadri, Matt Lashoff, the Leafs 2nd round pick this year and their 2rd round pick next season with the condition that if the Leafs make it to the conference finals in 2013 the 2rd round pick becomes a 1st round pick?


      I don’t think it is impossible but that feels a little high to me now. They are both former 1st round picks and a 2nd plus a conditional 2nd.

      There are so many possibilities with Toronto that you really have to study know their prospects to get a feel for them.

      Your point is noted that taking Komisarek is more of a “favor” than actually balancing the trade. I think if anything, that was my error, as I calibrated him as negative value which I probably should not have done. He will still play in Calgary although in a limited manner.

      A conditional pick will likely be part of the deal. I could easily see that. I actually made up a half dozen trades with Toronto, there are so many players to consider.

  • Avalain

    My point is, on paper we are no worse a team than say Phoenix, and that with good coaching and the odd tweak we could ride our stud goalie to some playoff success. I believe the dividend from this would be greater than the value we would receive for kipper in a deal in that the return would not qualify as a major piece in an any rebuild, but instead just be an average asset that would make our team a little bit worse or better or have no effect at all. Unless we believe that our team is so bad that by moving kipper we would plummet to the bottom of the standings, all we would be accomplishing is getting worse in net. If we hang on to kipper we can stay competitve and possible have playoff success soon. I look at Toronto and see it is very difficult to retool on the fly and be successful without goaltending and I look at edmonton and don’t really want to watch last place hockey for the next five years, so what does that leave? Do we want to model our team after edmonton?

    • Mitch2

      “Do we want to model our team after edmonton?”

      I suspect many of us will be saying yes in a year or two when the Oilers are the new West powerhouse. Even with their bumbling mgmt its impossible not to become elite with 4 ELITE players. I predict we will be very jealous soon, maybe even as early as this year.

      The difference is that Edmonton was in denial for a few years before they really started a proper rebuild. They had their “lost years” in 2007-2010 when they had delusions of being competitive. Thats where we are now. Hopefully Feaster is smart enough to avoid the “lost years” before we inevitably blow this thing up and start over properly.

  • Avalain

    IMO Burke would have more interest in Luongo than Kipper.

    You can also add Edmonton to the list of teams that should be goalie shopping. No way is Dubnyk a #1.

  • loudogYYC

    Totally off-base. Coyotes are younger, play a team game and have more players who drive possession.

    It’s over. Time to blow the crap out of the Flames. Old and useless.

  • Avalain

    #Rex – how about your first for Subban? Something else may have to be included in there toe ven it up, but he’d make an interesting additon to the Oilers.

  • supra steve


    Problem is, the game is not played on paper, they actually play it on ice–and indoors no less. This core has proven unworthy of a playoff spot for 3 straight years. Your idea of adding a #2 d-man, great. Who are you getting, and how? What coach is going to turn this “core” into a winner? Did the coach lose those 5 games in a row in mid to late March (3 points from a possible 10) vs. 5 non playoff teams? The team is disfunctional, your so called “tweaks” will not fix it (and since when is adding a #2 d-man classified as a “tweak”). Should we “model our team after Edmonton?”, planned or not that is the direction we are heading in. To shorten that journey, TRADETHECORE.

  • supra steve


    All right, fair enough. If everybody wants to be like the oilers, I don’t blame you at all. They have such a bright future its ridiculous. I just thought that since we try to make a point out of not copying edmonton, we might try something different.

    I like “not winnin for mackinnon”….