Luongo

[OldTimeHockey]

The 2 deals floating out here in Vancouver is Bozak for Luongo or Reimer, Kadri + pick for Luongo.

1- On the premise of opening up a roster spot I understand the Bozak move.  However, while I think Bozak is really nothing more than a 3rd liner, the fact that he has been a .50 PPG player while not being an awful defensive player makes me wonder why a terrible contract on a guy who is being let go because of his poor playoff performance is worth anything.

2 - HA

2 - Yep I agree 1000x but I fear that Kadri is toast in Toronto.

Unless Kassian is coming back in deal #2 I can't conceive of why Toronto would do that. If we're taking Luongo's huge contract I'd demand Komisarek be swapped in any proposed deal.

Yes but you're smarter than Burke. I fear he has moved further into the
"nuts" camp.

Because of all the wild and crazy deals he's been making lately?

Because it seems to be fait accompli we're going to get Luongo. This media
storm , while just the media, were bang on about Phil Kessel. One wag saying it means little - when you have the whole shebang babbling that scares me - a lot.  :-X

While I've never been a huge supporter of getting Luongo, I can also see why some people feel it's a necessity. And while I'm not completely sure that we're getting him, it certainly is a possibility. I severely doubt that the second reported deal is real. Some people write things down on paper and try to pass it off as news. To me that rumoured package is made up to sell papers.

 

[hockeyfan1]

"We've moved very slowly on any discussions with Roberto - we'll trade him when we get what we want to get for him, or we won't trade him, and either way it's fine with me."
- Vancouver GM Mike Gillis answering questions on speculation the Canucks and Leafs have a deal in principle involving Roberto Luongo.

Source: THN

 

[rdowdall]

I've got a bad feeling about this.

 

[ZBBM]

My opinion hasn't changed: glad to get him but only if nothing of value goes back.  Otherwise BB should be marched off a plank.

 

[caver]

Hopefully the new CBA (if and when) will deal with long contracts. His value could go up.

 

[Justin]

Hopefully the new CBA (if and when) will deal with long contracts. His value could go up.

Say the CBA does deal with it, and as per the NHL's latest proposal the team that originally signed Luongo to the contract (Vancouver) has to pay the remainder of his contract. I'd still support the trade, due to the simple reason we have 2 good young goalies right here that deserve a shot.

Scrivens was beyond excellent in the playoffs last season and Reimer was great before he got trounced by Gionta. Why commit 5.5 M a year to a guy and essentially give up on these 2 before they've had a real chance to prove themselves? Worst case scenario it doesn't work out this year and the Leafs get a good draft pick in a lockout-shortened season, then they sign a legit starter in the off-season. Mike Smith, Jimmy Howard, and Niklas Backstrom are slated to be free agents. Either way, I don't want to give up on Reimer or Scrivens just yet.

 

[caver]

Hey Justin. I agree with you that the Leafs should not give up on Reimer or Scrivens. Both could grow to be a strong NHL starter. But remember Burke's words. You build from the goal out. If you can upgrade in goal you go for it. The Leafs had Felix Potvin in the system but traded for Grant Fuhr. Then when Potvin was the number one guy they brought in Cujo and got even stronger in net. A strong goalie builds team confidence and lets the prospect tenders develop without the pressure of carrying the team. 

 

[Redleaf]

Hey Justin. I agree with you that the Leafs should not give up on Reimer or Scrivens. Both could grow to be a strong NHL starter. But remember Burke's words. You build from the goal out. If you can upgrade in goal you go for it. The Leafs had Felix Potvin in the system but traded for Grant Fuhr. Then when Potvin was the number one guy they brought in Cujo and got even stronger in net. A strong goalie builds team confidence and lets the prospect tenders develop without the pressure of carrying the team.

Couldn't agree more. Burke will try to outbid the likes of Florida, Chicago and Edmonton to acquire Luo. Whether or not he succeeds is another question. The Leafs need a veteran goaltender, unless Burke has a complete change of heart and now plans to tear it all down again.

 

[Kin]

Hey Justin. I agree with you that the Leafs should not give up on Reimer or Scrivens. Both could grow to be a strong NHL starter. But remember Burke's words. You build from the goal out. If you can upgrade in goal you go for it. The Leafs had Felix Potvin in the system but traded for Grant Fuhr. Then when Potvin was the number one guy they brought in Cujo and got even stronger in net. A strong goalie builds team confidence and lets the prospect tenders develop without the pressure of carrying the team.

The difference in both of those pre-cap situations is that when Potvin emerged and Cujo was signed, the incumbents were dealt for pretty good returns that helped the club in other areas(Andreychuk in Fuhr's case, Berard in Potvin's).

Now, in a post cap world, if the Leafs trade for Luongo and he underperforms or Reimer/Scrivens emerge as a real #1 then they're faced with the very real possibility of having a very significant amount of the team's cap space tied up in a back-up goalie who might be on the books for 8-9 years.

Right now, Luongo's value is very low. If he comes to the Leafs and doesn't regain form, it'll be lower, probably to the point where he can't be dealt. That creates a massive risk in dealing for him that just didn't exist with Fuhr and Cujo.

 

[Redleaf]

Hey Justin. I agree with you that the Leafs should not give up on Reimer or Scrivens. Both could grow to be a strong NHL starter. But remember Burke's words. You build from the goal out. If you can upgrade in goal you go for it. The Leafs had Felix Potvin in the system but traded for Grant Fuhr. Then when Potvin was the number one guy they brought in Cujo and got even stronger in net. A strong goalie builds team confidence and lets the prospect tenders develop without the pressure of carrying the team.

The difference in both of those pre-cap situations is that when Potvin emerged and Cujo was signed, the incumbents were dealt for pretty good returns that helped the club in other areas(Andreychuk in Fuhr's case, Berard in Potvin's).

Now, in a post cap world, if the Leafs trade for Luongo and he underperforms or Reimer/Scrivens emerge as a real #1 then they're faced with the very real possibility of having a very significant amount of the team's cap space tied up in a back-up goalie who might be on the books for 8-9 years.

Right now, Luongo's value is very low. If he comes to the Leafs and doesn't regain form, it'll be lower, probably to the point where he can't be dealt. That creates a massive risk in dealing for him that just didn't exist with Fuhr and Cujo.

That's a real possibility. If you put yourself in Burkes frame of mind, almost needing to make the playoffs this season, do the potential benefits outweigh the risks? I'm guessing they do.

 

[Kin]

That's a real possibility. If you put yourself in Burkes frame of mind, almost needing to make the playoffs this season, do the potential benefits outweigh the risks? I'm guessing they do.

I'd hope, and I do believe this to his credit, that Burke wouldn't put that sort of short-term job saving rationale above what's really best for the long term future of the club.

 

[Brian Glennie]

That's a real possibility. If you put yourself in Burkes frame of mind, almost needing to make the playoffs this season, do the potential benefits outweigh the risks? I'm guessing they do.

 

I'd hope, and I do believe this to his credit, that Burke wouldn't put that sort of short-term job saving rationale above what's really best for the long term future of the club.

Sometimes Burke's rationale can be a bit difficult to discern, though. Take Colby Armstrong (please). He had one year at $2M left on his contract. Back in July, even though he must have known there was a lockout about to take place, Burke opted to buy him out. So that's great for Colby because got paid a million dollars this season even though there's no hockey but it's kind of tough on the Leafs because the other $1M will count against next year's cap.

 

[Kin]

Sometimes Burke's rationale can be a bit difficult to discern, though. Take Colby Armstrong (please). He had one year at $2M left on his contract. Back in July, even though he must have known there was a lockout about to take place, Burke opted to buy him out. So that's great for Colby because got paid a million dollars this season even though there's no hockey but it's kind of tough on the Leafs because the other $1M will count against next year's cap.

Well, it would have been safe to assume that there would be a lockout, sure, but I don't think it necessarily follows that Burke knew that the lockout would result in cancelled games or a cancelled season. If Burke hadn't bought out Armstrong and a deal did get reached then the team would be on the hook for 2 million bucks in real dollars and cap hit despite the fact that Armstrong didn't really have a spot on the club.

I don't think you can fault Burke for operating as if it'd be business as usual during the summer.

 

[rdowdall]

That's a real possibility. If you put yourself in Burkes frame of mind, almost needing to make the playoffs this season, do the potential benefits outweigh the risks? I'm guessing they do.

 

I'd hope, and I do believe this to his credit, that Burke wouldn't put that sort of short-term job saving rationale above what's really best for the long term future of the club.

Sometimes Burke's rationale can be a bit difficult to discern, though. Take Colby Armstrong (please). He had one year at $2M left on his contract. Back in July, even though he must have known there was a lockout about to take place, Burke opted to buy him out. So that's great for Colby because got paid a million dollars this season even though there's no hockey but it's kind of tough on the Leafs because the other $1M will count against next year's cap.

It that might be a case of where we don't have all the information.  Maybe Burke needed to have a contract spot, and that was the only way to get one, or maybe he though he was going to need the cap space.  Without all the information it makes it hard to really say why the decision was made.

 

[Justin]

That's a real possibility. If you put yourself in Burkes frame of mind, almost needing to make the playoffs this season, do the potential benefits outweigh the risks? I'm guessing they do.

 

I'd hope, and I do believe this to his credit, that Burke wouldn't put that sort of short-term job saving rationale above what's really best for the long term future of the club.

Sometimes Burke's rationale can be a bit difficult to discern, though. Take Colby Armstrong (please). He had one year at $2M left on his contract. Back in July, even though he must have known there was a lockout about to take place, Burke opted to buy him out. So that's great for Colby because got paid a million dollars this season even though there's no hockey but it's kind of tough on the Leafs because the other $1M will count against next year's cap.

It that might be a case of where we don't have all the information.  Maybe Burke needed to have a contract spot, and that was the only way to get one, or maybe he though he was going to need the cap space.  Without all the information it makes it hard to really say why the decision was made.

I think the buy-out was made simply because Colby had no spot on the team and the Leafs knew they'd need room for Kadri, Frattin, Komarov, ect. to play. Remember, the Leafs had exactly 0 UFAs up front this past off-season. I'd rather jettison Armstrong out of town and pay a measly $1 M for an extra year to give one of the young guys a roster spot they deserve.

 

[lamajama]

Sometimes Burke's rationale can be a bit difficult to discern, though. Take Colby Armstrong (please). He had one year at $2M left on his contract. Back in July, even though he must have known there was a lockout about to take place, Burke opted to buy him out. So that's great for Colby because got paid a million dollars this season even though there's no hockey but it's kind of tough on the Leafs because the other $1M will count against next year's cap.

Well, it would have been safe to assume that there would be a lockout, sure, but I don't think it necessarily follows that Burke knew that the lockout would result in cancelled games or a cancelled season. If Burke hadn't bought out Armstrong and a deal did get reached then the team would be on the hook for 2 million bucks in real dollars and cap hit despite the fact that Armstrong didn't really have a spot on the club.

I don't think you can fault Burke for operating as if it'd be business as usual during the summer.

It's easy to look back now and say "it was obvious" but to me it was. But I also thought that we would lose the first month or so - and
at this point I'm still on target but doubt now that the season will be even played and I truly don't care. Yeah I'll miss it but I survived the last time so I'll survive this time.

I'd just like to know what the Leafs odds are for the #1 pick next summer.

As for the actual point of this post....Burke was actually one of the few who didn't go nuts with these now obvious "bad faith" contracts prior to the CBA expiry.

It's funny - Burke predicted the Penner/Vanek offer sheets would cause a disaster - and they have. You can pin a lot of the current escalation of salaries on the 2nd contracts. Everyone also screams "control yourselves" and when it appears Burke is doing this most slam him.

And I'm not a Burke fan much anymore. Other than actually draft better (it appears) he's done little that I think is working but that's just my opinion.

 

[Kin]

It's easy to look back now and say "it was obvious" but to me it was.

That's all very well and good to say as a fan but Burke had to be making million dollar decisions and the reality was that he didn't know what would happen. Realistically he had no choice but to conduct his business.

It's funny - Burke predicted the Penner/Vanek offer sheets would cause a disaster - and they have. You can pin a lot of the current escalation of salaries on the 2nd contracts. Everyone also screams "control yourselves" and when it appears Burke is doing this most slam him.

But that's because Burke is running the Leafs, a team that could double it's current payroll and still be turning a healthy profit. It's all very well and good to say that big, inflationary contract offers are bad for Edmonton or Buffalo but it's very different when he's running a team as rich as the Leafs and taking a stance that essentially takes him out of the running of signing most of the premium free agents.

The reason people "slam" Burke is because most Leafs fans aren't primarily concerned with the salary structure of the league when it runs into the teeth of the Leafs being a halfway decent hockey team.

And with all due respect, I don't really see the disaster you're talking about. The players are getting a fixed percentage of money from the league. If a young player like Vanek or Penner get big money on their second contracts, that means someone else is getting less. I think that these "second contracts" that everyone is talking about is actually a good thing as it means good young players are getting close to their market value and the guys who are getting less are mediocre UFA's .

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'd be leery of trading for him if there is no NHL this season.  I feel like a lot of mid-30's guys just weren't the same pre- and post-lockout last time.  I think the year off affected a lot of them negatively.

 

[lamajama]

It's easy to look back now and say "it was obvious" but to me it was.

That's all very well and good to say as a fan but Burke had to be making million dollar decisions and the reality was that he didn't know what would happen. Realistically he had no choice but to conduct his business.

It's funny - Burke predicted the Penner/Vanek offer sheets would cause a disaster - and they have. You can pin a lot of the current escalation of salaries on the 2nd contracts. Everyone also screams "control yourselves" and when it appears Burke is doing this most slam him.

But that's because Burke is running the Leafs, a team that could double it's current payroll and still be turning a healthy profit. It's all very well and good to say that big, inflationary contract offers are bad for Edmonton or Buffalo but it's very different when he's running a team as rich as the Leafs and taking a stance that essentially takes him out of the running of signing most of the premium free agents.

The reason people "slam" Burke is because most Leafs fans aren't primarily concerned with the salary structure of the league when it runs into the teeth of the Leafs being a halfway decent hockey team.

And with all due respect, I don't really see the disaster you're talking about. The players are getting a fixed percentage of money from the league. If a young player like Vanek or Penner get big money on their second contracts, that means someone else is getting less. I think that these "second contracts" that everyone is talking about is actually a good thing as it means good young players are getting close to their market value and the guys who are getting less are mediocre UFA's .

The "disaster" is the inflationary and idiotic response by yes, the GM's (and approved by their owners). I agree that in some cases the players that deserve more money are getting it. Stamkos is an extreme example
of a player that deserves the huge bump but many 2nd contracts have been over the top.  I realize I can't prove that as these players have not fulfilled their deals yet but the additional problem is as usual that the
UFA's are still getting way above value. So 2nd contract explosion plus
typical UFA stupidity equals another lockout to try and save the owners from themselves...again. It will never be solved when you have owners that gleefully manipulate the system and screw it up for everyone.
That being said - would I like cheering for a team that used their financial muscle ala Rangers and Flyers? Yes I suppose so - if we had an ability to actually have, you know, some bonafide superstars to overspend on...

 

[Brian Glennie]

That's a real possibility. If you put yourself in Burkes frame of mind, almost needing to make the playoffs this season, do the potential benefits outweigh the risks? I'm guessing they do.

 

I'd hope, and I do believe this to his credit, that Burke wouldn't put that sort of short-term job saving rationale above what's really best for the long term future of the club.

Sometimes Burke's rationale can be a bit difficult to discern, though. Take Colby Armstrong (please). He had one year at $2M left on his contract. Back in July, even though he must have known there was a lockout about to take place, Burke opted to buy him out. So that's great for Colby because got paid a million dollars this season even though there's no hockey but it's kind of tough on the Leafs because the other $1M will count against next year's cap.

It that might be a case of where we don't have all the information.  Maybe Burke needed to have a contract spot, and that was the only way to get one, or maybe he though he was going to need the cap space.  Without all the information it makes it hard to really say why the decision was made.

I think the buy-out was made simply because Colby had no spot on the team and the Leafs knew they'd need room for Kadri, Frattin, Komarov, ect. to play. Remember, the Leafs had exactly 0 UFAs up front this past off-season. I'd rather jettison Armstrong out of town and pay a measly $1 M for an extra year to give one of the young guys a roster spot they deserve.

I'm astonished that so many people, and Nik am I ever surprised to see you among them, advise that we ought continue to give this clown the benefit of the doubt.

Armstrong's roster spot was fair game for any winger in the system who was good enough to grab it. Remember, Colby only played in 29 games last season. He didn't have an NMC and Burke could always have optioned him to the Marlies in the unlikely event that there was going to be hockey this year. Otherwise, Armstrong's contract was coming off the books. Even though Burke has known for years that the NHL was heading towards another nasty, protracted labour dispute with the players he still chose to buy out this plug probably because Armstrong's a "good guy" who doesn't belong in the minors and Burke always has the player's best interest at heart and blah blah blah.

It's lousy management. The cap is coming down next year and pissing away even $1M of it on a short-sighted buyout that didn't even have to happen is not the kind of move I'd associate with a GM who's going to shine in the post-lockout NHL.