Nashville trades Lindback to Tampa

[Bender]

I like the deal for Tampa. Lindback was roughly worthy of those picks.

It is what Yzerman said he was going to do.

Yzerman's got Norfolk's Tokarski to compete with who played very well as we saw against the Marlies in the Calder Cup.

TBay also has #1 pick Riku Helenius who won the best goalie award in Finland and the championship there this season with .936 save% reg season, .947 save% playoffs. Yzerman has expressed that he'd like to bring him back over.

If they sign Helenius, that would give them three pretty good candidates. No guarantees as Leafs fans know all about 'good young candidates'. But I'd do that many times over before I'd take on Luongo's contract at this stage of the Leafs roster development.

But the more this plays out the more it looks like Luongo for us. And I would hope on our terms.

Demand went down by one team of a small handful. And Yzerman said he wasn't interested in Luongo (probably due to his contract). Both those things should help to drop the talent price required to get him.

Add in Luongo's short list of clubs (Tampa was probably on his list) and it is more difficult for Vancouver to move him with one potential destination removed.

One thing I take from Yzerman is that as good as Luongo may be, not all GMs are willing to join a stampede to get their mitts on him because of that contract. Yzerman quickly dismissed the notion.

Imagine Burke presenting Luongo's deal to the board at MLSE (which he must):

"I wouldn't sign 31 yr old UFA Brad Richards for $59 mil over 9 years (with most of the money in the first six years). Richards was a first line center we desperately need (and I took a pass on other UFAs like him). But I want you to embrace taking on a 33 yr old goalie being dumped by his team for $53 mil over 10 years (who gets the bulk of his dough in the first seven years).

Now a lot of goalies start to decline at age 35 or so ... kind of like Vokoun who we took a pass on. But we might get lucky as like Vokoun, Luongo's stats are roughly the same.

We require, as a team, proper levels of pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence. That's how our teams play. It'll take a bunch of that to stomach this deal. It starts at the top!!!"

I realize there are some differences with Richards contract situation but generally, Luongo's contract cuts against Burke's position on crazy contracts like this. In light of his previous position, it's not an easy sell IF Burke gets past the issue himself. Even though his job may depend on it, I wonder if he will.

Well, Bob McKenzie stated that he could probably dance around the philosophical argument and state that he didn't hand out the contract, he inherited it and it is the best option, but man... I kinda wish we went after Vokoun.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Well, Bob McKenzie stated that he could probably dance around the philosophical argument and state that he didn't hand out the contract, he inherited it and it is the best option, but man... I kinda wish we went after Vokoun.

Nonis himself stated on the radio a few weeks back that while the Leafs are still against signing cap circumventing contracts they wouldn't rule out trading for one.

 

[bustaheims]

Nonis himself stated on the radio a few weeks back that while the Leafs are still against signing cap circumventing contracts they wouldn't rule out trading for one.

Yup. As much as it may come off as hypocritical to some, there's certainly a difference between accepting the existence of these contracts and taking one on, and being the perpetrator of the creation of one of these contracts. At the end of the day, Burke needs to balance his philosophies and what's best for the team, and I'd say this is a reasonable compromise.

 

[Leafaholic99]

When you put it like that CW, about Luongo, even though it may help us out for 2-3 years, not sure if I'd want Luongo anymore, its tough to say. Part of me does, but what happens in a few years if one of our young goalies outplays Lou :/

 

[cw]

When you put it like that CW, about Luongo, even though it may help us out for 2-3 years, not sure if I'd want Luongo anymore, its tough to say. Part of me does, but what happens in a few years if one of our young goalies outplays Lou :/

Or even worse for Burke and the Leafs, he starts to decline like so many goalies at 35. Or an even bigger horror: he doesn't play that well when he shows up, becoming Mike Komisarek - version II and they still miss the playoffs with $53 mil down the tubes.

I do not envy Burke wrestling with this decision. Although it's likely he'll play decently his first couple of years, fans and the media will be all over him and Burke if he slips after a couple of seasons because he'd have 8 years at $5.3 mil cap hit left (and I realize it might be shorter with his tapered contract but it won't be anywhere close to 8 years shorter).

It's a decision that will define Burke's time in Toronto as a GM and if it doesn't work out, Burke is done like dinner.

I think it's much easier for fans like me to make the call because I don't have my job on the line.

Now, if Burke felt that Getzlaf & Weber for example, were going to sign as UFAs next season. And maybe Burke gets Nash with Kessel +
- a big bunch of IFs. But if Burke had good reason to believe that he could add the #1 center and #1 dman this team desperately needs in the near future, and he also felt that the stable of goalie prospects was not going to deliver a Cup caliber goalie any time soon,  and he could do all that and get Luongo under the cap - again a bunch of ifs, it might make sense to mortgage the future for some Cup shots with Luongo in the next couple of years.

But as I look at the present roster and how difficult the UFA market has been, the above scenario seems like a very large stretch to me.

 

[cw]

Nonis himself stated on the radio a few weeks back that while the Leafs are still against signing cap circumventing contracts they wouldn't rule out trading for one.

Yup. As much as it may come off as hypocritical to some, there's certainly a difference between accepting the existence of these contracts and taking one on, and being the perpetrator of the creation of one of these contracts. At the end of the day, Burke needs to balance his philosophies and what's best for the team, and I'd say this is a reasonable compromise.

Key people Burke has to impress are the MLSE board. These guys are bottom line money men. I don't think they'll distinguish much between whether the GM authored the contract or acquired it - because the risks and the bottom line results are the same regardless of the path taken to get there. And both those paths involved the GM taking that BIG financial risk.

If they were to approve such a deal, and I have some doubts about that, if the deal doesn't deliver as promised, they'll can Burke just like they would any manager who made a major financial screw up. And when they do so, they will not care much who wrote the friggin' contract. What they'll care about much more is who is left paying for it and which manger talked them into making this sucker bet.

Some in the media may call Burke a hypocrite and I'd probably agree with them. But that's the least of Burke's worries.

 

[skrackle]

When you put it like that CW, about Luongo, even though it may help us out for 2-3 years, not sure if I'd want Luongo anymore, its tough to say. Part of me does, but what happens in a few years if one of our young goalies outplays Lou :/

Or even worse for Burke and the Leafs, he starts to decline like so many goalies at 35. Or an even bigger horror: he doesn't play that well when he shows up, becoming Mike Komisarek - version II and they still miss the playoffs with $53 mil down the tubes.

I do not envy Burke wrestling with this decision. Although it's likely he'll play decently his first couple of years, fans and the media will be all over him and Burke if he slips after a couple of seasons because he'd have 8 years at $5.3 mil cap hit left (and I realize it might be shorter with his tapered contract but it won't be anywhere close to 8 years shorter).

It's a decision that will define Burke's time in Toronto as a GM and if it doesn't work out, Burke is done like dinner.

I think it's much easier for fans like me to make the call because I don't have my job on the line.

Now, if Burke felt that Getzlaf & Weber for example, were going to sign as UFAs next season. And maybe Burke gets Nash with Kessel +
- a big bunch of IFs. But if Burke had good reason to believe that he could add the #1 center and #1 dman this team desperately needs in the near future, and he also felt that the stable of goalie prospects was not going to deliver a Cup caliber goalie any time soon,  and he could do all that and get Luongo under the cap - again a bunch of ifs, it might make sense to mortgage the future for some Cup shots with Luongo in the next couple of years.

But as I look at the present roster and how difficult the UFA market has been, the above scenario seems like a very large stretch to me.

Those are the types of moves I would have been clamoring for in the pre-cap era. I always thought that the Leafs should have tried blowing the bank vault wide open for at least a couple of seasons during the prime years of Sundin and Joseph. It may not have worked, but we'll never know, as the Leafs were never the top spending team despite having the means to do so.

Nowadays? Yes, a very large stretch. But acquiring Luongo wouldn't make sense, unless Burke could make the types of moves you outlined. What are the odds of that type of plan working, assuming it would work under the cap? It's like factoring future lottery winnings into your retirement plan. I'd be dancing in the street if Burke was able to manufacture a Cup team like that, but I don't see it.

Is Burke even thinking along those lines? I have no idea. That's what makes this off-season very interesting. I know he's got to be under more pressure than ever as Leafs GM. I guess we'll see what happens soon enough.

 

[Etiam Vultus]

Not sure why it would be better for Burke to trade for a long term contract than it would be to sign the original.  Does Bob Gainey look more stupid or less stupid as the GM who traded for Scott Gomez's contact rather than the GM who signed it in the first place? 

I have not heard all of the interviews where Leafs brass have said that they may take on a long term contract under the right conditions, but the ones that I have heard the spokesperson made it very clear that it would be for a younger player who would still be a meaningful contributor until the end of the contract. 

I was surprised that the Leafs had so little interest in Vokoum, because he seemed like a good fit at a reasonable cost in terms of cap hit, acquisition cost and term of contract.  I have to believe that they have another option in mind, and it is not Luongo. 

 

[bustaheims]

Not sure why it would be better for Burke to trade for a long term contract than it would be to sign the original.  Does Bob Gainey look more stupid or less stupid as the GM who traded for Scott Gomez's contact rather than the GM who signed it in the first place? 

If Gomez produced like he had in his first season with the Rangers and his last few years with the Devils instead of stinking up the joint for the last 2 seasons, Gainey wouldn't be getting anywhere close the criticism he gets for that deal. More than any other reason, Gainey gets criticized about that deal because Gomez has sucked and McDonaugh has developed into a really good young defenceman.

 

[puckhog78]

Not sure why it would be better for Burke to trade for a long term contract than it would be to sign the original.  Does Bob Gainey look more stupid or less stupid as the GM who traded for Scott Gomez's contact rather than the GM who signed it in the first place? 

If Gomez produced like he had in his first season with the Rangers and his last few years with the Devils instead of stinking up the joint for the last 2 seasons, Gainey wouldn't be getting anywhere close the criticism he gets for that deal. More than any other reason, Gainey gets criticized about that deal because Gomez has sucked and McDonaugh has developed into a really good young defenceman.

In my opinion Gainey looks bad because Gomez was already playing badly for the rangers, and his contract was already starting to look like an albatross around the neck of NYR. He gets rightfully critisized because new york was already looking to dump him, and Gainey vastly overpaid for him. The problem there wasnt wether or not Gomez was a bad player or not, its that Gainey didnt pay market value. [ie. a 3rd round pick to take him from NYR].

If im selling a car that needs work, and you as a prospective buyer see the potential in this car, youre not going to pay me for the finished product, youre going to pay for the car in the condition its in. therefore if Gainey saw potential in Gomez thats fine, but you pay the price for the condition of the product at that moment. if you can rebuild the player or the car thats fine. Gomez' stock was low, so you pay a low price. that should be obvious.


I agree with Etiam. By taking on the contract you validate it. Any GM obviously takes contract into consideration, especially in a cap system. It's the same as buying stolen goods but not stealing the goods yourself. By agreeing to buy the stolen product, you condone the action that got you this product; By agreeing to take on player X's services, you agree and condone the contract that player is playing under. In the end youre saddled with the contract irregardless as to wether you gave or inherited the contract.

 

[bustaheims]

In my opinion Gainey looks bad because Gomez was already playing badly for the rangers,

In his last year with the Rangers, Gomez was tied for the team league in points. He may not have been living up to his cap hit on a defensive minded Rangers squad, but, he was hardly playing badly.