Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:[QUOTE]In Response to Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : First of all they have to find a team that is willing to take a cap hit of 5.5 million for the next 10 years. Posted by jpBsSoxFan[/QUOTE]

    That is the big snag and why I think Vancouver is stuck but then again Gomez was traded so...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : Dez, I honestly don't see the Canucks getting more than a 2nd round pick for Luongo. First of all they have to find a team that is willing to take a cap hit of 5.5 million for the next 10 years.
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan[/QUOTE]
    T-Bay has even more than that tied up in Vinnie for the next 8 years (7,727,273 per season) . T-Bay makes money on the deal.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Neecic. Show Neecic's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    i'm guessing there's a "but" in his statement, as in but if they try to trade me to x y or z team theres no way i'll agree.  the cap hit isnt terrible at 5+, leafs could trade grabovski and almost have even cap swap, but 7 more years, i don't think even burke would do that.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourrings. Show fourrings's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    I dont think luongo is enough to get lecavelier
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]I dont think luongo is enough to get lecavelier
    Posted by fourrings[/QUOTE]
    It's probably not enough for the Vinny who signed that deal but it's plenty for a guy that makes almost 8 million per and has averaged 60 points over the last 4 seasons.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Neecic. Show Neecic's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    Could a team like the devils surprise us and make a deal?  brodeur could retire this year, luongo hit is 5.33, brodeurs is 5.2 this yr (ufa nxt yr).
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    Makes sense for Tampa Bay because they need goaltending.
     
    Doesn't make sense for the Canucks to acquire a player that makes over $1.5M more then two of your best players who have outperformed him. There would be no justification in doing that for the salary structure of the team.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : One was an empty netter.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]
    don't sell leaky lou short red, the bruins only netted two against him game 7. he scored one on himself(marchands 1st). hehe
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Neecic. Show Neecic's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    he's greasy enough to play soccer, and theyre not really expected to make saves so it would be less pressure.

    Or bury him in the minors, he can pump tires when the bus gets a flat.


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]Makes sense for Tampa Bay because they need goaltending.   Doesn't make sense for the Canucks to acquire a player that makes over $1.5M more then two of your best players who have outperformed him. There would be no justification in doing that for the salary structure of the team.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]
    But they also aren't dealing from a position of strength.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011. Show StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In response to "Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?": [QUOTE]Both players are grossly overpaid at the moment and both are locked in until at least 2020. Van would actually be taking on some salary if they made the deal. Both clubs have needs that could be met with this deal. Thoughts? Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE] yep it makes sense both are falling stars....l Stanley Cup to the BRUINS in 2011-2012-2013 (sent from my IPad)
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : But they also aren't dealing from a position of strength.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    I'm not understanding what you mean dez. Please explain.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : I'm not understanding what you mean dez. Please explain.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]
    I mean the Nucks are basically stuck in a position where they'll want/need to move Luongo and his deal limits what you can ask for in return. If the Bruins (hypothetically) attempt to move TT in the summer then PC would be dealing from a position of strength in that TT has a manageable cap-hit and some very recent success. PC also doesn't NEED to move him to appease the fan base. Fair or not, I don't think the Van fans want to see Luongo in goal for the Nucks ever again.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : I mean the Nucks are basically stuck in a position where they'll want/need to move Luongo and his deal limits what you can ask for in return. If the Bruins (hypothetically) attempt to move TT in the summer then PC would be dealing from a position of strength in that TT has a manageable cap-hit and some very recent success. PC also doesn't NEED to move him to appease the fan base. Fair or not, I don't think the Van fans want to see Luongo in goal for the Nucks ever again.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    Agree, they have to deal him, but they also have to take back a big contract in return. Lecavalier fits the bill, and so does Tampas goalie situation as Luongo would be an upgrade to their situation.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : I mean the Nucks are basically stuck in a position where they'll want/need to move Luongo and his deal limits what you can ask for in return. If the Bruins (hypothetically) attempt to move TT in the summer then PC would be dealing from a position of strength in that TT has a manageable cap-hit and some very recent success. PC also doesn't NEED to move him to appease the fan base. Fair or not, I don't think the Van fans want to see Luongo in goal for the Nucks ever again.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    I got ya and see where you're going with that idea.

    But trading for Lecavalier's contract would put them in a worse position then Luongo's contract. What happens if Lecavalier doesn't work out ? Then look at what they're up against. 

    This might be a deal where the Canucks don't get fair value back in a trade but gain on the cap hit to go out and get something else. eg. Thornton out - Chara and Savard in.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : Agree, they have to deal him, but they also have to take back a big contract in return. Lecavalier fits the bill, and so does Tampas goalie situation as Luongo would be an upgrade to their situation.
    Posted by kelvana33[/QUOTE]
    Kel, it's funny because the deal would probably still leave both teams feeling ripped off 5 years from now. What a pair of awful contracts.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : I got ya and see where you're going with that idea. But trading for Lecavalier's contract would put them in a worse position then Luongo's contract. What happens if Lecavalier doesn't work out ? Then look at what they're up against.  This might be a deal where the Canucks don't get fair value back in a trade but gain on the cap hit to go out and get something else. eg. Thornton out - Chara and Savard in.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]
    True enough for sure. I was just bored and spit-balling ideas.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    I am not a Luongo fan especially after last year, but Tampa with their youthful defense could make Luongo a much better looking goalie.  Simply put, I really don't think Vancouver's defense is solid, contributing to his failure, not all of it.  Look at Thomas in net, confidence is a key to be a great goalie.  Why is Thomas out of his mind skating into three feet beyond the crease, ahhh, cause he was not sharp closer to the net.  Smart of Thomas to challenge himself, and find a groove for the playoffs.  Thomas has a better defensive system than Vancouver.  So, Luongo could in fact be Tampa's best bet in goal. As for Lecavaier, he is as soft as some say about Thornton.  Even deal imo.  
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    I doubt very much even Gillis is crazy enough to trade one financial problem for another. It is likely he will want some combination of draft picks and prospects to bulk up their weak farm system. They still have the overpaid Booth to score 20 goals and be largely ineffective.

    By the way, that Hodgeson for Kassian deal was akin to Naslund for Stojanov in reverse.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from carltetus. Show carltetus's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]Both players are grossly overpaid at the moment and both are locked in until at least 2020. Van would actually be taking on some salary if they made the deal. Both clubs have needs that could be met with this deal. Thoughts?
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]
    Lecavalier won't waive his no-trade clause to go to Vancouver. Luongo would like to go in Florida. His wife was born there and they live in Fort Lauderdale in off-seasons. If Lecavalier agrees to move to Vancouver, Tampa Bay would have to get an other player to match Lecavalier's contract.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from zamboni24. Show zamboni24's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : Leaky Lu to Tampa,Lecavalier to Montreal, Gomez and Gorges to Vancouver.Get'er done. 
    Posted by 50belowzero[/QUOTE]

    Montreal would love to land Lecavalier but part of the contract would be that he leagally change his 1st name to Pierre. Also -- they may want to wait a few years to make sure he's on the downside of his career.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : Mats Sundin comes to mind.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    Sundin stiffed the franchise, but the fans loved him.  I'm not sure if it's the same in Vancouver any longer.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    Vinny is still a very good hockey player.  Luongo, from what I've seen and read, is not.  Yes, Vinny has that big contract, but with decent linemates (and health), he can still get it done with the best.  No matter the team in front of him, Luongo's paper mache mind won't cut it.  They wouldn't even let him take the ice in a regular season game in Boston.

    Pitiful!
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from perrysound. Show perrysound's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    No, not a good idea for either.

    My bet, is that Van trades Scheinder and keeps Bobbi-lou cause no one wants that loser on their team. ( okay, maybe the Leafs - they took on Phaneuf and Homoseric didn't they?)

    I can't see Tampa taking that one on. If he was 25, maybe, but at 33, not likely. 

    Time to get back to the scotch. It's going back really well right now. Got Old School on and laughing my a** off. 









     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?

    In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would Luongo For Lecavalier Make Sense? : Sundin stiffed the franchise, but the fans loved him.  I'm not sure if it's the same in Vancouver any longer.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    From what I've heard out here, you're likely right.

    Looking back at last year though, I don't understand why I've never heard Ehrhoff and Salo get the blame for last year's game 7 loss out here. They were on for all four goals (Well, Salo for four, Ehrhoff for three). On the first and second Salo never picked up his man, Marchand, and those defensive breakdowns lead directly to both goals. On the the third Ehrhoff tripped up Bergeron and Lou didn't have a hope, even if he did stop it, it would have been either a powerplay or a penalty shot. And the last goal, hard to blame him too much, but who was covering the goal? Salo. Those two are far more responsible for the loss than Lou. Even the second goal where Lou pushed the puck in, if Salo had his man and never blew the coverage, it would never have even got to Lou's crease.
     

Share