Does stamkos make sence? same cap hit?
- pker2theend

It makes sense if they throw in Burrows, Schroeder, and a 1st rounder. Probably still not even enough. We're talking about top 3 BEST IN THE LEAGUE here!

Correction: What you want in a trade is to do whats best moving forward which isn't always upgrading. I think they'd listen to the offer but I doubt they would accept the trade especially if another team offered something without a massive long term contract because I'm sure they don't want another one of those. Personally if I was Gillis, I would be happy trading Luongo for a top quality defensive prospect and a 2nd rounder, even a 3rd or 4th. I wouldn't care TOO much what I get out of Lu but at least I have acquired a d-man for the future, a second round pick that could turn out to be a star or I could end up trading with a package, and I've successfully gotten rid of a contract where I can now spend that money on a top 6 winger and/or top quality depth.
- OilerFanFromBC

Yeah but luongo will significantly change the team with no goalie we get nothing i'd rather all those teams with bad goalies suffer than ge luongo (even if it means putting him in the minors if possible)

It makes sense if they throw in Burrows, Schroeder, and a 1st rounder. Probably still not even enough. We're talking about top 3 BEST IN THE LEAGUE here!
- OilerFanFromBC

I hear ya. Luongo rome ballard raymond burrows 1st kesler for stammy

Lu has like $40 left on his deal. Buying him out for $25m+ when he's still an asset is not how the business of hockey works or any other business for that matter. I know fans like to throw money around, but there is no way a player of Lu's ability gets bought out for that kind of fortune. It just boggles the mind to even consider it.
- micah555

It's not good business to hand out the deal in the first place.

It's not going to be strictly a buy-out deal. It's more then likely going to be a restructuring type of clause.

Yeah but luongo will significantly change the team with no goalie we get nothing i'd rather all those teams with bad goalies suffer than ge luongo (even if it means putting him in the minors if possible)
- pker2theend

Brodeur is talking about coming back next year. If Canucks hang on to Luongo as the back up for next year and trade him to NJ the following year ,there is no harm in that. It means we get another year of great goaltending.NJD know first hand that a good goalie can still make a difference at the age of 39.

Yeah but luongo will significantly change the team with no goalie we get nothing i'd rather all those teams with bad goalies suffer than ge luongo (even if it means putting him in the minors if possible)
- pker2theend

Would you rather put him in the minors and get nothing, or get a future top 4 d-man and have room to sign players like Versteeg, Penner, Whitney, AND sign great depth players like Arnott, Gaustad, or Moen? That's getting a lot out of a backup goaltender. And yeah, I don't think trading Stamkos has crossed their minds even once.

Brodeur is talking about coming back next year. If Canucks hang on to Luongo as the back up for next year and trade him to NJ the following year ,there is no harm in that. It means we get another year of great goaltending.NJD know first hand that a good goalie can still make a difference at the age of 39.
- VANTEL

He already said he's not coming back if they win the cup, but good point.

It's not good business to hand out the deal in the first place.

It's not going to be strictly a buy-out deal. It's more then likely going to be a restructuring type of clause.
- mochoson

This clause at this point is only speculation. 30 GMs have to agree on it . I can see about 10 GMs saying yes lets do it and I can see 20 GMs saying why shold we help you out?

Would you rather put him in the minors and get nothing, or get a future top 4 d-man and have room to sign players like Versteeg, Penner, Whitney, AND sign great depth players like Arnott, Gaustad, or Moen? That's getting a lot out of a backup goaltender. And yeah, I don't think trading Stamkos has crossed their minds even once.
- OilerFanFromBC

Too much risk involved

Would you rather put him in the minors and get nothing, or get a future top 4 d-man and have room to sign players like Versteeg, Penner, Whitney, AND sign great depth players like Arnott, Gaustad, or Moen? That's getting a lot out of a backup goaltender. And yeah, I don't think trading Stamkos has crossed their minds even once.
- OilerFanFromBC

Lu will not be in the minors or be bought out.Gillis really likes Lu but realizes CS gives us the better chance of going forward.I am confident Gillis will find a decent deal.

This is not a move that has to happen this year. Around trade deadline teams pushing for a playoff spot will love LU then with only 5 more years left on his contract.

Too much risk involved
- pker2theend

What would the risk be? You have Schneider and need the money soon to pay him big bucks and getting rid of a backup goalie (Only considered this because of Schneider) worth $5.33M and having they money to pay off for quality depth and/or a top 6 forward seems pretty great to me.

This clause at this point is only speculation. 30 GMs have to agree on it . I can see about 10 GMs saying yes lets do it and I can see 20 GMs saying why shold we help you out?
- VANTEL

Idk about that. Just about every team in the league has an ugly contract.

Idk about that. Just about every team in the league has an ugly contract.
- mochoson

Van Chi SJ NYI CBJ TB PHI and maybe BUFF , seem to be the only teams that seem to be stuck into long term contracts that they would like to dump

Mtl and Cgy TO have some big contracts ,but they are short term.

Van Chi SJ NYI CBJ TB PHI and maybe BUFF , seem to be the only teams that seem to be stuck into long term contracts that they would like to dump

Mtl and Cgy TO have some big contracts ,but they are short term.
- VANTEL

What does long and short term have to do with it? If it's a one shot deal to get out of any contract you have on your roster, why would every team not take advantage of that?

What would the risk be? You have Schneider and need the money soon to pay him big bucks and getting rid of a backup goalie (Only considered this because of Schneider) worth $5.33M and having they money to pay off for quality depth and/or a top 6 forward seems pretty great to me.
- OilerFanFromBC

True, but I don't know we could have let ballard go if we wanted cap space.

What does long and short term have to do with it? If it's a one shot deal to get out of any contract you have on your roster, why would every team not take advantage of that?
- mochoson

Lets say Burke (short term bad contract ) says I have a chance to screw over Vancouver Philly and CHI and I can live with two more years of a bad contract .Most GMs that have a chance to make some of the top dogs suffer through long bad contracts will jump at the chance and put up with a bad contract for two years.

Keeping our problem child is probably better than taking on TBs problem child.

First of all , you said Van has 9 mil in space. Last years roster had 27 players on it this years has 17. Nine mil spread out on 5 to 10 players is not going to do a lot.

Second, there are reports of the Cap going up to 68 mil plus the players part of which I am not sure what it is, will bring it up to 72 mil.Teams may be build on the cap hit of 72 mil and then the new CBA kicks in and reports of 55 mil will be next years cap.Teams will have to do some serious reducing if that happens.

With the uncertainty of the cap space available, a team should only take a 7 mil player if they are certain he will help the team.


BTW .Ballard Manny and Alberts will not play next year there is another 8 mil freed up.
- VANTEL

But doesn't TB's problem child fill a weakness whereas Luongo is no longer needed?

Lecavalier brings in the 3rd line centre that they need. experience and that extra something thats needed in the playoffs.

I hear ya. Luongo rome ballard raymond burrows 1st kesler for stammy
- pker2theend

Yzerman wil never trade stammer.

But doesn't TB's problem child fill a weakness whereas Luongo is no longer needed?

Lecavalier brings in the 3rd line centre that they need. experience and that extra something thats needed in the playoffs.
- numbear

A 7 .7 Mil third line center?


If Luongo stayed until TDL it would give us solid goaltending and raise his value to maybe a 1 st round pick to a team trying to make the playoffs.

True, but I don't know we could have let ballard go if we wanted cap space.
- pker2theend

True, they could still do both. But it's not worth having your backup goalie make $5.33 when you could invest the money elsewhere.

A 7 .7 Mil third line center?


If Luongo stayed until TDL it would give us solid goaltending and raise his value to maybe a 1 st round pick to a team trying to make the playoffs.
- VANTEL

Gaustad and a 4th rounder got a 1st round pick in return. I would imagine Luongo could easily get at least the same return as Gaustad.

Ian you forgot a couple of things. Bringing in Vinny might seem like a small cap increase of 2M of what not, but you forgot that we need to resign Schneider, who will be asking for 3.5 to 4M. And since Lack is not NHL ready, we need to sign an experienced backup, which will cost maybe 2M or whatever. All and all, adding Vinny, resigning Schneider and bringing in a veteran backup will cost around 6 to 7M more than our cap hit last year.

No team wants to take Lu's contract without sending us one back. I would actually rather take Komo. At least he provides something we don't have, a heavy weight physical defenseman. Or if we have to bury his contract in the minors, it would be easier to do so.
- chromeboy007

By all accounts, Lack is NHL ready. The only reason the Canucks would trade for a veteran backup is if they feel Lack won't get enough starts in the NHL.

True, they could still do both. But it's not worth having your backup goalie make $5.33 when you could invest the money elsewhere.
- OilerFanFromBC

It would be best to wait for trade deadline when teams overpay then we can trade luongo LA style.

Lets say Burke (short term bad contract ) says I have a chance to screw over Vancouver Philly and CHI and I can live with two more years of a bad contract .Most GMs that have a chance to make some of the top dogs suffer through long bad contracts will jump at the chance and put up with a bad contract for two years.
- VANTEL

That's speculation on your part, ass-backwards if I do say so myself.

Gaustad and a 4th rounder got a 1st round pick in return. I would imagine Luongo could easily get at least the same return as Gaustad.
- hankthetank

IMO the longer they wait the more his value increases. I think this is why Gillis is saying don't be surprised if we come back with Lu and CS next year. The worse thing he could do it take back a bad ccontract.

I know I am known as the poster boy of change it now on Canuck blogs but with Lu I say don't be in a hurry. Move him but wait for the right deal.