1/7th of our income is a lot different than 1/6th of Luongo's.

Those last few years are very significant dollars, even to someone who makes/made as much as he did...

Besides, what is he is divorced by then and his wife took half his caca.
- GoneFullRetard

No, after the tax man takes his 43.7% + wealth taxes it's not enough at that age. He'll make more money staying home and doing promo work. I bet a good g'tending coach might make almost a milly per year between work for teams and those damn expensive camps.

Divorce just means he's working for two now ....it becomes worth even less when another 50c on the dollar is heading into her bank account.

There is ZERO concrete evidence that Toronto is even interested. For all we know, there haven't even been any serious talks, or any talking at all.
- GoneFullRetard

I wouldn't be surprised if TO kicked the tires on him, but those who suggest Toronto NEEDS Luongo and therefore have to overpay are off-base as well. It would be the equivalent to saying any team needing scoring MUST go for Nash, even if they have to give a grotesque return. We've seen teams balk at Nash because the price is too high, why don't people think the same can be said for Luongo? CBJ and Van will need to unload these players more than other teams will be eager to trade for them.

Same with that pineapple infused beer they are selling at that pub south of the ACC.

Repulsive.
- Atomic Wedgie

That one from Hawaii?

I had it last summer, so, so bad

aboslutely.. common sense dictates that.. but a contract is a legal arrangement, and must be viewed as such

you bring a guy in with the assumption he will retire early you have simply put yourself at risk.. and unnecessarily

seriously? lu should go to a contender.. not a team 3-4 years out from being a regular playoff team.. it just doesnt make sense
- Dozzer

Retirement is an assumption ...just like a guys production is based on assumptions. In fact it might be less of an assumption because it wouldn't be far fetched to think that team(s) would be permitted to ask Lou his intentions or atleast that Lou's agent would disclose that info ...it helps make him more marketable.

The last point I won't disagree with ....I'm only interested in Lou if it's part of a plan (ie. they better be getting that #1 centre) ...and the price is very low.

There is no risk. You just bury him in the A.

Would you trade Komisarek + $7 million for Luongo on a six-year contract?

Heck, yes.
- Atomic Wedgie

see i disagree with this.. and make all the fun out of goalie prospects you want but MANY come from late round picks.. its an enigma of a position.. like i said.. its not like burying a D man like finger.

I wouldn't be surprised if TO kicked the tires on him, but those who suggest Toronto NEEDS Luongo and therefore have to overpay are off-base as well. It would be the equivalent to saying any team needing scoring MUST go for Nash, even if they have to give a grotesque return. We've seen teams balk at Nash because the price is too high, why don't people think the same can be said for Luongo? CBJ and Van will need to unload these players more than other teams will be eager to trade for them.
- p_zub

Van and Columbus should just work it out between them, Nash for Luongo plus whatever it takes. Save everyone else to headache... and we can stop seeing the Gardiner + 5th + schenn for Lu idiocy

http://tracking.si.com/2012/06/18/new-jersey-devils-nhl-gary-bettman-jeff-vanderbeek/

i believe the original story came from the NY Daily News
- Dozzer

Geez, if you can't generate enough revenue with a team that made the finals, that market is clearly not a good one.

i fully expect hockey next year.. even if its an extenion of the current CBA to buy time to work it out

both sides know another lockout could do irreversable damage to the product... not to mention NBC is invested now.. and they will likely threaten legal action if the NHL allows a lockout to occur
- Dozzer

This is not true.

Even if it was true, one side will always blame the other and tell themselves that the consequences are out of their control as the other side is unreasonable.

see i disagree with this.. and make all the fun out of goalie prospects you want but MANY come from late round picks.. its an enigma of a position.. like i said.. its not like burying a D man like finger.
- Dozzer

I don't imagine Luongo would ride the buses for very long.

He would simply retire.

My mistake, however that really doesn't change much. It's all about how you sell it to Schneider....if the plan is to hang onto Lou until a better deal comes, but tell Schneider is the future....than it wont be a problem.
IT really depends on what Gillis plan is.
The point is, TO is not the only option and Gillis wont take our crap to unload Lou.
- Fakepartofme

It makes a HUGE difference considering:
A. That the CBA is about to expire and no one knows what will shake out there.
B. Schneider's ELC is over and will now requires a significant raise.
C. BOTH goalies will need to sold on the idea, not just Schneider. What does Gillis say to Luongo?... "Hey Roberto, thanks for everything, but Schneider is now our #1 goalie. We're going to keep you around for another year as a back-up goalie"... Yeah, that will go over real well and increase Luongo's trade value

To be honest, I could care less if Luongo lands in Toronto as there are too many trade-offs.

Retirement is an assumption ...just like a guys production is based on assumptions. In fact it might be less of an assumption because it wouldn't be far fetched to think that team(s) would be permitted to ask Lou his intentions or atleast that Lou's agent would disclose that info ...it helps make him more marketable.

The last point I won't disagree with ....I'm only interested in Lou if it's part of a plan (ie. they better be getting that #1 centre) ...and the price is very low.
- The Law

yes, agreed.. permission to talk to the player who signed a lifetime contract should be allowable.. not a guy on a one or two year deal.. but a lifetime contract? yes. there should be an exemption of sorts there

Van and Columbus should just work it out between them, Nash for Luongo plus whatever it takes. Save everyone else to headache... and we can stop seeing the Gardiner + 5th + schenn for Lu idiocy
- senstroll

That isn't idiocy man, it is value for value

Gardiner + Schenn + 5th overall 2012 + lottery-protected 1st in 2013.

That is a fair offer. The Leafs win the trade big time if they don't have to throw in their 2013 1st rounder!

Geez, if you can't generate enough revenue with a team that made the finals, that market is clearly not a good one.
- Schenn-Sational!

Ever been to Newark?

see i disagree with this.. and make all the fun out of goalie prospects you want but MANY come from late round picks.. its an enigma of a position.. like i said.. its not like burying a D man like finger.
- Dozzer

Realistically, at age 40, is Lou going to show up to play in the A? So he'll retire before it ever becomes a concern. Wedgie's saying the threat of demotion can help expedite retirement ...and it's a part of his contract so all is fair.

see i disagree with this.. and make all the fun out of goalie prospects you want but MANY come from late round picks.. its an enigma of a position.. like i said.. its not like burying a D man like finger.
- Dozzer

yea, but lets say we get him for a few years of solid play, then you waive him down... by then a lot of the goalie prospects would have cycled through already. Right now we have a glut of them... but by the time you're waiving Lu, you'll maybe have one or two of those guys on the main roster, and the rest would have busted or been traded... 1 development spot isn't a huge deal.

That isn't idiocy man, it is value for value

Gardiner + Schenn + 5th overall 2012 + lottery-protected 1st in 2013.

That is a fair offer. The Leafs win the trade big time if they don't have to throw in their 2013 1st rounder!
- GoneFullRetard

You do make a lot of sense

Except for the part where I wouldnt trade one of those pieces, let alone all of them

This is not true.

Even if it was true, one side will always blame the other and tell themselves that the consequences are out of their control as the other side is unreasonable.
- GoneFullRetard

i doubt there will a lockout.. truly i do.

fehr is smart.. and he knows his players dont get paid without playing

it will likely be more about how teams can get out from under contracts they no longer want

I don't imagine Luongo would ride the buses for very long.

He would simply retire.
- Atomic Wedgie

again, assumption.

we can take that liberty, burke and co. cannot

Ever been to Newark?
- Atomic Wedgie

Why would I?

yea, but lets say we get him for a few years of solid play, then you waive him down... by then a lot of the goalie prospects would have cycled through already. Right now we have a glut of them... but by the time you're waiving Lu, you'll maybe have one or two of those guys on the main roster, and the rest would have busted or been traded... 1 development spot isn't a huge deal.
- Schenn-Sational!

disagree.. when it come to goalies.. one development spot is 50% of your development spots

He is a salary dump, salary will be going both ways. You can call Komisarek anything you like.
- Leafland

While Lu may have an unwieldy contract, he is a proven asset on his team. Last I checked most TO fans would move Komi for just about anything.

As far as MLSEL is concerned, there are six more years on the contract. The final four years are for a total of $7 million in actual money - which is exactly what the Leafs spent over two years so they didn't have to look at Finger.

And if a miracle happens and Luongo is still good after six years, well, even better.

If we can get Luongo and shed some crap in the process, I'm all for it.

Throw in D'Amigo or Franson so Gillis can sell it to his fans.
- Atomic Wedgie

Wrong

If a trade takes place, it will be based on Luongo's full contract which ultimately decreases his overall value.

Unless the Leafs have something in writing from Vancouver and/or Luongo, it will remain a 10 year contract and will be treated as such.

i doubt there will a lockout.. truly i do.

fehr is smart.. and he knows his players dont get paid without playing

it will likely be more about how teams can get out from under contracts they no longer want
- Dozzer

bunch of Idiots

-Salaries are out of hand, we need a cap!!!
-We need to Find way around the Cap with idiotic contracts!!!
-We need to find a way out of these contracts!!!

You do make a lot of sense

Except for the part where I wouldnt trade one of those pieces, let alone all of them
- senstroll

What if Gillis said, "Please"?

What if he offered you a table dance?

I bet you'd be coughing up those pieces faster than a cat with a hairball.

Realistically, at age 40, is Lou going to show up to play in the A? So he'll retire before it ever becomes a concern. Wedgie's saying the threat of demotion can help expedite retirement ...and it's a part of his contract so all is fair.
- The Law

once again, this is assumptive in nature

remove all assumption from the equation and then look at the deal.. only then will you see it the way that NHL GMs are forced to look at contracts.

remember, these guys have bosses, and they are spending their money.. they need to justify it