• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Goaltending conundrum

Why is that important? Komisarek comes off the books in two seasons, and Luongo would be here for another 20, give or take.
 
Brian Glennie said:
I read that Luongo's wife and kids live in Florida but does that mean he'll only waive for the Lightning or the Panthers?  Maybe he'll take the job in Toronto because then he's only a 6 hour flight away instead of the 12 hours it takes him to get to Florida from Vancouver. Plus, the Leafs play 4 games a year down there and the NHL season is only eight-odd months long. Luongo could play for the Leafs and he'd still probably see his kids more than I do mine and we're living in the same house.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but it doesn't take a 6 hour flight from Toronto to Florida, or a 12 hour flight from Vancouver to Florida.
 
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
When Luongo said today, in the past tense, that it was great being there for 6 years, that is as strong a signal as you can send that he's out of there.  The question for us is whether we want to make an offer.  The roster cost, I now think, will be next to nothing. 

Aside from the central question of whether we can/want to make the contract work, I can't fathom people questioning whether Luongo's a top-notch goalie.  There's no doubt that he is.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Lou also stated that Schneider will "dominate the league for yrs to come"- I doubt anybody in the org has told Lou VanCity's plans but he can see the writing on the wall.

I don't see how people can't agree that Lou is at least top 10 at his position, hence has a bit of value. I also highly doubt that Vancouver planned to take a $5.33 mil cap hit for Lou 2021-2022, but if Lou could retire due to this perceived "out clause" in 5-6 yrs then isn't that the definition of circumventing the cap?



 
Consider these two options:

1)  Vancouver's asking price is reasonable (you decide what would be reasonable), but they will not take back any salary dumps, or

2)  Vancouver will take back a salary dump, but then want additional or better assets than in the first option.

Which would you choose?  It is not my money, so I would go with option 1 and dump the salary in the minors, through buyouts, other trades, etc.
 
I know all you Toronto Maple Leafs lovers want to jump in here. My guess? He'd prefer someplace quieter, but it should be pointed out that Luongo has a great relationship with goaltending coach Francois Allaire -- assuming Allaire isn't quitting.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/04/luongo-trade-talk-30-thoughts.html

Ready, set - go!
 
After the "goaltending" this team has had to put up with since the lockout it honestly boggles my mind that some fans wouldn't be interested in a guy who is 1 year removed from a Vezina nomination. I couldn't care less how long his contract is, that's future-CTB's problem. With Luongo in net any post-CBA Leafs would have made the playoffs.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
After the "goaltending" this team has had to put up with since the lockout it honestly boggles my mind that some fans wouldn't be interested in a guy who is 1 year removed from a Vezina nomination. I couldn't care less how long his contract is, that's future-CTB's problem. With Luongo in net any post-CBA Leafs would have made the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hate luongo as much as anyone, and do think he's overrated (somewhat), but I'd still take him here in a heartbeat.
 
Funny that I was thinking this last night, then it was brought up on the radio this morning -- what if an amnesty clause is negotiated in the upcoming CBA? 

The Leafs could deal for Luongo, use it against his contract, then renegotiate another deal with him which would see a higher cap hit, but with less years.  Don't know if it'd pass the "smell test" having just acquired the guy, but that could end up being the best scenario for the Leafs.

I'm still all for acquiring him regardless and worrying about the contract in 6/7 years time, but something like this could really work out in the Leafs' favour if the stars align.
 
Peter D. said:
Funny that I was thinking this last night, then it was brought up on the radio this morning -- what if an amnesty clause is negotiated in the upcoming CBA? 

The Leafs could deal for Luongo, use it against his contract, then renegotiate another deal with him which would see a higher cap hit, but with less years.  Don't know if it'd pass the "smell test" having just acquired the guy, but that could end up being the best scenario for the Leafs.

I'm still all for acquiring him regardless and worrying about the contract in 6/7 years time, but something like this could really work out in the Leafs' favour if the stars align.
Click to expand...

If they structure an amnesty period with the new CBA like they did with the original buy-out period for the current CBA, that won't be possible - teams were not allowed to re-sign players they bought out.
 
What I'd like to see in the new CBA, and what might help a trade for a guy like Luongo, is for teams to be allowed to renegotiate contracts of players as part of the trade process. Give them 7 days after acquiring the player to come to an agreement or whatever. Obviously, there would probably have to be some limits on how significant the renegotiation changes the contract, but, I think it would help ease a lot of tough situations that we're seeing around the league right now (Luongo, Nash, etc).
 
bustaheims said:
If they structure an amnesty period with the new CBA like they did with the original buy-out period for the current CBA, that won't be possible - teams were not allowed to re-sign players they bought out.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, makes sense.  I want to believe that teams may hold out on acquiring Luongo and his contract to see what the CBA has in store, thus allowing Vancouver to use any amnesty and then going after him, but then teams who had a strong chance at him may no longer.

In the end, I think this is all moot because I think a trade to Tampa Bay makes sense for all parties.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
After the "goaltending" this team has had to put up with since the lockout it honestly boggles my mind that some fans wouldn't be interested in a guy who is 1 year removed from a Vezina nomination. I couldn't care less how long his contract is, that's future-CTB's problem. With Luongo in net any post-CBA Leafs would have made the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

The beauty here is that getting him is just a possibility, not a necessity.  BB may decide that the contract is just too crazy.  Fine.  But at least there is the opportunity to contemplate the pros and cons of Luongo backstopping a team that hasn't had a goaltender of his caliber in ... well depending on how you rate Belfour, Cujo, Potvin, etc., since Bower.
 
bustaheims said:
What I'd like to see in the new CBA, and what might help a trade for a guy like Luongo, is for teams to be allowed to renegotiate contracts of players as part of the trade process. Give them 7 days after acquiring the player to come to an agreement or whatever. Obviously, there would probably have to be some limits on how significant the renegotiation changes the contract, but, I think it would help ease a lot of tough situations that we're seeing around the league right now (Luongo, Nash, etc).
Click to expand...

My guess is that the players union would be dead set against this.  I think they would see it as a path towards making player contracts less guaranteed.  I think the players union would want to exclude the possibility of ever being able to re-negotiate a contract -- they don't want to give teams any opening through which they might be able to exert pressure of any kind on players to negotiate away "money they have earned" through past good play.
 
princedpw said:
My guess is that the players union would be dead set against this.  I think they would see it as a path towards making player contracts less guaranteed.  I think the players union would want to exclude the possibility of ever being able to re-negotiate a contract -- they don't want to give teams any opening through which they might be able to exert pressure of any kind on players to negotiate away "money they have earned" through past good play.
Click to expand...

That's why there'd be limitations on it - something like only being able to renegotiate the term, but not the dollars, and limits on how many years can be added/removed. It wouldn't be a free-for-all.
 
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
CarltonTheBear said:
After the "goaltending" this team has had to put up with since the lockout it honestly boggles my mind that some fans wouldn't be interested in a guy who is 1 year removed from a Vezina nomination. I couldn't care less how long his contract is, that's future-CTB's problem. With Luongo in net any post-CBA Leafs would have made the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

The beauty here is that getting him is just a possibility, not a necessity.  BB may decide that the contract is just too crazy.  Fine.  But at least there is the opportunity to contemplate the pros and cons of Luongo backstopping a team that hasn't had a goaltender of his caliber in ... well depending on how you rate Belfour, Cujo, Potvin, etc., since Bower.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the above. Some very, very rough math: Luongo has a career regular season save percentage of .919. If our 3 goalies from last season (Reimer, Gustavsson, and Scrivens) could have matched that percentage, that equates to 43 less goals against, moving us from 29th (264 GA)to tied for 11th (221 GA) in that category league-wide. That's a pretty significant difference, despite the inherent flaws in using SV% as the only statistic.

Obviously he wouldn't play all 82, so we wouldn't have had those numbers for all games, and those numbers don't take into account the quality of scoring chances offered up by our defensive lapses. But, I think we can agree it would have been nice to have that kind of consistency in net.
 
Chett said:
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
CarltonTheBear said:
After the "goaltending" this team has had to put up with since the lockout it honestly boggles my mind that some fans wouldn't be interested in a guy who is 1 year removed from a Vezina nomination. I couldn't care less how long his contract is, that's future-CTB's problem. With Luongo in net any post-CBA Leafs would have made the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

The beauty here is that getting him is just a possibility, not a necessity.  BB may decide that the contract is just too crazy.  Fine.  But at least there is the opportunity to contemplate the pros and cons of Luongo backstopping a team that hasn't had a goaltender of his caliber in ... well depending on how you rate Belfour, Cujo, Potvin, etc., since Bower.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the above. Some very, very rough math: Luongo has a career regular season save percentage of .919. If our 3 goalies from last season (Reimer, Gustavsson, and Scrivens) could have matched that percentage, that equates to 43 less goals against, moving us from 29th (264 GA)to tied for 11th (221 GA) in that category league-wide. That's a pretty significant difference, despite the inherent flaws in using SV% as the only statistic.

Obviously he wouldn't play all 82, so we wouldn't have had those numbers for all games, and those numbers don't take into account the quality of scoring chances offered up by our defensive lapses. But, I think we can agree it would have been nice to have that kind of consistency in net.
Click to expand...

It also puts a lot less pressure on Reimer/Scrivens.  All of a sudden they're not in that unenviable position of being an unproven #1 on a poor defensive team.  Playing less games with less pressure probably translates to more success for either of those 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top