Goaltending conundrum

[Corn Flake]

I really can't see how he trades the pick for Luongo. That's just madness, and I think the rest of the management team would agree!

I don't see it happening either, and, if I'm being totally honest, I'm not sure I see a Luongo trade happening until after the draft. It's a much more complicated situation than it's being given credit for and a lot of the information we think we have is likely to prove to be inaccurate.

Fair... I just hope that pick isn't traded, period, unless it's for a higher pick.

Luongo is going to be the Tim Tebow of the NHL media. We are going to hear about him non. stop. *shudders*

 

[Corn Flake]

I think the odds are better that Reimer + vet goalie would fare just as well as Luongo + Reimer, and in 3'ish years I can make the call on going with Reimer as the #1, go with another young goalie who comes through the system or go get another veteran if all else fails.  By doing so I save on the contract risk and I think I save on having unrealistic expectations that would no doubt come with the Luongo parade coming to town.

CF - you think it's more likely that Reimer and a vet goalie (to be named later) would fare better than Luongo with Reimer as backup?  Unless that vet is Thomas, Vokoun, Lundqvist or Kiprusoff, I think you're likely mistaken.

Luongo has been in the top 5 for sv% like every other year since the lockout.  I think his worst sv% is something like .914 (again, since the lockout).  It's just unlikely the Leafs can replicate those types of stats with any old vet and Reimer.  Goalies of Luongo's calibre don't become available often - especially with so much time left in his career.

Yes, if it's not one of Kipper, Thomas, Brodeur or another at that level, then I probably am mistaken.  An option like Biron - what I was hoping for prior to the Luongo talk and others - does feel a step down for sure.

I'm still looking at Kipper as a better option.  He was phenomenal this year and carried that crap Flames team on his back.  His numbers are good, plus considering he faced the 4th most shots against this year they look even better.  I think he comes in as the grizzled vet with a few years left on a short contract, capable of handling the pressure and being a low maintenance guy who won't draw a lot of attention and would be a good mentor for Reimer.

Luongo comes in here and it will be a soap opera all year long. To me it just feels like it could be a fragile situation in every way. If he got out of the gate slow, as he often does, the fans and media would start going ballistic. It would never stop.

 

[moon111]

I really can't see how he trades the pick for Luongo. That's just madness, and I think the rest of the management team would agree!

There aren't many single transactions that would cause me to lose complete interest in the team.

The 5th overall for Luoungo could be one that might.

Agreed.  Give up that 5th and people will hate Luongo before he gets off the plane.  Pay that price and the expectations would be too high.  If the Leafs were to get him for Komisarek, he'd be well loved.  How much is Burke going to pay to stop his 2nd 'goalie graveyard'???

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I really can't see how he trades the pick for Luongo. That's just madness, and I think the rest of the management team would agree!

There aren't many single transactions that would cause me to lose complete interest in the team.

The 5th overall for Luoungo could be one that might.

Agreed.  Give up that 5th and people will hate Luongo before he gets off the plane.  Pay that price and the expectations would be too high.  If the Leafs were to get him for Komisarek, he'd be well loved.  How much is Burke going to pay to stop his 2nd 'goalie graveyard'???

The only way this happens IMHO is if Van takes back a significant contract and the Leafs send them someone like Mac.  Toronto would be doing Vancouver a HUGE favor eating Luongo's contract, and he's not the only goalie available.  I just don't think Van has a great amount of bargaining power.

 

[Kin]

I'm still looking at Kipper as a better option.  He was phenomenal this year and carried that crap Flames team on his back.  His numbers are good, plus considering he faced the 4th most shots against this year they look even better.  I think he comes in as the grizzled vet with a few years left on a short contract, capable of handling the pressure and being a low maintenance guy who won't draw a lot of attention and would be a good mentor for Reimer.

I think you're probably right about him being the best option talent wise but I think that's really because he's the guy that has the most value. I can see Vancouver taking anything to get out of Luongo's contract and I can see Boston eager to turn the page but I think Calgary, in the shape they're in, absolutely need to maximize the value they get for any asset they deal out in part of a rebuild. I don't think Calgary can sell their fans on a rebuild where they trade their core guys and don't get really exceptional returns.

 

[slapshot]

I think if Luongo is dealt to the Leafs it smacks of desperation. I think don't think that's Burke's style, so I don't see Luongo come here.
Also, what does Burke say to all those young goalies he's brought in to compete and develop: Scrivens, Rynnas, Ouwya, along with Reimer.
I think Thomas, if available, makes more sense, depending on the price. Or some other alternative. Halak, perhaps. Burke will get something done, but I highly doubt it's Luongo. In fact, I'd be shocked.

 

[Kin]

Also, what does Burke say to all those young goalies he's brought in to compete and develop: Scrivens, Rynnas, Ouwya, along with Reimer.

Everyone of those guys, Reimer excluded, knew they were signing with an organization that had other young goaltending prospects and that starts were limited. Hopefully, provided they're not all simple, they also knew that the Leafs might be inclined to go and add a veteran guy at some point. None of them are hard done by if the Leafs trade for Luongo.

 

[cw]

My recollection of the CBA is that the Leafs were not too keen. Sure, they were happy to make money but they had plenty of issues with the CBA and were not jubilant about the result. Nor were they happy with losing a season of profits. As I recall, the league was also more than a little annoyed with the backroom Lemieux-Domi-Tannebaum chats where they tried to exercise some influence.

There were rumblings, sure, but they certainly didn't ever publicly make the case, vote against the CBA or certainly not try to actually lead any opposition to it. In the end they voted for it like everyone else and have seen their influence in the league diminish next to people like Peter Karmanos and Jeremy Jacobs which will probably make itself more evident in this round of CBA negotiations.

They were muzzled by the league like everyone else. You probably remember Pat Quinn being fine for what was reported as a $100,000 fine for his Armageddon remarks.

To help refresh your memory on the Leafs position:
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Toronto/2005/03/04/950085.html
The Toronto Sun has learned that Tanenbaum read from a prepared statement at the owners-only portion of Tuesday's board of governors meeting in New York, strongly stating the position of the Leafs and urging that a deal with the players must be accomplished. Immediately afterward, he became a target of verbal abuse from his fellow owners, numerous sources at the meeting have confirmed.

One source referred to the shouting down of Tanenbaum as "pretty ugly."

Another called it "nasty business."
...

Prior to the season being mothballed, Tanenbaum quietly had met with Mario Lemieux and Tie Domi in an attempt to bridge a gap between players and owners. But what has yet to be bridged is a gap between players and players, even at the negotiating level, and owners and owners, with the Leafs clearly representing the minority.

Surprisingly some of the Leafs' staunchest critics at the board of governors meeting were fellow large-market owners.

The Leafs, meanwhile, have been the most vigilant and inwardly outspoken team opposed to the cancellation of the 2004-05 season.

The club has made significant profits annually for Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Ltd., in the very system that hockey is now fighting against.

And on the day the season was officially called off, CEO Richard Peddie was asked about the job Bettman has done in the negotiations.

He answered, first by pausing, then by saying: "I don't know if anyone did a good job ... We all get a failing grade, players and owners."

Other NHL franchises -- even those that wanted to play the season -- were more publicly supportive of Bettman's leadership.

While clearly the Leafs don't have support of their fellow governors with their willingness to deal, they likely would represent the strongest anti-Bettman faction among owners in this climate of uncertainty.

"We don't control what's going on," Tanenbaum said with further frustration. "There are 29 other teams. We're just one voice."

Right now, a voice the league would rather not hear.

The Sun wasn't the only media outlet to report the above.

After the CBA was signed, Peddie was on record saying stuff like "the new CBA didn't provide any benefit to us" and criticizing the revenue sharing as shuffling the chairs on the deck of the Titanic for example.

But no matter how you want to spin it, Tanenbaum's bolded words above are the basic simple math when it comes to league decisions. The days of the domineering owner in NA pro team sports leagues have been history for quite some time, diluted as the leagues expanded and their financial situations diverged.

I'm sure there is and has been. But
a) I don't think the Leafs are lead by such domineering personalities who have the ear of the other owners in the way that the Rooneys, Steinbrenners, etc did.

Agreed. Or, at the very least, the Leafs don't see the need to exert that sort of influence.

As per the above article for example, the Leafs tried but as one voice of 30, the majority of the 30 wouldn't go along with the Leafs because the vast majority of them are in a very different financial situation. Steinbrenner himself experienced something similar with the luxury tax.

b) The profit growth picture was significantly different for those leagues where one team wasn't taking 43% of all the profits (or two teams 60%) while half of the league was losing dough

I don't think anyone can really speak with any sort of confidence the NFL's finances in the 50's or MLB's in the 70's. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if Mara's Giants in the 50's or O'Malley's Dodgers in the late 60's/early 70's were in a roughly comparable position to the Leafs right now.

That said, I think the MLB player's strike in '94/the ouster of Faye Vincent as MLB's commissioner was a case where a guy like Steinbrenner used his influence when there were vast arrays of smaller market clubs lined up against him and he ultimately prevailed.

Vincent suspended Steinbrenner which was his second time. He wasn't influential enough to avoid getting the boot. Even Steinbrenner's influence was limited by '94. The Great Lakes gang, of which Steinbrenner was not a part of, were credited with leading his ouster due to poor television ratings/business issues and his handling of Steve Howe for example. Steinbrenner was still suspended/banned for a year after Vincent left. And Vincent only wanted to suspend him for two years - Steinbrenner asked for the lifetime ban to help him with other things he was involved with - Olympics or something. So he didn't beat Vincent on that.

More on how the league voted for the luxury tax below.

c) For decades, those men reigned without free agency, unions that had teeth, cap payrolls, antitrust, etc and without bylaws implementing more formal corporate governance and federal laws dictating their behavior. Times have changed substantially and as those times changed, the power these few wielded eroded or was dispersed as the leagues expanded. Some disproportionate influence beyond 1 in 30 exists but those days of a few domineering owners having real control are largely over.

I don't necessarily know that I'd chalk up the decline in influence of individual owners to any of that(if for no other reason than none of it is true about Steinbrenner) as opposed to the centralization of authority within the various commissioners offices.

Sometimes that's been voluntary, such as when the Rooneys and the Maras agreed to the massive revenue sharing for NFL TV money, but in the cases of the NBA and NHL I think it's been the result of concerted efforts by the commissioners themselves to exert more power and influence over their sports. I think one of the reasons that the commissioners in both of those sports have pushed expansion as hard as they have is because, as you say, the more teams in the league the smaller the voting power of the old guard. Both Bettman and Stern have added a large number of friendly owners to their leagues that have taken influence away from the older and established franchises.

That said, I think there's real untapped power and influence within the larger franchises in those sports, similar to what you're currently seeing in MLB, but that's been largely unexplored because revenue growth in those sports have been pretty good under those commissioners tenures.

I think those days are long past. All the owners have egos and want to have their say. They've got a nine or ten figure investment and they didn't acquire the money to buy/control such a thing by being docile and letting other loud mouths like Steinbrenner make business decisions for them.

Let's talk history: 29 baseball teams voted for the Luxury Tax. The big influencer, George Steinbrenner was the only one who voted against it. The leagues are governed by 30 or so votes and those votes represent the interest of each particular team. They are no longer doing the bidding of the domineering owners and only go along when it makes sense for them to do so in the interest of their own team. That's the way it has been for some time, the way it is and the way it will be for the foreseeable future.

The Leafs won't get their way in the next CBA for the same reason they didn't get their way in the last one: it doesn't make business sense for the majority of the other teams to follow what is best for the Leafs because the majority of other teams have very different financial circumstances from the Leafs. Today, clear business facts like the Levitt report carry much more weight with those votes than the rhetoric of a media loudmouth ego, like Steinbrenner, who liked to throw his money around to get his own way.

 

[cw]

With all due respect, I almost find it funny how people can possibly debate, regardless of price of trade, whether Luongo is worth having on the team.

If the Leafs were to get him, after years of brutal goaltending, we'd all be in love with Luongo after about 15-20 games, and that's even with his typical October slow start. Not to mention he's only 33, he probably has five years of great goaltending left in him.

I guess it depends what you're interested in. A playoff appearance or a Cup. I think the Luongo decision flirts with making that choice.

If the Leafs had a contending roster in every other way and the only missing piece was a good starting goalie, getting Luongo now makes more sense. But that sure isn't the Leafs team I watched this season. At the very least, they probably need a franchise center and a stud dman. They'd have a heck of a time adding all three in their current cap situation much less keep them when Kessel & Lupul's contracts come due.

Although they showed they could score in a run and gun system, that dried up some when Carlyle shifted them to be more defensively oriented. It would be at least questionable if the current group can deliver offensively in the tighter, more physical playoffs. And they now have to make a talent transition to Carlyle's more defensive, more physical system. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone would mistake the teams top 6 dmen as Cup caliber. Nor would they feel we've got a great bottom six for the PK, checking & chipping in with scoring. So they have quite a bit of work to do beyond getting a goalie to improve this roster to contender level.

The roster is currently cap constrained. There are things Burke can do to get some relief but he's signed himself into a tighter corner than he's ever had. So that's a little tougher than it's been to date.

It is a sports team so anything could happen. But it would be pretty shocking to most if the Leafs wound up in the Cup final over the next couple of years. It's pretty unlikely. Therefore, Luongo may help them get into the playoffs. And hopefully, the team gets better over the next couple of years in other areas.

But it's pretty likely that as (if) they get better, Luongo is likely to tail off after age 35 or so. Then where are they? Cap constrained with a $5.3 mil backup?

There's no question in my mind that Luongo would improve them. But my concern is if they can come together quickly enough around him to win a Cup. I've seen lots of playoffs since '67. Making an appearance in the playoffs just doesn't do much for me any more. I want to see a parade and I'm not convinced we will if they sign Luongo.

I think cw brings up some good points with respect to the teams goals.  I certainly wouldn't want to trade key future pieces, like Gardiner or the 1st round pick to acquire Luongo.  If the trade centers around someone like Lupul however, i'd be a whole lot more interested.

The only other point I'd make is that there is disagreement about when we should expect Luongo's play to fall off.  He'll be 33 for the entirety of the upcoming season.  From the reading I've done, I think it's reasonable to expect him to perform at an elite level through age 37 at least - although we all know anything can happen.  I would even go so far as to say I think it's more likely Longo will be elite at age 38 or 39 (6 and 7 seasons from now respectively) than it is that James Reimer will be at any point in his career.

I think an elite goaltender is important to building a cup contender and since I think 5 seasons of elite hockey are fairly likely from Luongo, I would be happy for the Leafs to acquire him.  I think he will retire in his late 30s when he is surpassed in the lineup by a younger teammate.  I would sacrifice a lot, but probably not Gardiner or the 1st round pick.  Other than that, I'd be all ears (not Kessel either, but I think that goes without saying).

To not lose the context, I've quoted your whole post.

I'm not sure where Reimer will wind up. Worst case I think is as a NHL backup. Hopefully, he can regain his 2010-11 form.

But to the part of your remarks that I bolded: Part of the issue with me is whether Luongo is elite now. I would say that since the lockout, he's been top 5 or so. But I wouldn't put him in the top 10 this year. And he's been wavering a little over the last two or three years. This is not the first season Vancouver has questioned his performance.

For me, he's never been at the level of Brodeur/Roy/Hasek. He's always been a little short - going back to the WJCs where he missed gold or even the 2010 Olympics where he played pretty well but I feel the great team in front of him had more to do with that victory. Miller was better in my opinion for example.

Behind a very good team this year, he's kind of middle of the pack for this season. There are between 10-20 goalies I'd take ahead of him if I had to win a playoff game tomorrow. Now he could rebound. But he does make me a little nervous that he won't. And even if he does rebound, how long will that last given he's wavering some at 33?

We may have already seen the best of what Reimer has to offer. Maybe a part of his struggles this year is that the league has a book on him. But Reimer doesn't  preclude the team from finding another goalie. As I've mentioned before, it's a crazy position to predict but if the Leafs continue to audition good prospects, as I think they've been trying, and stay the course with Allaire attracting them, I think that will eventually payoff with a better bang for their buck and a guy they can take a number of runs with as their kids develop.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Luongo would be the best available goaltender this summer and would certainly be a boon for teams, like the Leafs and Lightning, desperately in need of an established starting goalie. Still, there are several factors that will influence where he plays next season.

Burke has been a long-time opponent of heavily front-loaded, long-term contracts like Luongo's, which still has another 10 years left at a cap hit of $5.3 million per season. The Leafs GM would look hypocritical if he took on that contract.

That said, he's facing considerable public criticism for the Leafs? inability to make the playoffs under his watch. Job security may influence him to make an exception in Luongo's case.

Cap space will also be an issue. The Leafs currently have more than $56 million invested in 17 players, while the Lightning have more than $47 million tied up in 15 players.

The Lightning have more space, provided they're willing to spend to the cap ceiling, but they also have more than $25 million invested in Vincent Lecavalier, Steven Stamkos, Martin St-Louis and Ryan Malone. Adding Luongo without losing one would tie up more than $30 million in just five players.

The obvious solution for either Toronto or Tampa would be to free up cap space by moving an expensive player to Vancouver, but Gillis won't be keen to swap bad contracts. He?ll likely prefer a return of affordable young talent, like a top-six winger or a replacement for pending UFA blueliner Sami Salo.
Gillis must also re-sign Luongo's heir apparent, Cory Schneider, to a long-term extension and can't risk tying up too much cap space.

As for the Panthers, they have roughly $41 million in cap committed to 16 players, so there is flexibility to add Luongo's contract and GM Dale Tallon has a recent trade history with Gillis.

Tallon, however, has Jose Theodore signed through next season and with blue-chip prospect Jacob Markstrom waiting in the wings, Luongo doesn?t seem to be a good fit into the Panthers plans.

The length of Luongo's contract will also be a stumbling block.

Luongo will make $6.7 million per season for the next six years, after which his salary drops to $3.4 million for 2018-19, $1.6 million in 2019-20, then to $1 million per over the final two years.

Some observers consider that a selling point, but Luongo's cap hit remains the same, even in the final four years of his contract.

It's also been suggested that because Luongo has a no-trade rather than a no-movement clause, he could be buried in the minors to free up cap space if his performance declines late in his career.

While that loophole is allowable under this CBA, it's expected to disappear in the next one, leaving either buyout or retirement as the only options to clear those remaining years off the books.

Even a buyout in the back end of the contract, as the Globe and Mail's James Mirtle points out, isn't such a palatable option to save some cap space, as there would be three seasons where that hit would be more than $4 million.

Source:  THN

 

[Britishbulldog]

I think the odds are better that Reimer + vet goalie would fare just as well as Luongo + Reimer, and in 3'ish years I can make the call on going with Reimer as the #1, go with another young goalie who comes through the system or go get another veteran if all else fails.  By doing so I save on the contract risk and I think I save on having unrealistic expectations that would no doubt come with the Luongo parade coming to town.

CF - you think it's more likely that Reimer and a vet goalie (to be named later) would fare better than Luongo with Reimer as backup?  Unless that vet is Thomas, Vokoun, Lundqvist or Kiprusoff, I think you're likely mistaken.

Luongo has been in the top 5 for sv% like every other year since the lockout.  I think his worst sv% is something like .914 (again, since the lockout).  It's just unlikely the Leafs can replicate those types of stats with any old vet and Reimer.  Goalies of Luongo's calibre don't become available often - especially with so much time left in his career.

Yes, if it's not one of Kipper, Thomas, Brodeur or another at that level, then I probably am mistaken.  An option like Biron - what I was hoping for prior to the Luongo talk and others - does feel a step down for sure.

I'm still looking at Kipper as a better option.  He was phenomenal this year and carried that crap Flames team on his back.  His numbers are good, plus considering he faced the 4th most shots against this year they look even better.  I think he comes in as the grizzled vet with a few years left on a short contract, capable of handling the pressure and being a low maintenance guy who won't draw a lot of attention and would be a good mentor for Reimer.

Luongo comes in here and it will be a soap opera all year long. To me it just feels like it could be a fragile situation in every way. If he got out of the gate slow, as he often does, the fans and media would start going ballistic. It would never stop.

Kipper looks like a great option but is probably the most expensive to get.  Halak and Niemi are  also moderately expensive to get.  Thomas and Brodeur seem too old and were inconsistent this year.

Luongo is a contract the Gillis needs to unload.  He also needs to replace Sami Salo.  As others have mentioned, picking up Luongo's contract is going to be doing Vancouver a huge favour.  I would suggest Lombardi with 1 year left @ $3.5 MIL and Komisarek with 2 years left @ $3.5  could replace Salo and would get Vancouver out of the next 5 years @ $6.714 MIL and 10 more years of contract.  I am opposite to the 1st pick and Gardiner foolishness.

 

[Tigger]

None of this talk about Luongo should even veer near the Leafs first this year, next year or Jake Gardiner.

 

[Kin]

But no matter how you want to spin it, Tanenbaum's bolded words above are the basic simple math when it comes to league decisions.

True. The Leafs had one vote among 30 when it came to the CBA. And when it came time to cast that vote they voted in lockstep with Nashville, Carolina and the rest.

As per the above article for example, the Leafs tried but as one voice of 30, the majority of the 30 wouldn't go along with the Leafs because the vast majority of them are in a very different financial situation. Steinbrenner himself experienced something similar with the luxury tax.

I maybe read the above differently than you but it doesn't sound as though Tanenbaum is making any real sort of argument against the sort of collectivism that the CBA entailed but, rather, is entirely concerned with the issue of the lost season and the money that they lost because of it. That's not exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about someone being a passionate advocate for the competitive advantages that the Franchise had earned.

Vincent suspended Steinbrenner which was his second time. He wasn't influential enough to avoid getting the boot. Even Steinbrenner's influence was limited by '94. The Great Lakes gang, of which Steinbrenner was not a part of, were credited with leading his ouster due to poor television ratings/business issues and his handling of Steve Howe for example. Steinbrenner was still suspended/banned for a year after Vincent left. And Vincent only wanted to suspend him for two years - Steinbrenner asked for the lifetime ban to help him with other things he was involved with - Olympics or something. So he didn't beat Vincent on that.

Well, the subject of how influential Steinbrenner was with the Yankees during his "lifetime" suspension(which, as you point out, he actually asked for) is a matter of some debate. I don't know if you've read Lords of the Realm by John Helyar(to my mind the definitive history of Baseball's labor movement) but I think he makes it pretty clear that Steinbrenner was still a fairly important figure in the Yankees positions both during his suspension for his Watergate issues and for the Howard Spira stuff.

I think those days are long past. All the owners have egos and want to have their say. They've got a nine or ten figure investment and they didn't acquire the money to buy/control such a thing by being docile and letting other loud mouths like Steinbrenner make business decisions for them.

I don't. I think that it may be over in the sense of a single owner wielding the kind of power a Steinbrenner or an O'Malley did but it wouldn't surprise me to see blocks of owners, representing bigger markets, get fed up with the idea that they're supposed to subsidize smaller market clubs when those smaller market clubs are actively hurting their pocket books. I think it's the kind of thing we'd already be seeing if it weren't for the explosion of TV money right now.

Let's talk history: 29 baseball teams voted for the Luxury Tax. The big influencer, George Steinbrenner was the only one who voted against it.

I think that's sort of unfair cherry picking though. I haven't said Steinbrenner ruled baseball with an iron fist for the entirety of his ownership. After 25 years of the influence he had, yeah, there were things that didn't go his way especially something like the luxury tax which was more or less specifically tailored to rein in the Yankees and nobody else.

But even then, at least Steinbrenner had the fortitude to vote his displeasure at something specifically targeted to control his team's influence.

The leagues are governed by 30 or so votes and those votes represent the interest of each particular team. They are no longer doing the bidding of the domineering owners and only go along when it makes sense for them to do so in the interest of their own team. That's the way it has been for some time, the way it is and the way it will be for the foreseeable future.

Like I said, I agree that the influence of any singular owner may not be what it ever was and that the way commissioners have structured their leagues will make it much harder for anyone but them to be the loudest voice at the table.

I don't think that's necessarily going to be the case forever and I think we're already seeing some signs of the schisms between big market and small market owners emerge. The NBA pretty quickly abandoned the idea of a hard salary cap because they knew that they couldn't get their larger market clubs on board and, maybe as a result, there are probably three or four teams in some jeopardy of moving. 

The Leafs won't get their way in the next CBA for the same reason they didn't get their way in the last one: it doesn't make business sense for the majority of the other teams to follow what is best for the Leafs because the majority of other teams have very different financial circumstances from the Leafs.

Where I disagree with you here, again, is with the idea that the CBA that last time was a deal that the Leafs didn't like. I think they were fine with it as evidenced by their vote for it. I think they objected to the hard line taken by the owners because they knew it meant a lost season was likely and they would lost some money as a result. I think they're smart enough to know that they'd have made money under any system and I don't think you'd have heard any sort of peeps of unease from them if the deal that was agreed to in the summer of '05 was before them in the summer of '04.

I mean, yeah, even if you're right about them just being a vote among thirty....at least use that vote in the interest of the team.

 

[Tigger]

Speculation on the Hot Stove during the 2nd intermission of the Caps-Rags game, Boston inclined to keep both goalies, no one knows if Kiprusoff is available, Luongo won't be going to Florida.

 

[Zee]

Speculation on the Hot Stove during the 2nd intermission of the Caps-Rags game, Boston inclined to keep both goalies, no one knows if Kiprusoff is available, Luongo won't be going to Florida.

We need June to roll around more quickly so these questions can be answered.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

McKenzie thinks that the Leafs end up with Luongo this summer.

 

[Bender]

McKenzie thinks that the Leafs end up with Luongo this summer.

We're basically reliving history IMO. Belfour, Cujo etc. Why is it we can never develop bona fide goaltending talent?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

McKenzie thinks that the Leafs end up with Luongo this summer.

We're basically reliving history IMO. Belfour, Cujo etc. Why is it we can never develop bona fide goaltending talent?

Probably because goalies are so unpredictable.  There are so many (Rinne, Lundqvist, etc) who were really late round picks and took awhile to develop.  It's not like the Leafs are alone in this situation, teams like the Canucks and Flyers have had very high profile struggles to find consistent goaltending going back even farther than us.  I honestly do have a hard time seeing the Leafs develop a goalie in the way Rinne was, a little slower, because I feel here there is the sense that a goalie should be in the league and excelling by a certain point, and if not to move on to the next option.

 

[Tigger]

Impatience, in Toronto?

Nah, couldn't be.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

McKenzie thinks that the Leafs end up with Luongo this summer.

We're basically reliving history IMO. Belfour, Cujo etc. Why is it we can never develop bona fide goaltending talent?

Tuuuuuuukaaaaaa!!!!