Luongo

[bustaheims]

But it doesn't cross the threshold between a contract I'd want to sign and one I wouldn't. I mean, ignore that Heatley was 28 or that the upcoming CBA should at least give people a second thought about any long term contract, and just focus on the question. If you're the GM of the Leafs and Luongo is a UFA and he says he'll sign for 9 years/48 million, would you sign him?

No, probably not, but, I also don't sign Heatley to a contract that came with a $7.5M cap hit and a full NMC the summer he signed that contract either. Luongo's contract is too long; Heatley's is too expensive and too restrictive.

 

[Kin]

No, probably not, but, I also don't sign Heatley to a contract that came with a $7.5M cap hit and a full NMC the summer he signed that contract either. Luongo's contract is too long; Heatley's is too expensive and too restrictive.

Ok, I mean Heatley was your example and we might disagree in terms of his potential value to a contender(the sharks did have two decent playoff runs with him) but if we just focus on Luongo, I mean, if you wouldn't sign him at no talent cost, wouldn't you have to admit that means he has negative value as a trade commodity in your eyes? Clearly the Sharks didn't feel that way about Heatley which is why Ottawa got something out of the deal but why would a team that wouldn't take a guy for free throw things in to a trade for him?

 

[Kin]

Yup, a decent young player that a bunch of people probably won't like dealing away (ie Franson or Ashton) + a cap dump (ie Lombardi or Armstrong) + a tier two prospect or equivalent draft pick - 3rd(ish) rounder should do it. 

I don't get this particularly. Armstrong and Lombardi could be classified as salary dumps, I guess, in the sense that their value to the club is probably outweighed by their contributions to it but they're both pending UFA's. Unless the plan is to use that Salary to add another big ticket UFA I don't see why dumping them offers any real gain to the team. Both guys can be buried too so there's no real incentive there either.

 

[bustaheims]

Ok, I mean Heatley was your example and we might disagree in terms of his potential value to a contender(the sharks did have two decent playoff runs with him) but if we just focus on Luongo, I mean, if you wouldn't sign him at no talent cost, wouldn't you have to admit that means he has negative value as a trade commodity in your eyes? Clearly the Sharks didn't feel that way about Heatley which is why Ottawa got something out of the deal but why would a team that wouldn't take a guy for free throw things in to a trade for him?

I absolutely would sign Luongo at no talent cost, I just wouldn't sign him to the contract that he is signed to or to the one you presented in your example. Same with Heatley. Their current contracts temper their value, but, their value on the ice is still high enough that it doesn't create a situation where teams should be able to acquire Luongo without giving up something.

 

[Kin]

I absolutely would sign Luongo at no talent cost, I just wouldn't sign him to the contract that he is signed to or to the one you presented in your example.

But that's the contract Luongo has. I'm presenting it as a UFA contract rather than what's left on his existing deal to illustrate what you're actually acquiring with him. Trading for Luongo means taking on his 9 years/48 million dollars remaining in cap hit same as it would if you signed him to that deal. You said you probably wouldn't do that if there was no talent cost(as in, as a UFA). So by advocating trading for him, you're saying you wouldn't sign Luongo to a 9 year 48 million dollar deal and giving up nothing but you're comfortable trading away assets to land Roberto Luongo and having him on the books for 9 years and 48 million dollars? I hope you understand how I have a hard time reconciling that.

 

[bustaheims]

But that's the contract Luongo has. I'm presenting it as a UFA contract rather than what's left on his existing deal to illustrate what you're actually acquiring with him. Trading for Luongo means taking on his 9 years/48 million dollars remaining in cap hit same as it would if you signed him to that deal. You said you probably wouldn't do that if there was no talent cost(as in, as a UFA). So by advocating trading for him, you're saying you wouldn't sign Luongo to a 9 year 48 million dollar deal and giving up nothing but you're comfortable trading away assets to land Roberto Luongo and having him on the books for 9 years and 48 million dollars? I hope you understand how I have a hard time reconciling that.

The problem is that comparing signing him to a UFA contract and trading for him is sort of an apples to oranges comparison. I mean, yes, gun to my head, sign Luongo to a 9 year, $48M contract with no asset cost or run with inferior goaltending, I sign Luongo. I'm not happy about it, but, I do it. Obviously, I try to negotiate down the length, even if it means more on the cap, but, given the choice between question marks in net or Luongo, odds are I do everything I can to suppress my gag reflex and I sign Luongo to a contract I'm less than happy with.

In a trade situation, I can't do anything about the contract. It's out there already. What I need to do, if I'm a GM, is find the right balance between the player's on ice value and the value of their contract, and, once I've determined where I believe that is, I have to figure out what sort of asset value I'm willing to part with to acquire that balanced value. For you, it's clearly nothing. For me, it's more than that, but not to the point where significant assets are involved.

Trading for him on that contract and signing him to it are not really the same thing, because, in a trade situation, there's a 3rd party that's directly involved in the process that, ultimately, has the final say as to whether or not I even have the opportunity to add Luongo. Presenting the situation as a UFA contract eliminates a major component that absolutely has to be considered.

 

[Kin]

The problem is that comparing signing him to a UFA contract and trading for him is sort of an apples to oranges comparison. I mean, yes, gun to my head, sign Luongo to a 9 year, $48M contract with no asset cost or run with inferior goaltending, I sign Luongo. I'm not happy about it, but, I do it. Obviously, I try to negotiate down the length, even if it means more on the cap, but, given the choice between question marks in net or Luongo, odds are I do everything I can to suppress my gag reflex and I sign Luongo to a contract I'm less than happy with.

Well, as Chuck Klosterman said, comparing apples and oranges is easy because they're such similar things. It's not comparing apples and piano benches.

Like I said, I was using the UFA thing as a framing mechanism. Luongo's contract coming in at 9 years/48 is a constant in this so I was thrown by you saying you wouldn't take it on at no asset cost. If you would, as you say here, your position is clearer. I mean, that's where we disagree, but I at least understand where you're coming from.

Trading for him on that contract and signing him to it are not really the same thing, because, in a trade situation, there's a 3rd party that's directly involved in the process that, ultimately, has the final say as to whether or not I even have the opportunity to add Luongo. Presenting the situation as a UFA contract eliminates a major component that absolutely has to be considered.

Well, obviously they're not the same thing. The reason I used the UFA example is because it's simpler and easier. The Canucks complicate the matter. But the reason I'm eliminating them is because they're irrelevant to the central question I'm asking, namely whether or not you'd take Luongo on even if the cost is nothing. Yes, the Canucks involvement means that acquiring him for no talent cost may not be an option but if, as you said, you wouldn't acquire him and his contract at no asset cost than what you'd trade to acquire him should be moot.

I mean, if I offer to sell you an apple for two dollars and you say no then I shouldn't counter with trading it to you for two dollars and your orange.

 

[Redleaf]

I think a fair trade proposal for both teams would look something like this...

Komisarek, Macarthur & a 2nd rounder for

Luongo & a 4th/5th rounder

thoughts?

 

[maplesyrup]

I just can't see Komi waiving his NTC to go way out west like that.

 

[Jalili]

MacArthur + Franson maybe..?

If the aforementioned deal including Komisarek is the best that's on the table for Vancouver, I could see them saying eff it and trying to move Schneider instead.

 

[louisstamos]

I just can't see Komi waiving his NTC to go way out west like that.

He might see it as a fresh start and to earn a chance to play a bigger role out there...If he stays, he's probably our 6th/7th d-man again...

So, I think the deal above is fair.  I think considering Vancouver's situation, we could offer less and still make it happen...but known Burke and his idea of a "trade that works for both teams," this is fair.

 

[bustaheims]

I just can't see Komi waiving his NTC to go way out west like that.

To go to a potential Cup contender? I absolutely think he would. In fact, if wouldn't surprise me if Vancouver is on his list of teams that he can't block a trade to. Now, whether Vancouver would accept a deal involving Komisarek that we'd also be happy with . . . well, that's a very different story.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, obviously they're not the same thing. The reason I used the UFA example is because it's simpler and easier.

Well, I guess the issue we're having is, while the UFA example may be simpler and easier, I also feel that the comparison is fundamentally flawed.

 

[maplesyrup]

MacArthur + Franson maybe..?

That might even be a little of an overpayment I think. Might need some massaging but who knows...  :-\

 

[maplesyrup]

Fair points here re. Komi I guess.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

We may end up taking Mason Raymond in a Luongo trade I think. Vancouver is trying to push him out of town I think. There were whispers last year and now I think they are having differences in signing him. Booth has that spot I think now, so Raymond is on the outs. I could be wrong, but it may end up being a bigger deal if we end up sending more salary.

 

[maplesyrup]

We may end up taking Mason Raymond in a Luongo trade I think. Vancouver is trying to push him out of town I think. There were whispers last year and now I think they are having differences in signing him. Booth has that spot I think now, so Raymond is on the outs. I could be wrong, but it may end up being a bigger deal if we end up sending more salary.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[bustaheims]

We may end up taking Mason Raymond in a Luongo trade I think. Vancouver is trying to push him out of town I think. There were whispers last year and now I think they are having differences in signing him. Booth has that spot I think now, so Raymond is on the outs. I could be wrong, but it may end up being a bigger deal if we end up sending more salary.

They're taking him to arbitration for the purpose of lowering his salary, so they're very well aware that he doesn't add much, if any, value to a deal. Honestly, if they're trying to tack Raymond onto any Luongo deal, they better be taking Komisarek back or be really willing to get little to nothing in return.

 

[Kin]

Well, I guess the issue we're having is, while the UFA example may be simpler and easier, I also feel that the comparison is fundamentally flawed.

Well, because it's not a comparison(and even if it were, the point of a comparison is not to find two identical things so you can point out all of the differences there aren't). I'm not comparing signing a UFA to trading for a player because we're both aware of the fundamental differences there. I'm using the UFA hypothetical because each and everyone one of us would agree that if there was a player we wanted to add to the team we'd rather give up no assets(provided they weren't "assets" in the sense of Komisarek) rather than some assets.

I'm simplifying the question of adding Luongo by removing the issue of assets you'd have to give up for him from the equation, not saying that the process is the same. Either you're willing to have Luongo on the team for 9 years/48 million or you're not. If you are, and indeed if you're so agreeable to it that you'd be willing to throw in pieces for the privilege, then you'd have to also be willing to do so for nothing.

 

[hap_leaf]

Obviously, I try to negotiate down the length, even if it means more on the cap, but, given the choice between question marks in net or Luongo, odds are I do everything I can to suppress my gag reflex and I sign Luongo to a contract I'm less than happy with.

The debating class excercises are a good read but this is what it boils down to for me.  Very well said.

He just turned 33; chances are he will be a good goalie until 40 and we can deal with that situation when it comes.