Luongo

[cw]

The goalies who have been older when they become starters tended to be Euros who came to NA later in their careers and had to adjust their games. The average age for when a Euro goalie becomes a NHL starter is older than goalies who grew up and played in NA.

I'm sure there are exceptions but I generally agree with your statement.

Well, there's that, as well. 27 seemed to be the rough benchmark for all goalies - Europeans included (though, mostly, they had been in the NHL for a couple seasons by that point, as not many goalies cross the pond at that point in their careers) - when I looked into it. There were one or two exceptions that I found, but, for the most part, it was a pretty solid indicator.

NA goalies as I recall when I looked at them tended to sort out whether they were a starter or not roughly by age 25. It wouldn't surprise me if Euros settled at 26-27 or so - I don't recall the exact findings I determined. The Euros tended to have more late bloomers in part maybe because the scouting for goalies in years gone by wasn't as good - I think it's improved in recent years. I looked at this pretty closely when Tellqvist was with the Leafs.

 

[Bullfrog]

People would really want to trade for Luongo under the assumption that he would be good for 4 more years, and then have to deal with 6 years of his cap hit?

Unless we start seeing a trend of lower income teams load up on "free" salary cap values to reach the floor, this is something I would avoid like crazy.

Some of us are desperate.

 

[Zee]

I'm taking a wild guess that Luongo's name might come up on the radio call in shows this morning.

 

[Boston Leaf]

I'm taking a wild guess that Luongo's name might come up on the radio call in shows this morning.

true but sickening

 

[Corn Flake]

*breaks radio*

 

[Champ Kind]

I'm taking a wild guess that Luongo's name might come up on the radio call in shows this morning.

true but sickening

Sickening?  Really?

 

[Boston Leaf]

I'm taking a wild guess that Luongo's name might come up on the radio call in shows this morning.

true but sickening

Sickening?  Really?

yes. I feel the worst thing possible would be taking on Lu an contract and giving up any future.. I don't think he is what seperates them and a playoff spot. Just my opinion though. Plus the vultures have been just waiting for one game for our goailes to play bad to jump right in on see I told you so with Luongo

 

[Zee]

I'm taking a wild guess that Luongo's name might come up on the radio call in shows this morning.

true but sickening

Sickening?  Really?

yes. I feel the worst thing possible would be taking on Lu an contract and giving up any future.. I don't think he is what seperates them and a playoff spot. Just my opinion though. Plus the vultures have been just waiting for one game for our goailes to play bad to jump right in on see I told you so with Luongo

Well my opinion doesn't change based on one game, I've always thought Luongo would be a good option for the Leafs in net IF they could get him for cheap, i.e. no significant prospects traded.  I'm in the camp that thinks Luongo has a good 4-5 years left and could stabilize the goal for the Leafs until a younger goalie in the system is ready to be the #1. 

 

[LittleHockeyFan]

:-(

I don't want him here. Not at the cost of draft picks or prospects.

 

[Boston Leaf]

I'm taking a wild guess that Luongo's name might come up on the radio call in shows this morning.

true but sickening

Sickening?  Really?

yes. I feel the worst thing possible would be taking on Lu an contract and giving up any future.. I don't think he is what seperates them and a playoff spot. Just my opinion though. Plus the vultures have been just waiting for one game for our goailes to play bad to jump right in on see I told you so with Luongo

Well my opinion doesn't change based on one game, I've always thought Luongo would be a good option for the Leafs in net IF they could get him for cheap, i.e. no significant prospects traded.  I'm in the camp that thinks Luongo has a good 4-5 years left and could stabilize the goal for the Leafs until a younger goalie in the system is ready to be the #1.

Well thats the problem.. Thy are not going to take Steckel, Franson and a 5th rounder for him....

 

[Zee]

I'm taking a wild guess that Luongo's name might come up on the radio call in shows this morning.

true but sickening

Sickening?  Really?

yes. I feel the worst thing possible would be taking on Lu an contract and giving up any future.. I don't think he is what seperates them and a playoff spot. Just my opinion though. Plus the vultures have been just waiting for one game for our goailes to play bad to jump right in on see I told you so with Luongo

Well my opinion doesn't change based on one game, I've always thought Luongo would be a good option for the Leafs in net IF they could get him for cheap, i.e. no significant prospects traded.  I'm in the camp that thinks Luongo has a good 4-5 years left and could stabilize the goal for the Leafs until a younger goalie in the system is ready to be the #1.

Well thats the problem.. Thy are not going to take Steckel, Franson and a 5th rounder for him....

Nonis just has to wait him out.  Gillis has to get rid of Luongo before the trade deadline.  I'm sure there's pressure behind the scenes from Luongo's agent to get a trade done because Lou doesn't want to be a backup.  They can't keep him on board with that contract long term.  If he doesn't get a trade done this season what options does Gillis have?  Buyout Luongo and then he gets nothing anyway.

 

[Kin]

People would really want to trade for Luongo under the assumption that he would be good for 4 more years, and then have to deal with 6 years of his cap hit?

I think the problem with that line of thinking though is that the deal is so long that when you try and assess how it'll look 7 or 8 years from now you're dealing with almost a complete unknown. What if the next CBA is 8 years from now and has more buyouts? What if the cap is edging towards 90-100 million dollars?

Obviously trading for Luongo has risks, and I'm not in that camp right now, but to try and say we really have a handle on what the consequences will be that far in advance seems like a wasted effort.

 

[Zee]

People would really want to trade for Luongo under the assumption that he would be good for 4 more years, and then have to deal with 6 years of his cap hit?

I think the problem with that line of thinking though is that the deal is so long that when you try and assess how it'll look 7 or 8 years from now you're dealing with almost a complete unknown. What if the next CBA is 8 years from now and has more buyouts? What if the cap is edging towards 90-100 million dollars?

Obviously trading for Luongo has risks, and I'm not in that camp right now, but to try and say we really have a handle on what the consequences will be that far in advance seems like a wasted effort.

EVERY contract for any player has risk.  We just signed Lupul to a 5 year deal, there's a risk Lupul doesn't play 82 games every season due to injuries.  Luongo has shown consistency in net for many years now, so I think the risk isn't that great.  I believe he'll still be very good for the next few seasons.  Then after that?  Who knows what could happen down the road.  Maybe Luongo is still a great goalie in 5 years and the Leafs have a younger guy ready to step in.  Maybe Florida needs a veteran goalie in 5 years (or some other team) and they want to bring in a veteran with a "name" like Luongo.  Maybe a team that is looking to hit the cap floor takes on Luongo later since his actual salary goes down to like $1 million but his cap hit would be $5.3 million.  There's so many unknowns that's true, but I think for the Leafs of the next 4-5 seasons, Luongo makes sense.

 

[maplesyrup]

"We will not trade youth unless we get equal youth back." - Nonis (or something like that.) So unless he's full of beans or Gillis completely buckles, I just don't see it happening. 

 

[Zee]

"We will not trade youth unless we get equal youth back." - Nonis (or something like that.) So unless he's full of beans or Gillis completely buckles, I just don't see it happening.

I think something has to give.  Gillis isn't exactly in a position of power right now.  He can't keep both Luongo and Schneider long term.  Unless there's huge pressure on Nonis to get Luongo, Gillis doesn't have a lot of leverage here, and by all accounts there's very little interest from any other team for Lou.

 

[Redleaf]

"We will not trade youth unless we get equal youth back." - Nonis (or something like that.) So unless he's full of beans or Gillis completely buckles, I just don't see it happening.

Its really unfortunate, but Nonis has not had to deal head-on with this market yet. Wilson and Burke have, and we know the results. If the Leafs pull off another season similar to what they did last year (or worse) and Nonis hasnt addressed the goaltending and slowed the bleeding.....he's toast. Thats just the facts no matter how patience MLSE appears today with Nonis, he needs to have a plan that moves this team forward, in some capacity, this year. I think he can get away with missing the playoffs, but barely. Anything worse than last season's showing will not be acceptable to MLSE.

 

[cw]

People would really want to trade for Luongo under the assumption that he would be good for 4 more years, and then have to deal with 6 years of his cap hit?

I think the problem with that line of thinking though is that the deal is so long that when you try and assess how it'll look 7 or 8 years from now you're dealing with almost a complete unknown. What if the next CBA is 8 years from now and has more buyouts? What if the cap is edging towards 90-100 million dollars?

Obviously trading for Luongo has risks, and I'm not in that camp right now, but to try and say we really have a handle on what the consequences will be that far in advance seems like a wasted effort.

Well if you knock 2 years off his 4 yrs good, 6 not-so-good in his post, in the wake of the recent CBA being renewed when it came up and with the option within the new CBA to extend it to 10 years, you'd still have 4 years good and 4 years not-so-good. That to me is still ugly to try to carry that contract while they're hopefully contending.

 

[Leafaholic99]

:-(

I don't want him here. Not at the cost of draft picks or prospects.

With Nonis, I don't think we have to worry about him trading youth for veterans.

 

[Zee]

People would really want to trade for Luongo under the assumption that he would be good for 4 more years, and then have to deal with 6 years of his cap hit?

I think the problem with that line of thinking though is that the deal is so long that when you try and assess how it'll look 7 or 8 years from now you're dealing with almost a complete unknown. What if the next CBA is 8 years from now and has more buyouts? What if the cap is edging towards 90-100 million dollars?

Obviously trading for Luongo has risks, and I'm not in that camp right now, but to try and say we really have a handle on what the consequences will be that far in advance seems like a wasted effort.

Well if you knock 2 years off his 4 yrs good, 6 not-so-good in his post, in the wake of the recent CBA being renewed when it came up and with the option within the new CBA to extend it to 10 years, you'd still have 4 years good and 4 years not-so-good. That to me is still ugly to try to carry that contract while they're hopefully contending.

Nobody knows that though.  What if Luongo is good for 8 years?  We don't know.

 

[Peter D.]

Not going to lie -- my stance hasn't wavered at all that if the Leafs can get Luongo at a reasonable price, I'd want them to be all over him, contract and all.